The county now plans to ask for a judgment for the amount it believes the townships of Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti owe to cover previous costs of providing those deputy patrols in 2006. County officials had intended to make that move in September of 2009, when the Supreme Court first decided not to hear the case. At the time, the county was planning to seek payment in the $2 million range.

This week, Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, told The Chronicle that he didn’t want to speculate on the amount the county will be asking for when they file the request with 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello. The county will be calculating the amount based on the hours of service during most of 2006 – when the sheriff’s department provided patrols to the three townships without a contract – at a rate previously approved by the Court of Appeals, Hedger said.

The Dispute: A Recap

Here’s some background from The Chronicle’s Sept. 14, 2009 report on the legal battle between Washtenaw County’s administration and board of commissioners, and three townships on the eastern side of the county.

The townships filed suit against the county in early 2006 over the amount that the county charged townships for sheriff deputy patrols and the way those charges were calculated. Costello, who heard the case initially, dismissed most of the townships’ claims, which included assertions that the county was arbitrary and capricious in setting rates for deputy patrols.

However, Costello ruled in favor of the townships on their claim that the county had committed a technical violation of the Open Meetings Act. The townships had claimed that the county violated the Open Meetings Act because the public notice announcing an administrative briefing did not indicate that a quorum of the board would be present. The county argued that the act of posting a meeting notice was sufficient to indicate that a quorum would be there.

Costello also rejected the county’s request for payment from the townships for an 11-month period in 2006. During that period, deputy patrols were provided, even though the townships had refused to sign new contracts for those patrols, at higher rates.

The townships appealed, and in February 2009 the state Court of Appeals upheld Costello’s rulings, with two notable exceptions. Regarding the Open Meetings Act, the appeals court indicated that any technical violation of the act was rendered moot. The court made that assessment because the county had later re-enacted decisions that took place during the meeting at which the Open Meetings Act violation occurred.

Further, the Appeals Court sided with the county’s request for payment, and ordered Costello to calculate how much the townships owed the county for deputy services provided during the 11-month period. That amount – plus interest dating back to 2006 – would be in the ballpark of $2 million.

As of September 2009, the county had spent about $1 million in attorney fees since 2006 on the lawsuit, which has been handled primarily by the law firm Dykema Gossett. On Monday, Hedger told The Chronicle that attorney fees for the county have increased only nominally since then.

Negotiating a New Rate for Deputy Patrols

The issue of how much municipalities pay for deputy patrols – also called police services – was temporarily settled in December 2008, when the county board agreed to a one-year contract extension with all townships that pay for the patrols. In 2008, townships paid $136,503 per deputy. In 2009, that amount increased 4% to $141,963.

Townships requested a two-year extension with 2% increases in 2010 and again in 2011. The county board initially approved a shorter period, through 2010, at a 2% increase. Then in July 2009, the board extended the contract through 2011, with a 4% increase that year.

Settling the issue is one of the priorities outlined by the administration and board for 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Reviews Major Initiatives for 2010"]

As part of a much broader presentation about his department’s operations and goals, Sheriff Jerry Clayton briefed commissioners on the topic of contract patrols at their Feb. 17, 2010 meeting. Clayton said his goal was to keep the cost of patrols high enough so that it doesn’t drive the board to eliminate the service because they’re not covering expenses, while being low enough for local municipalities to afford. Clayton said he plans to bring a proposal to the board by the third quarter of this year.

Township officials have argued that the overhead that’s calculated into the charge is too high. For their part, some commissioners believe that municipalities with their own police departments, like Ann Arbor, are being double-taxed – residents pay for the city’s own police services, as well as for the county to help cover the cost of sheriff’s patrols.

The issue of affordability is a significant one. Late last year, Ypsilanti Township was forced to cut the number of patrols that serve that township. A millage put before Ypsilanti Township voters – which would have paid for sheriff patrols – failed in November 2009. As a result, township officials said they didn’t have the funds to pay for all of the 38 deputies that were contracted to cover the township, and they received approval from the county board to change the township’s contract, dropping the number of deputies to 31.

Augusta Township officials chose not to ask voters for a millage to cover deputy patrols, so in January 2010 the three deputy positions that it had funded were shifted to Scio Township, which had requested additional patrols.

Meanwhile, sheriff Jerry Clayton has told county commissioners that he’s working toward a more sustainable approach to the issue of how public safety is provided throughout the county, not just in areas that have contracts for deputy patrols.

In an email sent to the county Board of Commissioners on Monday morning, Curtis Hedger – the county’s corporation counsel – wrote that the county plans to ask 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello to issue a judgment in the case. “We estimate that given the number of hours provided to the Townships without a contract in 2006 at the rate approved by the Court of Appeals, plus judgment interest which goes back to January 2006, the judgment should be in the $2 million dollar range,” Hedger wrote.

The townships filed suit against the county in early 2006 over the amount that the county charged townships for sheriff deputy patrols and the way those charges were calculated. Costello, who heard the case initially, dismissed most of the townships’ claims, which included assertions that the county was arbitrary and capricious in setting rates for deputy patrols.

However, Costello ruled in favor of the townships on their claim that the county had committed a technical violation of the Open Meetings Act. The townships had claimed that the county violated the Open Meetings Act because the public notice announcing an administrative briefing did not indicate that a quorum of the board would be present. The county argued that the act of posting a meeting notice was sufficient to indicate that a quorum would be there.

Costello also rejected the county’s request for payment from the townships for an 11-month period in 2006. During that period, deputy patrols were provided, even though the townships had refused to sign new contracts for those patrols, at higher rates.

The townships appealed, and in February 2009 the state Court of Appeals upheld Costello’s rulings, with two notable exceptions. Regarding the Open Meetings Act, the appeals court indicated that any technical violation of the act was rendered moot. The court made that assessment because the county had later re-enacted decisions that took place during the meeting at which the Open Meetings Act violation occurred.

Further, the Appeals Court sided with the county’s request for payment, and ordered Costello to calculate how much the townships owed the county for deputy services provided during the 11-month period. That amount – plus interest dating back to 2006 – would be in the ballpark of $2 million. Hedger told The Chronicle on Monday that he did not yet know exactly what that amount would be.

Separately, the county has spent nearly $1 million in attorney fees since 2006 to handle the lawsuit.

The county had considered the February Appeals Court ruling a victory, but in March the townships decided to appeal the decision – this time to the state Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court has denied the townships’ request for an appeal, it’s unclear what their next move will be. Doug Winters, an attorney who has represented the townships in this case, could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, in December 2008 the commissioners agreed to a one-year contract extension with all townships that pay the county to provide sheriff’s deputy patrols. Townships had been paying $136,503 per deputy in 2008, a rate which increased 4% to $141,963 in 2009. Townships requested a two-year extension with 2% increases in 2010 and again in 2011, but commissioners initially approved a shorter period, through 2010, at a 2% increase.

Then in July 2009, the board of commissioners – as part of the first phase of budget adjustments to deal with a projected $30 million general fund deficit – extended the contract with townships through 2011, with a 4% increase that year.

Even if the lawsuit is resolved within the next few months, wrangling over the cost of sheriff deputy patrols isn’t over. A police services steering committee – which includes sheriff Jerry Clayton, Saline chief of police Paul Bunten, several county commissioners and representatives from six townships and the village of Manchester – has been at work for months trying to resolve the cost question.

Townships dispute the amount that the county charges per deputy, saying the cost for overhead that’s calculated into the charge is too high. On the other side, some commissioners believe that residents of municipalities with their own police departments, like Ann Arbor, are being unfairly double-taxed. They contend that residents are paying for the city’s own police services, as well as for the county to subsidize the cost of sheriff’s patrols.

County administrator Bob Guenzel said the police services committee is working out a proposal on the issue, but that it hasn’t yet been presented to commissioners. He said there’s likely less of a sense of urgency at the moment, given that the contract has been extended through 2011.

“The court completely vindicated the county’s position,” commissioner Jeff Irwin said after Wednesday’s meeting.

The three townships sued the county in 2006, disputing the amount that the county billed townships for sheriff deputy patrols, as well as the way those charges were determined. The case was initially heard in Monroe County Circuit Court by Judge Joseph Costello, who dismissed 12 of the townships claims but who also ruled that the county had committed a technical violation of the Open Meetings Act.

The townships then took their case to the Court of Appeals, which upheld Costello’s rulings on the 12 claims and reversed the decision on the Open Meetings Act violation. The appeals court also indicated that because the county later re-enacted decisions that took place during the meeting that technically violated the Open Meetings Act, “any issue pertaining to the existence of a violation of the act was rendered moot.”

Issued Wednesday morning, the unanimous ruling of the three appellate judges included some harsh assessments of the merit of the appeal. The court describes one of the townships’ arguments as “merely one more pellet in the shotgun approach to this litigation as the Townships fail to provide any discussion or law in support of this conclusion.” [Read the complete 18-page document in PDF format.]

In another instance, commenting on the townships’ claim that the county violated the Open Meetings Act, the court ruling states: ”It is incredible to this Court that the Townships could have expended sufficient time and effort in pursuing this one claim to justify their contention of entitlement to over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs, particularly given their inability to substantiate the primary claims underlying this cause of action.”

The Court of Appeals also ruled that the circuit court must calculate the amount that the townships owe the county for an 11-month period (from Jan. 1, 2006 through Dec. 6, 2006). During that time the townships, because of their pending litigation, received police services at a lower rate than the county had determined.

At Wednesday night’s briefing, board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr., who represents a district that includes a portion of Ypsilanti Township, said he didn’t want to comment until he’d had a chance to read the ruling. Commissioner Wes Prater, whose district covers part of Ypsilanti Township as well as Augusta Township, also had not read the ruling in detail. Ken Schwartz, the commissioner for District 2, which includes Salem Township, declined comment until the case was closed, noting that the townships still had other options, including appealing to the state Supreme Court.

When asked how the decision might affect current negotiations for contracts starting in 2010, Sizemore said that negotiations would move forward and that he had faith in the new sheriff, Jerry Clayton. [Former sheriff Dan Minzey, who was defeated by Clayton in the August 2008 Democratic primary, had supported the townships in their dispute.]

Because of the difficult economy, Sizemore said, “we have to work together.” He said that’s the good thing to come out of the otherwise dismal economic situation that all local governments face. “The little pockets of ‘This is my territory, not yours’ – that won’t work any longer.”

Looking Ahead: Feb. 18 Board Agenda

The main item for next Wednesday’s meeting is on the agenda for the Ways & Means Committee, which immediately precedes the regular board meeting. County administrator Bob Guenzel plans to make a presentation on county revenue projections for the next four years. At the board’s Feb. 4 meeting, Guenzel gave a grim outlook for the coming years, based in large part on lower property tax revenues. The goal for the Feb. 18 meeting, he told commissioners, is to reach agreement about what revenue projections should be used as county staff puts together its budget. He also wants commissioners to give feedback on some longer-term reforms he plan to propose. Their decisions won’t be set in stone, he said, but will help provide guidance in identifying how much to cut on the expense side.

David Behen, deputy county administrator, said they’d be adding an agenda item about approving a short-term arrangement to provide information technology services to Pittsfield Township through May 31. The township asked the county for help when the person managing its IT services died earlier this month. “It was truly an emergency,” said commissioner Kristin Judge, whose district covers Pittsfield Township.

Later, Judge told The Chronicle that the township is talking with county staff about having the county handle its IT, human resources and finance services. The biggest issue, she said, is figuring out how much to charge the township so that the county’s costs are covered, and how to ensure county staff has enough manpower to handle the additional work. If these issues can be worked out with Pittsfield, she said, the county might be able to market those services to other townships. “I think it’s really going to be a positive change for everyone,” she said.

Finally, Wes Prater asked that county staff draft a resolution for the Feb. 18 meeting to honor U.S. Rep. John Dingell, whose district includes parts of Washtenaw County, and who this week became the longest-serving member in Congress – ever. “We should make it really over the top,” Jeff Irwin suggested, “If not in volume, then in emphasis.”