The board gave final approval to the selection of a new record-keeping software system for the Washtenaw County Trial Court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System will replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, when the vendor went out of business.

The original resolution, put forward at the board’s Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, had identified the following funding sources for this project: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, some commissioners weren’t comfortable with the funding sources that were identified, so an alternative resolution was brought forward during the Aug. 7 meeting that did not include references to funding sources. An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

The funding sources identified in a separate Sept. 4 resolution are: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $300,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $1,299,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

A staff memo accompanying the funding resolution also notes that an annual software maintenance and support fee – starting at $188,933 – will be offset by revenue from fees associated with all Washtenaw County electronic filing.

Commissioners discussed the approach to funding for about an hour with Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court. An amendment was added from the floor to designate that the e-filing revenues would be used to reimburse the capital reserves until the $1.299 million is repaid. After the $1.299 million is reimbursed, the e-filing revenues would be allocated to the county’s tech plan fund balance.

Both resolutions related to the trial court software were given final approval on Sept. 4. The vote was 8-1 for each resolution. Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented on the resolution related to a funding model. Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) voted in support of the funding model, but against the resolution approving the software purchase.

The board also gave initial approval to 2013-2014 state child care fund expenditures of $9,425,785 for the trial court’s juvenile division and county dept. of human services. About half of that amount ($4,712,892) will be eligible for reimbursement from the state. [.pdf of budget summary] According to a staff memo, the child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth. Part of this year’s funding will support a new 10-bed treatment program that will be housed in the county’s youth center facility, opening in November of 2013. From the staff memo:

The treatment program in its initial phase will exclusively provide treatment services to females aged 12-17 using an integrated therapeutic treatment model. The program will offer a short-term 90 day option as well as a 6 to 9 month long-term treatment option. The second phase of treatment programming will expand services to males aged 12-17.

The new program is expected to generate revenue from out-of-county treatment referrals.

The expenditures given initial approval by the board on Sept. 4 will result in a net increase of 5.46 jobs. A total of 10.46 full-time equivalent positions will be created, and 5 FTEs will be eliminated. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

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

Washtenaw County commissioner Ronnie Peterson, right, and county administrator Verna McDaniel before the start of the chair's briefing on Tuesday, to preview agendas for the July 6 board meeting and July 7 working session. (Photo by the writer.)

Generating significant conversation was an item on the planned consolidation of three departments: The office of community development, the economic development & energy department, and the employment training and community services (ETCS) department. Commissioners wanted clarification on the status of the employee count listed out on the agenda: 11 positions eliminated, 3 jobs created, 20 reclassifications, 5 title changes and 1 position held vacant. County administrator Verna McDaniel told commissioners that while that seems like an extensive set of changes, in terms of people, all but one person had been given a “soft landing” within the county’s organization.

Another item that generated interest among commissioners was the second phase of the trial court consolidation project. Phase two will renovate the first floor of the downtown Ann Arbor courthouse to consolidate some trial court operations, as part of a restructuring that included moving the juvenile court from its Platt Road location earlier this year to the courthouse at Main & Huron. The consolidation was made possible in part due to the relocation of the 15th District Court from the downtown courthouse to the city of Ann Arbor’s new municipal center at Fifth & Huron. Commissioner conversation centered around the purview of the board’s space committee (consisting of Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Rob Turner) in connection with the future of the Platt Road building.

The board’s July 7 working session agenda led to an extended conversation about prioritization of the three items listed: (1) the split of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) from Washtenaw County; (2) the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority; and (3) the Ann Arbor Skatepark. Chair of the working session, Yousef Rabhi, did not attend Tuesday’s briefing, but with the consent of the working session’s vice chair, Rob Turner, the order to the agenda items was revised to put the WCHO item last. The rationale was to allow an open-ended time for adequate discussion – commissioner Ronnie Peterson figured he might need at least an hour for discussion on that item alone.

The presentation that commissioners will hear on the skatepark is likely to be similar to the one presented by Friends of the Skatepark at the Ann Arbor city council’s June 20 meeting.

Tuesday’s “chair’s briefing” was in a format similar to administrative briefings used in the past to preview upcoming adendas. Those administrative briefings were abandoned due to concerns expressed by some commissioners about accessibility. The June 28 briefing was conducted in the county boardroom and was video-recorded. It was the second in a series of three such briefings scheduled for the summer – the next one takes place on July 26, starting at 4 p.m., to prep for the Aug. 3 board meeting.

Departmental Consolidation

On the agenda for July 6 is a resolution to consolidate three departments: (1) the office of community development; (2) economic development and energy; and (3) employment training and community services (ETCS). The board had previously received a presentation about the plan at a May 5, 2011 working session. Combined, the three departments employ nearly 60 people with a combined budget of about $16 million. The $16 million reflects a decrease, due to federal funding cuts, from around $29 million. At their May 5 working session, commissioners had been told that staff cuts will likely result from the changes – those and other details were still being worked out.

As they’re currently configured, here’s what the three departments look like:

• Economic development & energy: Four employees, led by Tony VanDerworp. Programs focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy investments, historic preservation, brownfield redevelopment, community engagement and planning, and economic development – including support for the Eastern Leaders Group, the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, and other efforts aimed at job growth.
• Office of community development: Twelve employees, led by Mary Jo Callan. OCD, which is funded by both the county and city of Ann Arbor, handles a range of programs, including energy efficiency improvements for residential housing, affordable housing development and rehab, improvements to public facilities and infrastructure, neighborhood revitalization, and community engagement and planning – particularly focused on human services. OCD is managing the coordinated funding of local human services nonprofits by the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – a process that was discussed at length at the board’s May 4 meeting. The Barrier Busters program is also managed by OCD.
• Employment training & community services (ETCS): Forty employees, led by Patricia Denig. [Long-time ETCS director Trenda Rusher retired at the end of 2009.] ETCS also offers residential energy efficiency programs, including help with weatherization, and contracts with other agencies to provide human services support, primarily related to food and nutrition. They’re involved in crisis intervention services, like Barrier Busters, and provide services to job seekers and employers.

Mary Jo Callan, OCD director, will lead the new department.

At the briefing on Tuesday, county administrator Verna McDaniel offered some clarification about the “bottom line on staffing” that is reflected in the resolution: 11 jobs eliminated, 3 jobs created, 20 reclassifications, 5 title changes and 1 position held vacant. McDaniel cautioned that those numbers could be deceiving. Based on her conversations with Diane Heidt, Washtenaw County’s human resources and labor relations director, everyone in the three departments had a place except for one, and that person has the ability to “bump” – a union term referring to reassignment based on seniority.

Wes Prater asked for confirmation, which he received from McDaniel, that when the board receives the budget, it would be presented as required by the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act, with budgets for the past year, the current year, next year.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. confirmed with McDaniel that the reorganization results in eliminating a net of eight jobs and creating five positions through title changes. Sizemore also wanted to know who was in the position labeled “human services division director” and why there’s a salary range of $73,846-$116,758 listed. McDaniel explained that it’s Trenda Rusher’s old position, which has been changed because it’s no longer needed – a position lower than a director position has been created instead. [Rusher was the long-time ETCS director before retiring at the end of 2009.] The salary is listed in a position to be eliminated, not added, she said.

Prater said it’s a good thing to reduce costs, and it appears the county would be doing that with this move. He got confirmation from McDaniel that all eight positions to be eliminated would be coming from jobs in the departments to be consolidated.

Trial Court Consolidation: Space Committee

On the July 6 agenda is a resolution that would authorize up to $1 million for the next phase of consolidation of services at the downtown courthouse facility, where the juvenile court is now located. Phase two entails renovation of the first floor of the courthouse. Commissioners had previously received a detailed briefing on this project from Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenew County trial court, at their Jan. 19, 2011 board meeting.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., who’s a member of the board’s space committee (along with Rob Turner), noted that the board needs to look at the property on Platt Road where the juvenile court was previously located. The county needs to decide whether it wants to keep the property or not. He said he didn’t think that renovating the building was an option – the facility was beyond renovating.

Barbara Bergman offered that whatever the board decides to do, it’s important to put it back onto the tax rolls.

Ronnie Peterson questioned whether the space committee had purview to decide the future use of the Platt Road property, asking whether that decision would rest with the board or with the space committee.

Conan Smith, who chaired the briefing, told Peterson that he was hopeful that Sizemore and Turner would work together on that issue, and it would come back before the board. Peterson noted that he’d previously served on the space committee, and determining alternative uses of property was not, he felt, within the scope of the space committee’s work. He wanted some deliberation on the question by the full board of commissioners.

Sizemore assured Peterson that the space committee looks at all buildings and property, but that anything that actually happens to the county’s facilities comes back to the board for its approval. Sizemore said it’s time to look at all of the county’s buildings. He noted that the western service center on North Zeeb Road is partly empty. It’s a question as to whether some staff might relocate out to that facility. But he concluded by assuring Peterson that it would not be the case that the committee would come back to the board with: “Here’s a decision and here it is!”

On the topic of moving the juvenile court to the downtown courthouse, Turner said someone had needed to give it a push to get things going. The building on Platt Road is in such bad shape, he said, it would cost more to repair than to tear it down. He wanted to make sure that the renovation of the first and third floor of the downtown courthouse was brought before the board for its approval. The next phase for the Platt Road building would be oversight of the existing building – he ventured that it probably needs abatement of some materials. Beyond that point, it’s beyond the scope of the space committee, Turner concluded.

Peterson confirmed that the outline sketched by Turner was consistent with what Peterson understood the scope of the space committee to be.

Barbara Bergman said that as the discussion of the future use of the Platt Road property progresses and the board gets to a point where there is a committee that would have such scope, she’d be interested in seeing a list of pros and cons for its use.

Working Session Priorities: WCHO Split

On the working session agenda for July 7 are three items: (1) the split of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization from Washtenaw County; (2) the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority; and (3) the Ann Arbor Skatepark.

The presentation that commissioners will hear on the skatepark is likely to be similar to the one presented by Friends of the Skatepark at the Ann Arbor city council’s June 20 meeting.

The Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) is a partnership between Washtenaw County and the University of Michigan Health System. Each institution appoints six members to the board. The partnership focuses on providing services to children and adults with mental or emotional health disorders, substance abuse problems or developmental disabilities.

Bylaws for the WCHO were changed recently by approval of the UM board of regents (at its April 21 meeting) and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners (at its March 2 meeting). The changes included: (1) removing language for the UMHS to provide money for physical health services; (2) providing for the executive committee to act on behalf of the board and for actions to be reported to the full board at its next meeting; and (3) removing Washtenaw County as the fiscal agent for the WCHO.

It’s this last change on which the board is scheduled to receive a July 7 working session presentation from WCHO executive director Patrick Barrie.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the working sessions and sets those agendas, did not attend Tuesday’s briefing; however, vice chair of the working session Rob Turner did attend.

Ronnie Peterson noted that the board was sensitive to time constraints, but he thought the conversation on the WCHO would be a helpful discussion. He wondered how long the presentation on the WCHO would be. Having three items meant that it’s a “stacked agenda,” he said. Peterson cautioned that the WCHO item would need at least an hour of discussion. He also wanted to make sure that there would be background documentation provided in advance of the working session so that board members could follow Barrie’s presentation.

Barbara Bergman, who serves on the WCHO board, assured Peterson that the 48197 and 48198 zipcodes “are districts of importance to all of us, including you and to the WCHO.” [Those zipcodes are in the Ypsilanti area, which Peterson's board district covers.] Regardless of the outcome of the split, she said, it will not affect the fact that the county has under-served those two zipcodes. She said as a WCHO board member, she wanted to allay Peterson’s fears – those two zipcodes are primary in the WCHO’s thinking, she said.

Leah Gunn then suggested that the other two items on the working session agenda be heard first, before the WCHO item. She said she’d never heard that there’s a limit on the amount of time board members can use for their meetings – they could stay until 10 p.m. if they want to dig deeply into the WCHO issue, she said.

Wes Prater said he thought that currently UM and Washtenaw County each appointed six members to the WCHO board. He wondered what was meant to be achieved through the split. Conan Smith cautioned that the purpose of that day’s briefing was not to deliberate. Bergman summarized for Prater that the CSTS and WCHO want to serve the county with the best services possible. [CSTS is the county's Community Support & Treatment Services department, which is merging with WCHO.]

Sizemore ventured that everybody seemed to think the WCHO split was a “hot item,” but he felt that the recycling authority is also a hot item. The board could be there until 11:30 p.m., he ventured.

Peterson responded to Sizemore, saying that he had no problem staying as long as was needed. But he had wanted to be respectful of Rabhi’s expressed wishes to limit working session meetings to two hours.

Gunn reiterated her suggestion that the skatepark and the recycling items be placed first on the agenda, to leave the time for the WCHO item open-ended.

Conan Smith noted that it’s the chair’s agenda to set. Vice chair of the working session, Rob Turner, agreed to the agenda order change.

The recycling item was dealt a glancing mention, when West Prater asked whether the recycling authority would have the ability to place a millage on the ballot. County administrator Verna McDaniel told him no – it would require the $3.2 million of the county’s full faith and credit, which would be backed by assessing the participating communities.

Peterson returned to his point that when items are scheduled for a working session, he wanted commissioners to have some background material provided to them. He also wanted one or two pages of material explaining why the item was being scheduled for the working session. C. Smith responded by saying that the agendas are set by the working session chair. Peterson then pointed out that the working session chair is new, and it’s a new board – the board should not go into a working session blindly. [Rabhi was elected to the board in November 2010, and took office in January 2011. It's his first term on the board.]

In response to Peterson, Gunn reminded him that Rabhi had been elected to the leadership position of working session chair, and setting the agenda is one of the things a chair does. The board should be respectful of the chair’s decisions. She also noted that the board is always provided with background material. Gunn indicated that the board should follow the decisions of its elected leaders.

Peterson responded by saying that he was not a “follow-the-leader kind of guy.”

The board concluded with an apparent consensus that there would be adequate information provided to commissioners about the content of the working session on July 7, in advance of that session.

Before adjourning its briefing, the board went into a closed session to discuss pending litigation.

Purely a plug: 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!

Verna McDaniel, Washtenaw County administrator, gave a State of the County address during the Jan. 19, 2011 meeting of the board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

In her State of the County report, Verna McDaniel outlined areas to target in addressing the two-year shortfall: (1) $1 million in cuts to “outside agencies,” including nonprofits supported by the county; (2) $8.5 million in cuts to employee compensation and benefits; and (3) $8.5 million from organizational changes. She’s also looking to generate $2 million in additional revenue, in part by making sure fees charged by the county are set at “appropriate” levels.

Also related to the budget, commissioners approved agreements with two unions – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – that are expected to save a total of $5.6 million over a four-year period. Those savings are already factored in to the budget forecast, and do not serve to lower the projected deficit.

The board also got an update from Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenew County Trial Court, who reviewed changes to the downtown Ann Arbor courthouse – including renovations to accommodate the county’s juvenile court, which is vacating its Platt Road facility later this year. The restructuring also entails merging all trial court clerk services into a “one-stop” operation at the courthouse. These changes come in the wake of the 15th District Court‘s move last weekend from the county courthouse to the city’s new municipal center at Huron and Fifth.

Court staff is working with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to address parking needs – DDA executive director Susan Pollay told The Chronicle that several options are being explored, including possible changes to the county-owned surface parking lot at Main and Ann streets.

After Shelton’s update, the board approved a renewed memorandum of understanding with the trial court, outlining the rights and responsibilities of each unit of government. The MOU calls for the county to fund the court through a “lump sum” agreement – the specific dollar amount hasn’t yet been determined. The MOU was approved unanimously with no discussion, though the topic had spurred debate at the board’s Jan. 12 administrative briefing. The debate stems in part from philosophical differences over how to fund the court.

In other business, commissioners approved a raft of committee appointments, and signed off on hiring a “cost recovery” firm who’ll review the county’s vendor contracts and suggest options for savings. And in an atypical occurrence, no one spoke during public commentary at Wednesday’s meeting.

State of the County

The county operates on a two-year budget cycle, and this year staff is putting together the 2012-2013 budget, with input from the board of commissioners, who will ultimately need to approve it. Work has already begun on that process, but on Wednesday, county administrator Verna McDaniel for the first time gave details about what to expect in the coming year, along with ways she hopes to tackle the projected $20.89 million two-year deficit.

The public was first alerted to the deficit at the board’s Oct. 6, 2010 meeting. The last financial update – for the third quarter of 2010 – occurred at the board’s Nov. 3, 2010 meeting. And on Dec. 1, 2010, commissioners approved adjustments to the budget for 2011, with additional cuts to come later this year. [.pdf of 2010-2011 Washtenaw County budget, as affirmed on Dec. 1, 2010]

McDaniel began her presentation by noting that as she was speaking, Gov. Rick Snyder was giving his first State of the State report in Lansing – and much of what happens at the state level will impact the county. In May, she’ll return with an update on that, as well as incorporating results of the county’s equalization report. The report indicates assessed property values and, in turn, a forecast of revenues from property taxes.

State of the County: Current Climate

McDaniel’s overview of current conditions started with the good news: The county’s AA+ bond rating; the fact that they’ve been able to save a $250,000 annual surplus for the general fund; and that the general fund reserves – also known as the fund balance – are above the county’s target of 8% of general fund expenditures. It’s closer to 10%, she said. [The 2011 general fund budget is $98.735 million, with a fund balance of $10.2 million.] However, she noted that the reserves would pay the county’s bills for only 42 days.

The county’s debt ratio of 1.68% is low – another good indicator, she said.

They’ve been reducing their budget since 2002, McDaniel said, reflecting declines in state revenue and property taxes. While most departments have been cut by at least 20%, some areas – including ones with mandated services – haven’t seen that level of reductions. It’s time to look at “serviceability” levels, she said, assessing the degree of service that the county needs to provide in mandated areas.

McDaniel praised the concessions from unions, as well as reductions taken by non-union employees. Last year, 14 out of the 17 unions that represent county employees agreed to cuts totaling $4.1 million in 2010 and 2011, she noted – waiving salary increases, taking furlough days and agreeing to health care premium-sharing. Just recently, two other unions representing employees in the sheriff’s office reached agreements to save an estimated $5.6 million from 2011 through 2014. [Commissioners later approved those agreements with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) unions – see report below.]

But there remain many uncertainties and changes, McDaniel said, both externally and internally. Statewide, there’s a new governor in Lansing, who’ll be making proposals to deal with Michigan’s economic crisis in ways that will affect the county. The real estate market, health care reform and increased need for services by residents are all factors that will influence the budget. As an example, she noted that under the new national health care law, the county will have to pay a 40% excise tax on its “cadillac” health care plan starting in 2018 – that’s something they’ll need to address, she said.

Looking at internal factors, McDaniel noted that although she’s been with the county 29 years, she just became administrator last May, and she’s now “in the hot seat.” There are four new board members as well – elected in November and taking office earlier this month – and they’ll all need to work together to get on the same page, she said. Recent retirements in leadership – including Trenda Rusher at Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS) and Peter Ballios in finance – are also affecting the organization.

State of the County: Declining Revenues, Increased Expenses

The top five revenue sources for the general fund are unstable and declining, McDaniel said: (1) property taxes; (2) state revenue-sharing; (3) police services contracts; (4) real estate transfers; and (5) court fines and fees.

Property tax revenues are expected to drop 8.5% this year, and another 5% in 2012. Taxes and penalties account for about 60% of general fund revenues.

The county will deplete its state revenue-sharing reserves by mid-2013. Those reserves now stand at $6.67 million, and it’s questionable whether the county will receive any additional revenue-sharing funds beyond that, she said.

The future of police services contracts is also unstable, McDaniel said. Municipalities that contract with the sheriff’s office for deputy patrols have contracts that run through the end of the year, and the board will need to make some policy decisions about future contracts soon, she said. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "What's Next for Police Services?"]

Because of the economy, real estate transfer fees have dropped from $5 million annually to about $2 million – the good news is that it’s stabilizing, McDaniel said. Court fines and fees have also dropped substantially, she noted.

In addition, there are significant unknowns regarding federal and state funding for programs outside the general fund. That’s another thing they’ll need to monitor, she said.

On the expense side, personnel expenses account for 62% of the general fund budget – $61 million – with fringe benefits now equal to about 56% of salaries, on average. Health care costs are expected to continue climbing, she said. The county also faces a $4 million liability for tax appeals. They used to keep only $100,000 in their tax appeal account, she said – now it’s funded at $1.5 million, and they’re not sure that’s enough.

McDaniel also noted that more than $8.6 million of the $30 million in expense cuts in the 2010-2011 budget were non-structural. “That follows us,” she said, and compounds.

In the 2011 general fund, 62% of expenditures relate to criminal justice – the sheriff’s office, trial court, district court, prosecuting attorney and public defender. “Needless to say, that is a priority based on where we’re spending our money,” McDaniel said.

About 70% of the county’s services are mandated, she noted, but it’s up to county officials to determine the level of service provided. The concept of what’s mandated “is so mushy that no one knows what that means,” she said – and decisions will need to be made on that issue.

State of the County: Preliminary Estimates

McDaniel led commissioners through preliminary estimates for revenues and expenditures. Property tax revenues are expected to drop 8.5% this year, another 5% in 2012 and 2% in 2013. State revenue-sharing funds will likely be depleted by 2014. Estimates are for revenues from police service contracts, real estate transfer fees and court fines/fees to remain flat. Personnel costs include 0% salary increases, but an estimated 12% increase in fringe benefit costs.

Even with 0% salary increases, McDaniel noted, the county still anticipates a deficit of $12.95 million in 2012, growing to a two-year deficit of $20.89 million by 2013. That amount equates to 207.4 full-time employees, out of the county’s workforce of 1,350 – but McDaniel stressed that they have no intention of addressing the deficit by cutting staff. Giving an employee equivalent is just a way to characterize the significance of the shortfall.

McDaniel emphasized that the numbers are preliminary, and that the amount of the estimated deficit will be adjusted, as more information becomes available. The projections are based on solid assumptions, she said, and what they do know is that they have a deep structural deficit that needs to be addressed. The economy remains volatile, and recovery is uncertain.

State of the County: What’s the Plan?

Given the current reality, McDaniel said, “we can no longer be all things to all people.” The brute reality is that things have to change – they have to focus their efforts, learn to say no, and understand that what was in the past a “need” might now be a “want.”

As they make decisions about how to address the deficit, they’ll be guided by a set of principals that McDaniel outlined for commissioners: (1) stay conservative; (2) find long-term structural solutions; (3) define core services; (4) focus on targeted “community impact” areas; (5) look for ways to collaborate; (6) identify the most efficient and effective organizational structure; (7) reduce personnel costs; (8) balance job reduction with reduction in employee compensation; and (9) be creative, yet fiscally sound.

The board needs to set priorities to guide the administration, McDaniel said. She noted that they have a retreat set for Jan. 29 to do that. The board needs to define what it believes are the county’s core services, and to work from a customer-service approach – not just decimate programs through cuts. But whatever decisions are made to address the deficit, they must be in line with the board’s priorities, she said.

The administration will also be working department heads and other elected county officials, reviewing past reductions – whether they have already “ponied up” with cuts, she said – as well as studying options for changing the way services are delivered, and assessing what services the county can no longer afford to provide. Serviceability levels need to be part of the discussion too, she said.

She knows that employees value predictability – she said she’s told the labor management team that she’d like to see expedited negotiations with labor unions, because if they want predictability, they need to start early. After delivering that message at a recent meeting, she said, she took it as a positive sign that “no one threw up on me.”

McDaniel then outlined four areas to target in tackling the deficit: (1) $2 million generated in new revenues; (2) $1 million in cuts to “outside agencies;” (3) $8.5 million in cuts to employee compensation and benefits; and (4) $8.5 million in organizational changes and baseline reductions. She gave more details about efforts she’d like to see in each of these areas:

• Revenue generation (+$2 million): The county has limited ability to raise revenue – they can’t raise property taxes, for example, or levy sales tax. But they need to ensure that fines and fees are at “appropriate” levels, she said, and seek out alternative ways to deliver services that might generate revenues. They also need to maximize outside funding whenever possible, she said.
• Outside agencies (-$1 million): In 2011, the county budgeted $2.9 million to outside agencies – including nearly $800,000 in various dues and membership fees, $1.46 million to human service agencies, and $660,000 to special initiatives, like the economic development agency Ann Arbor Spark, among others. McDaniel noted that outside agency funding was reduced by 20% in 2010, and that most allocations support discretionary services. [.pdf file of allocations to outside agencies]
• Employee comp/benefits (-$8.5 million): There’s a focus at the federal and state level to reduce benefits to government employees, she said, and compared to other organizations, Washtenaw County still offers excellent salary and benefits.
• Organizational changes (-$8.5 million): The more structural changes they make, the better off they’ll be, McDaniel said. If they’re just “plugging the hole” with one-time cuts, they’ll be dealing with the same problems year after year. Each department must do a detailed review of line-item budgets and contracts, she said, and look at all opportunities to reorganize, collaborate and consolidate. They need to have discussions with partners in the community, looking at services the county might shift to other providers. And finally, they’ll need to eliminate services that the county simply can’t afford anymore.

State of the County: Proposed Timeline

The board will be spending the next few months setting priorities – a retreat is set for Saturday, Jan. 29 to focus on that topic. McDaniel outlined several questions she hoped they’d consider while setting priorities: (1) Do current budget allocations represent their priorities? (2) How should the general fund respond when there are federal or state revenue reductions in non-general fund programs? (3) What targeted community areas are most important to the board? (4) What balance is appropriate between funding outside agencies versus internal county services?

Commissioners Conan Smith and Barbara Bergman confer before the start of the Jan. 19 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. Smith is chair of the board.

McDaniel urged commissioners to take the message to the community, and she provided them with a two-page executive summary outlining key points of her budget presentation. [.pdf of executive summary] McDaniel said they’ll also be holding a series of town hall meetings for employees in the coming months, which board chair Conan Smith will be participating in.

The administration will continue working with labor unions to identify possible savings. In May, McDaniel plans to provide an updated financial outlook based on the county’s equalization report, which provides assessed property values and, in turn, a firmer handle on projected property tax revenues.

McDaniel said she’ll work with department heads and other county entities – like the trial court and areas led by other elected officials, like the sheriff’s office, clerk and prosecuting attorney – to set budget targets, and develop a recommended budget for commissioners to review. The board would need to adopt the budget by year’s end – November is the targeted date for that.

State of the County: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Commissioners didn’t give extensive comments on the presentation, but did have some feedback and questions. Leah Gunn began by saying she doesn’t expect any additional state revenue-sharing to occur. “There is no revenue-sharing with counties anymore, and we have to deal with it,” she said.

Barbara Bergman wanted to ensure that any discussion about human services be cast in the broader context of public safety. They need to be aware of the costs that the criminal justice system will incur if the county doesn’t having those services, she said.

Yousef Rabhi clarified that the 0% salary increase and the recent concessions by the police unions have already been factored into the projections – even with those savings, the deficit is still projected to reach over $20 million.

In response to a question from Wes Prater about personnel costs, McDaniel said that a study group was formed last fall – led by Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. The study group includes managers and union leaders, and is tasked with reviewing employee benefits and exploring their options.

Trial Court: Juvenile Division, Memorandum of Understanding

Wednesday’s meeting began with a presentation by Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program. His talk focused on reconfiguration of the county courthouse, including the upcoming move of the juvenile court to the courthouse at Main and Huron in downtown Ann Arbor, from its current location on Platt Road. The changes come in the wake of the 15th District Court‘s move last weekend from the county courthouse to the city’s new municipal center at Huron and Fifth.

Following Shelton’s presentation, Dave Shirley, the county’s facilities manager, gave a brief update on the buildings at the Platt Road site, and what will happen to them following the juvenile court’s move.

In conjunction with Shelton’s report, the board also voted to approve a memorandum of understanding between the county and the trial court. The previous MOU, which outlines the rights and responsibilities of each unit of government, expired in December 2010. It did not provide details on the future budget for the trial court units, which will be made in lump sum payments. For 2011, that combined payment is $13.5 million.

Trial Court: Update on Restructuring

This is the second consecutive board meeting that Shelton has attended this year – he officiated the swearing-in ceremony for commissioners at their Jan. 5, 2011 meeting. On Wednesday, Shelton gave his report in the context of the trial court’s justice integration project, which has two major components – both designed to cut costs and improve services: (1) moving the juvenile court operations to the downtown courthouse; and (2) merging all trial court clerk services into a unified operation. The goal is to meet the county’s target of $1.1 million in cuts to the trial court budget. Shelton said the court is committed to doing its part to help address the county’s budget problems.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court, gave a presentation to county commissioners on Wednesday about plans to reconfigure the county courthouse.

Shelton told commissioners that the juvenile court’s Platt Road facility is in serious disrepair and can no longer be used. Having the juvenile court in a separate location also impairs their efforts to combine clerking services, he said – it’s not a cost-effective way to operate. After the move, the trial court will offer one-stop services, so that people coming to court won’t have to look for “which pew to go to,” he said.

The merger of clerk services will result in a single location for citizens to file documents or get information, Shelton said. It will combine clerking for the circuit court’s criminal and domestic divisions, including Friend of the Court, as well as services for the juvenile and probate courts. The structural savings from the merger will allow them to meet their budgetary goals, he said.

This merger will be the most difficult aspect of the project, Shelton said. They’ve reviewed all operations and started cross-training staff, to get clerks from around the county working together.

Some major renovations to the downtown courthouse will be occurring in the next few months, to accomplish all of their goals, he said. He joked that Dan Dwyer, the trial court administrator, sent out an email to staff on Wednesday saying “the 15th District Court has left the building,” a la Elvis. They’ll be using the vacated space as part of the trial court’s reconfiguration, he said.

The juvenile court will be relocated to the third floor of the downtown courthouse, segregated from the other operations. They’re very mindful of keeping juveniles and adults separated as much as possible, he said, and the move out of the Platt Road facility will make that easier.

Shelton said they won’t be building new courtrooms or restrooms – the two most expensive parts of a courthouse – to accommodate the juvenile court. A committee has been working on ways to renovate the third floor to best use the existing floorplan, he said. The third floor was previously used by trial court judges Nancy Francis and Darlene O’Brien, who’ll be moving to the second floor.

Jury selection will be relocated from the third floor to the second floor. Part of the challenge is that every Monday morning, Shelton said, they need a large room to accommodate 150-200 people for jury selection – but they only need that one day a week. They currently close part of a courtroom to do that, he said. They’ll be renovating part of the second floor – formerly used by Judge Elizabeth Hines of the 15th District Court – into flexible space with partitions, creating a room that can be used for jury selection, then reconfigured into smaller meeting rooms during the rest of the week.

Clerk services will be consolidated on the first floor, giving citizens a single access point for court business, rather than the three different locations that are used now.

Shelton also discussed other efforts underway to improve services and cut costs. They include moving certain juvenile court services – such as probation meetings – to locations closer to the families, at either the 14A-4 District Court in Saline or the 14A-2 District Court in downtown Ypsilanti. They’ve eliminated some positions for about $140,000 in savings, he said, and increased efficiencies by training clerks to operate across different units – having juvenile probation staff assist in guardianship investigations, for example.

He finished by laying out a timeline for these changes. Renovations to the downtown courthouse second and third floors will be completed by April 22, with the juvenile court move planned on April 25. From May to August, renovations on the first floor will be done, with the goal to open merged clerk services there by the end of the summer.

“That’s as fast as I can summarize a year’s work on this project,” Shelton concluded.

Trial Court: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Barbara Bergman thanked Shelton for his consideration of the issue regarding the interaction of adults and children at the juvenile court. She noted that though they are trying to protect juveniles from criminals, in some cases, the most dangerous adult in children’s lives is their parent. Shelton responded that the interaction between imprisoned adults and their children will likely increase, in the wake of a 2010 Michigan Supreme Court ruling. The ruling found that the state’s Dept. of Human Services violated an incarcerated parent’s rights when they didn’t allow him to be adequately involved in his children’s care. [A summary of the case is posted on the Michigan Children's Law blog.]

Bergman then asked about whether meeting space in the jury selection area would be available for the community, noting that there’s a dearth of meeting spaces. Not likely, Shelton said – they’ll be eliminating other meeting rooms as part of the reconfiguration, so the new meeting space will be well-used for court purposes.

In response to a question about the use of electronic equipment, Shelton reported that they have equipment to conduct video conferencing, and have agreements with local hospitals to hold mental health hearings with physicians and patients via video. That set-up is already on the third floor, where the new juvenile court will be located. They hope to use it to reduce the transportation of juveniles from the detention center on Washtenaw Avenue, he said. They also have a grant that will allow them to put similar technology in a courtroom on the second floor.

Bergman asked whether the court files are still in paper form – she referred to “shelves and shelves” of them at the Platt Road facility. Noting that he served on the electronic filing task force of the State Bar of Michigan, Shelton said he had assumed that by now, court files would be electronic, not paper. But money that the state had allocated for conversion to a paperless system was withdrawn. [Shelton has written about the issue, including a 2001 article from the American Bar Association's Judge's Journal, titled "All Aboard? Electronic Filing and the Digital Divide."]

Bergman asked where those paper files are stored. Shelton reported that they had a “purge day” at the Platt Road facility, to prepare for the move. As they were looking for alternative locations, they discovered that many county departments had been using the courthouse basement as a “depository,” he said – they’ve had discussions with county administration to clear out that space.

Wes Prater asked for a cost estimate on the building reconfiguration. Shelton said they wouldn’t have those numbers until construction drawings are completed.

Trial Court: Platt Road Facilities

Dave Shirley, head of the county’s facilities, gave a brief update on the fate of the existing juvenile court buildings. The 42,320-square-foot building at 2270 Platt Road, which currently houses the juvenile court staff and storage, is located on 13.5 acres. The building is 45 years old and its infrastructure is decaying – it has reached the end of its useful life, he said. An adjacent 6,680-square-foot building – the O’Brien Center at 2260 Platt – was vacated last fall because it was deemed unusable, he said. Staff of the public defender and prosecuting attorney who worked there were moved into other county offices.

Shirley said they are working with architects now to get some options for the downtown courthouse renovations.

Commissioners had several questions and comments about the move. Rob Turner, a new commissioner who’d been tapped to get involved with this project, asked Shirley if he’d encountered any complications so far in looking at the building renovations. Shirley indicated that they had not, saying that so far they’d gotten postitive feedback from the county’s building department staff on the project.

Wes Prater asked whether the final decision had been made to do this work. Rolland Sizemore Jr. – who replaced former commissioner Ken Schwartz as a board liaison to this project – said the board would need to vote at some future date to approve funding for it. Prater then asked whether the expense had been included in this year’s budget.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said they had set aside $300,000 for the project, and had asked the trial court to “see what they can kick in as well.” She pointed out that the changes will result in structural savings for the county, which will give them a return on their investment. [At a Jan. 12 administrative briefing, McDaniel had told commissioners that the court expects to see $300,000 in structural savings each year, as a result of the move.]

Prater asked what will happen to the Platt Road buildings – will they be demolished, boarded up or rented out? McDaniel said there’s been interest in the property from real estate developers, but she reminded the board that they had asked the administration not to pursue a sale of county property, because given the market’s decreased property values, it wasn’t a good time to sell. She said her staff would be preparing a report on the county’s overall building space for the board to review.

Sizemore thanked commissioner Leah Gunn for helping get parking spaces for the downtown court. Gunn – who’s also a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which oversees the downtown area’s parking system for the city – said that DDA executive director Susan Pollay has been working with county staff to accommodate the court’s parking needs. Gunn said people have been particularly concerned about parking for families using the juvenile court, and said “they will be looked after.”

In a subsequent phone interview with The Chronicle, Pollay described several possible scenarios for parking that haven’t yet been finalized. The county owns the 46-space surface parking lot at the southwest corner of Main and Ann, which is currently used for metered public parking and managed for the DDA by Republic Parking. In exchange for use of that lot, the DDA provides 46 free spaces for jurors in its structure at Fourth & Washington. One option is for the county to take back that surface lot exclusively for its own use, or for the DDA to install a cashier or validation system there that would allow more court-specific parking. Or the DDA could install signs there indicating that it’s intended for users of the court, she said.

Another option would be to look at metered street parking around the courthouse, which currently allows only a maximum time of two hours. Some of those meters could be changed to allow longer hours, she said, or the DDA could install more spaces reserved for the handicapped.

The Ann/Ashley parking structure could come into play, Pollay said, perhaps by installing signs that would reserve the lower levels for non-permit parkers in the morning hours. That would push parkers who use monthly permits – including more than 200 court workers – into the upper levels, freeing up space for people using the court, she said.

Pollay said all of these options are being discussed with the county administration, but no decisions have been made. She added that the DDA is “thrilled” that the juvenile court is moving to the courthouse, bringing more activity to the downtown area.

Wrapping up discussion at Wednesday’s meeting, commissioner Yousef Rabhi suggested that they schedule a working session on the topic of the juvenile court move. Rabhi is chair of the board’s working sessions, and sets the agenda for those meetings.

Trial Court: Memorandum of Understanding

On Wednesday, commissioners approved a memorandum of understanding with the Washtenaw County Trial Court, outlining the rights and responsibilities of each unit of government. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding between county administration and trial court] A previous MOU, with similar terms, expired in December 2010.

As part of the agreement, the county will fund operations of the trial court in four “lump sums,” allocated separately to: (1) the 22nd Circuit Court [including circuit court administration, juvenile-general fund, friend of the court and community corrections]; (2) Probate Court [estates & mental health]; (3) 14-A District Court; and (4) the child care fund. The county will not have line-item budgeting authority, but the trial court has agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and provide quarterly financial projections. The amount of the lump sum payments has not yet been determined.

The agreement also states that the court will abide by the county’s policies in a range of areas, including travel, personnel and procurement.

Trial Court MOU: Commissioner Discussion

There was no discussion about the MOU at Wednesday’s board meeting, but at the Jan. 12 administrative briefing – an informal public meeting held to discuss the following week’s agenda – several commissioners voiced concerns.

During the briefing, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger described the history of the MOU. He noted that the trial court is considered a separate unit of government, but that it’s funded by a budget approved by the county board of commissioners. That dynamic has resulted in “some interesting permutations over the years,” he said.

Since 1990, the county has funded the trial court through a “lump sum” arrangement. But during the 2003 budget negotiations, the two entities couldn’t reach an agreement on the amount, and the court began the process of terminating the MOU, while at the same time asking the State Court Administrative Office to mediate the dispute. They ultimately reached a compromise that resulted in a new MOU in 2004.

In December 2009, it was the board of commissioners who voted to terminate the MOU – a notice of intent was approved, with the termination effective a year later, in December 2010. Since then, questions have been raised about how the court would handle issues like personnel and procurement processes, which have been handled in concert with the county under the MOU. County administrator Verna McDaniel had been in discussions with Donald Shelton, the trial court’s chief judge, and she recommended that the board renew the MOU. It would continue to be in effect indefinitely, with either party having the option to give one year’s notice before terminating it.

At the Jan. 12 briefing, McDaniel told commissioners that although Shelton wasn’t the easiest person to work with, he’d come to the table and it appeared they would do some belt-tightening. The MOU doesn’t include a lump sum amount, but it does clarify operational issues.

County commissioners Conan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. at the board's Jan. 12, 2011 administrative briefing. Smith is the current board chair; Sizemore is chair of the board's ways & means committee.

Conan Smith clarified that while the specific dollar amount isn’t indicated, the MOU does designate that a lump sum budget will be provided. He noted that he was the one who suggested abandoning the MOU a year ago, because of the lump sum arrangement. When you have a willing partner, he said, it works. But Shelton isn’t a willing partner, Smith said. He described a meeting he’d had with Shelton two years ago about the budget – his first and only one, he said – at which Shelton had indicated he’d cut programs that the board wanted, like the drug court, if commissioners cut the trial court’s budget. It was a punitive approach, Smith said, not a cooperative one.

Lump sum payments don’t empower the board, Smith continued. He acknowledged that he and McDaniel disagreed on this point, but said it was important for other commissioners to know the context. If they approve the MOU with a lump sum agreement, they’re ceding control of the budget to the trial court.

Dan Smith suggested splitting the difference – why not approve the MOU without the lump sum, and negotiate that separately? McDaniel said that if they take out the lump sum, the agreement would be pointless, from the court’s perspective. The straw that broke the camel’s back in the previous budget cycle, she said, was when Shelton didn’t want to agree to labor concessions that the county administration was negotiating with its unions. He exempted court employees from those concessions, which created tensions with the county. [Bob Guenzel was county administrator at the time – he retired in May of 2010.]

The court can do what it wants to do, McDaniel said, but she now has a commitment that they’ll work with her. However, she told commissioners, “you control the pursestrings – this is your ultimate power.” They should know, she added, that if they eliminated the lump sum agreement, they might as well tear up the MOU.

Rob Turner observed that the board can’t control how the court is run. Given that, he supported McDaniel’s approach, with the hope that the court administration will cooperate with the county.

McDaniel noted that they don’t want to end up like Wayne County, where the courts are suing the county for over $26 million. Rolland Sizemore pointed out that if the court litigates, “we’re still paying both sides of the coin.” Barbara Bergman noted that the court has previously threatened to sue over funding issues. That’s dangerous, she said, “because boys and girls in long dresses are going to adjudicate over boys and girls in long dresses” – implying that the court would receive favorable treatment in any lawsuit.

Bergman also stated that there should be “none of this crap” about Shelton not talking to Smith. Kristin Judge alluded to Smith’s “family baggage,” saying that had influenced the relationship between Smith and Shelton – Smith said he wasn’t aware of anything like that. [Smith's aunt, Nancy Francis, is a trial court judge.] Judge observed that Sizemore had been able to negotiate effectively with Shelton. She also pointed out that the courts do receive a lower budget now than in years past.

Sizemore said that Smith, as board chair, should definitely be involved in negotiations with the court. “Judge Shelton has his ways about him, but so do we,” he said.

When Bergman began to defend Smith, he cut her off. This isn’t about him or his family history, Smith said. It’s about the budget – they’re making an important strategic decision: lump sum versus line item.

Smith argued that by agreeing to a lump sum, they were taking a positional-based negotiating approach, not one that was interest-based. In a positional approach, they were simply negotiating the amount of the lump sum. An interest-based approach takes a more global perspective, looking at how the court integrates with the county, he said.

Several other commissioners weighed in to support McDaniel’s approach. She said she’s asked Dan Dwyer, the court administrator, to be part of the county’s budget planning team. That will help the court understand why the county makes certain budget decisions, she said. Even so, the negotiations will be tough, McDaniel allowed. “I’m not afraid of Judge Shelton. He’s a big guy, but I’m not afraid of him.”

The extensive discussion at Jan. 12 administrative briefing appeared to have satisfied commissioners’ interest in deliberating the issue, and no further commentary was offered at the Jan. 19 board meeting.

Outcome: At the board’s Jan. 19 meeting, commissioners unanimously approved a memorandum of understanding between the county and the trial court, with a lump sum budget agreement. The specific amount of that lump sum hadn’t yet been determined.

Police Union Agreements

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners approved agreements with two unions – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – that are expected to save a total of $5.6 million over a four-year period.

The 244 employees represented by POAM – who make up 16% of the county’s total workforce – had voted late last year on $4.426 million in concessions that will mostly come from forgoing raises in 2011 and 2012, and getting 1% raises in 2013 and 2014. Union members will also begin paying for part of their health care premiums – $50 a month – starting in 2013. The COAM union, which represents about 33 officers, agreed to the same concessions in a vote taken this week. Those concessions will also apply to eight non-union employees at the sheriff’s office.

In 2009, non-union employees as well as unions representing many of the county’s roughly 1,350 workers – including AFSCME Local 2733, AFSCME Local 3052, the Michigan Nurses Association, the Assistant Prosecutors Association, and the Public Defenders Association – took concessions totaling $4.13 million over the two-year period of 2010 and 2011. The POAM and COAM did not agree to cuts during that budget cycle.

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners Leah Gunn, Yousef Rabhi and Barbara Bergman thanked employees for making the concessions. Gunn noted the hard work of the labor negotiations team and sheriff Jerry Clayton, who helped reach the agreements. Rabhi said that as a new commissioner, much of this is new to him. But agreements like this make him believe that the future for the county is bright, and that they’ll be able to work to make the best of a bad situation.

At the board’s Jan. 12 administrative briefing, commissioner Conan Smith had noted that while these savings are extraordinary, “they don’t go far enough.” He said the county is getting about 80% of what they should be getting from the unions, and other programs will need to be cut to make up for that. The other aspect is that the POAM and COAM agreements extend beyond the 2012 and 2013 budget cycle, locking them in through 2014. “It’s definitely not a cut-and-dry, rah-rah situation,” he said.

Outcome: At the board’s Jan. 19 meeting, commissioners unanimously approved new agreements with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) unions.

Commission, Board Restructuring & Appointments

As the outcome of a review of dozens of county boards, commissions and committees, at their Jan. 19 meeting the county board of commissioners voted to dissolve the Washtenaw County Election Expense Committee and the Washtenaw County Civilian Review Board.

Jason Brooks, deputy clerk for Washtenaw County, passes out documents at a Jan. 12 appointments caucus for the county board of commissioners.

They also voted to consolidate the Washtenaw County Drug Forfeiture Committee and the Sheriff’s Youth Community Projects and Special Projects Fund Committee into a new entity: the Sheriff’s Discretionary Committee. That committee will consist of seven members who will recommend allocations of any discretionary funds collected by the sheriff’s office.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi asked who would be apointed to that new committee. Board chair Conan Smith said they’d be working with the sheriff’s office to determine the appointees, but he expected there would be two positions for commissioners.

The board also approved a raft of appointments to the remaining boards, commissions and committees, as well as commissioner appointments to those various entities. They had discussed these decisions at a Jan. 12 appointments caucus, a public meeting that immediately followed the board’s administrative briefing.

[.pdf file of 2011 commissioner appointments] [.pdf file of 2011 appointments to county boards, commissions and committees]

Cost Recovery Contract

Commissioners voted on a resolution to negotiate a contract with Expense Reduction Analysts (ERA), a firm that provides cost-recovery services.

The board had last discussed the issue publicly about a year ago, at a Feb. 24, 2010 administrative briefing. Jessica Ping, who at the time was a commissioner representing District 3, suggested that the county issue a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting bids from vendors who analyze spending patterns and identify ways for the county to cut purchasing costs. From Chronicle coverage of that Feb. 24, 2010 briefing:

At the board’s Nov. 19, 2009 working session, which Ping chairs, commissioners had heard a presentation about this kind of service from Fred Manuel of Alliance Cost Containment.

Barbara Bergman said she didn’t think the board had decided whether they needed this service. Ping said it was just an RFP, not a decision to proceed. Ping also noted the way the business model works doesn’t have a downside for the county. Alliance Cost Containment, for example, takes a percentage of whatever savings it identifies and implements. “It doesn’t cost us anything,” Ping said. “Why wouldn’t we do that?”

Wes Prater supported the RFP, saying that with this economy, they need to be looking at ways of doing business less expensively, “and this is one of them.”

The consensus was to direct staff to develop an RFP. Issuing an RFP does not require board approval.

An RFP was issued in June of 2010, and an evaluation committee – consisting of Gregory Dill, James McFarlane, Dave Shirley, and commissioners Jessica Ping and Kristin Judge – reviewed all vendor bids that were submitted in response to the RFP. The committee selected the company Expense Reduction Analysts (ERA).

According to a cover memo accompanying this resolution, the company will review some commodities that are purchased throughout the county, then negotiate the best price for the commodities as needed. ERA would be paid based on a percentage of what they saved the county over a one-year period. The firm would also audits accounts payable and receivable systems for inappropriate payments, overpayments, or duplicate payments. Labor and staff costs would be covered by the firm, and any labor provided by the county would be deducted from the amount of savings used to calculate the firm’s payment. Copy costs would be charged back to the firm at the rate of 20 cents a copy.

The next step is for the county administration to negotiate a contract with ERA.

Before the vote, commissioner Leah Gunn said that because this is a board initiative, she wanted to see a report on the savings they received from the effort.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the selection of Expense Reduction Analysts to provide cost-recovery services for the county.

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

Absent: Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping

Board retreat: Commissioners will hold a Saturday, Jan. 29 retreat focused on setting budget priorities. The retreat is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 2, 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. The board’s administrative briefing, to preview the Feb. 2 agenda, will be held on Wednesday, Jan. 26 at 5:30 p.m. in the offices of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The board’s next working session is set for Thursday, Feb. 3 at 6: 30 p.m.