Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor, talks with county commissioner Conan Smith and finance director Kelly Belknap before the March 19, 2014 county board meeting. The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly during the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also heard from county treasurer Catherine McClary, who reported that foreclosures are decreasing, as are delinquent taxes. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, she noted, so the decreases are good news. Commissioners gave initial authorization to the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions, an annual process.

Commissioners also authorized the county administrator to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. The vote came over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr., who felt the work could be absorbed by existing staff.

The budget was also the focus of an update from lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc., who talked about how action in the state government might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor. Their updates included the fact that legislation has been introduced to repeal Act 88, which the county uses to levy taxes for economic development and agriculture. This year, the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy.

In other action, the board appointed former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the county road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014.

Commissioners supported McFarlane, but also discussed the possibility of changing the process so that interviews with applicants would be held at a public meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who as board chair makes these nominations, described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one, and highlighted the need for a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at an April 17 working session.

The board also took a step toward allowing employees to get health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. Commissioners gave initial approval that would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits.

And a resolution to oppose a mineral mining operation in Lyndon Township drew criticism from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who objected to the county board weighing in on an issue that’s not within its purview. Other commissioners felt the county had a vested interest in formally voicing an opinion, both because of broader economic and environmental impacts that would affect residents, and because the county parks & recreation commission owns property in the township. Smith’s decision to state “present” – rather than casting a yes or no vote – resulted in brief discussion about board rules.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining

A resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township appeared on the March 19 agenda.

The resolution stated that the county board “formally opposes the establishment of the proposed McCoig Materials mining operation in Lyndon Township on the basis of the very serious negative consequences to the surrounding communities.” The company is proposing a sand and gravel mine on 189 acres north of Chelsea on M-52. The rural site is located near several parks and nature areas, including Waterloo State Recreation Area, the Pinckney State Recreation Area, Park Lyndon, the Green Lake Camping area, and the Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail. Over 31,000 acres of protected land is located in that area.

McCoig is asking Lyndon Township for special land use zoning and has submitted an application for a mineral mining operation. Public hearings on the issue have drawn heavy opposition. On its website, the township has noted that its authority is limited:

Michigan State Legislators have greatly reduced township control by passing Act 110 of 2006 (125.3205). Under that law, the township must not “prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources are considered valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.” The township’s authority is limited to “reasonable regulation of hours of operation, blasting hours, noise levels, dust control measures, and traffic that are not preempted by part 632 of the Michigan environmental laws,” 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.63201 to 324.63223.

The county board’s resolution addresses these issues, stating in its “whereas” clauses that “the noise, dust, air pollution, and additional heavy traffic generated by the operation of the mine and the transportation of the minerals will likely have serious negative consequences for the natural environment and wildlife …” [.pdf of full resolution]

The issue was also raised during the March 11, 2014 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. WCPARC director Bob Tetens subsequently sent a letter to Lyndon Township supervisor Mark Keezer outlining several concerns with the project. [.pdf of Tetens letter] The letter indicates that WCPARC is willing to purchase the property.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Public Commentary

A resident of Lyndon Township spoke during public commentary, saying he’s not anti-mining. “But my mama taught me there’s a right place for everything, and in the heart of the largest state recreation area in the lower Peninsula is not the right place.” He strongly encouraged commissioners to pass the resolution and to do everything in their powers to support the citizenry, “who I can tell you is very strongly against this.”

Larry Murphy, a Scio Township resident, told commissioners that he’s a candidate for the county board. [Murphy, a Republican, has filed to run for the Aug. 5 primary in District 1. The seat is currently held by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, who is running for re-election.] Murphy said he attended the public meeting earlier in the month about this proposal, which was held by the Lyndon Township planning commission. He said he was shocked that about 500 people attended. It’s really a disaster in terms of the environment and the effect on recreation, Murphy said. It’s also a disaster in terms of transportation, because of the trucks that would be going through downtown Chelsea. He encouraged the board to oppose this project. He wanted people to know that opposition to this is bi-partisan. “This mining company, McCoig, has no support, no friends in Washtenaw County,” Murphy concluded.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Board Discussion

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) – who represents the county district that includes Lyndon Township – described the situation, noting that the mining would directly affect a county park. Park Lyndon shares a lake with the proposed sand mine, he noted, and the company plans to use water from the lake as part of its mining operation. He pointed to the letter by Bob Tetens, director of the county parks & recreation commission, as giving a good explanation of the objections. Martinez-Kratz also noted that about 700 people had attended two public meetings in the township, overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal. He thought the community would appreciate the county’s opposition.

From left: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) spoke about process and the county board’s role. “It seems that this board simply can’t mind its own business. Here we are, yet again, sticking our nose in someone else’s business.” This is a matter for Lyndon Township to decide what’s best for them, he said. The planning commission is holding public hearings and getting lots of public comment. The planning commission will review that public comment, as well as the advice from their attorneys, and make a decision. The township board will subsequently weigh in as well. If voters are unhappy about that, they have a right of referendum, Smith noted. Residents can circulate petitions and perhaps overturn whatever decision is made. If a lawsuit occurs, it will be the taxpayers of Lyndon Township who’ll be paying for it, he noted.

It’s not the job of the county board to sort out these issues, Smith said. This isn’t under the county’s control, he added, “and I wish you would stop having things in front of us that are not under our purview.” [In general, Smith has consistently objected to resolutions weighing in on issues – usually at the state level – that are outside the purview of the county board.]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he appreciated Dan Smith’s position that the township board will be making the decision. But Washtenaw County is a significant landowner in Lyndon Township, he noted, with properties including Park Lyndon and West Lake Preserve. The resolution that the board is considering plainly articulates the impacts on natural resources as being the main driver of the county’s concern, C. Smith said. The township is gathering public opinion, and the county as a landowner has an interest in that land and the possible impacts of the mining facility. “It’s right for us to articulate our concerns,” he said. The resolution doesn’t carry any more weight than other landholders, he said, and he supported it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked whether the Lyndon Township board supported or opposed the mining proposal. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) didn’t think the township board had made a determination – that’s why they’re soliciting public comment. Sizemore wondered what the county board’s resolution would do. Rabhi replied that it expresses the board’s opposition to the mining operation.

Sizemore said Dan Smith had a point about it being the township’s business. But Sizemore noted that he served on the county parks & recreation commission, which has a lot of land there, so he’d support the resolution. [Dan Smith and Conan Smith also serve on the parks & recreation commission.]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) talks with former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly.

Rabhi thanked Martinez-Kratz for advocating on this issue. Rabhi noted that his own personal interest in it stems from his background in environmental studies. He’s heard from people at the University of Michigan that they also have concerns about this project. Rabhi called Tetens’ letter well-stated, outlining many concerns that people share. It’s a community-wide issue, he said, not just isolated to the township. Lyndon Township is within Washtenaw County, and the county has a duty to take a stance on this – because the environment in the county is a countywide asset to all citizens. “We are doing the right thing by passing this resolution in opposition of the mining operations in Lyndon Township,” Rabhi said. It should be a concern for all of Washtenaw County.

Dan Smith countered that if the state wanted the county board to have control over land use, then the legislature could amend the zoning enabling act. In some states, land use is a county matter, he said. If that were the case, then the question of this mining operation would rightfully be before the county board, and it would make the determination.

The proper response, D. Smith continued, is in Tetens’ letter, where Tetens indicated the willingness of the parks & recreation commission to buy the property. It makes perfect sense for natural areas preservation, he said.

Martinez-Kratz thought the state would want the county board to advocate on issues that are important to the county. This issue is important for economic and environmental reasons, he said. It won’t be resolved quickly, and he thought that township officials would look for guidance from the county as well as from the township residents.

Outcome: The resolution passed. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present.”

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: The Vote – Coda

Kent Martinez-Kratz asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger for clarification about how Dan Smith’s vote would be recorded. The board rules state that a commissioner must vote yes or no unless there’s a conflict of interest, but Hedger noted that there’s no mechanism to enforce the rule.

Hedger said he did some research, because Smith had indicated that he would be making the “present” statement. It will be recorded that Smith stated “present,” Hedger said. But because it takes an affirmative vote to approve a resolution, then anything else is considered a “soft no.” Yousef Rabhi recommended making a note next to the vote, indicating that it’s not in keeping with the board rules.

Specifically, the board rules – as adopted unanimously by commissioners at their Jan. 8, 2014 meeting – state:

O.
 VOTING:

Every
 member
 who 
shall 
be 
present, 
including 
the
 Chair,
 when 
a 
motion 
is 
last 
stated 
by 
the
 Chair, 
and 
no 
other, 
shall 
vote 
for 
or 
against 
the
motion 
unless 
the 
member 
has 
a 
conflict 
of
 interest, 
in 
which 
case 
the 
member 
shall
 not 
vote.

1.
 Roll
 Call
 Vote:

Roll
 call
 vote
 shall 
be 
taken
 when 
called 
for 
by 
any
 member 
of 
the 
Board, 
and
 on 
board actions 
to 
adopt 
ordinances, 
resolutions
 and 
the
 appointment 
or 
election 
of 
officers.

2.
 Votes 
Required:

Procedural
 and
 other
 questions
 arising 
at
 a
 meeting 
of
 the 
Commissioners,
 except
 for
 those 
decisions
 required
 by 
statute
 or 
by 
these 
rules
(Specifically,
 Rule
 II
 F – Closing
 Debate
 in 
Committees 
and
 Rule
 III 
R – Suspension/
Amendment
 or 
Rescission
 of
 Board
 Rules) 
to 
have 
a 
higher
 majority, 
shall
 be 
decided 
by 
a 
majority 
of 
the 
members 
present.
 A 
majority 
of 
the 
members 
elected 
and 
serving, 
however, shall 
be
 required
 for 
the 
final
 passage 
or 
adoption
 of
 a 
motion,
 resolution 
or
 allowance 
of
 a 
claim.

Ronnie Peterson noted that commissioners are individually elected, and they can choose to vote or not vote. Every commissioner stands by their individual commitments to vote, he said. The resolution passed with majority support, he noted. The board establishes its practices and norms by example, Peterson said. Whatever the board finds acceptable is how it will function, regardless of what the official rules state, he added. “I don’t like that, but we’ve established that in the past.”

Appointments

At the board’s March 19 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) made nominations to six county committees, commissions and boards. [.pdf of application packet] Nominations are made by the board chair, with confirmation of the appointments made by a vote of the full board.

Appointments: Road Commission Board

Yousef Rabhi nominated former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014. Unlike most other county-appointed boards, road commissioners receive annual compensation of $10,500.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, a former road commissioner.

McFarlane was among 10 applicants for the position. Others who applied included former county commissioner Rob Turner; Mike Henry, chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party; and University Bank CEO Stephen Ranzini.

During the evening’s first opportunity for public commentary, Ken Schwartz – a former county commissioner, former road commissioner and current supervisor of Superior Township – spoke briefly in support of McFarlane’s appointment. He noted that McFarlane was very experienced in local government. McFarlane had served as Superior Township’s supervisor for 22 years and before that worked for the sheriff’s department. “Bill is more than qualified to step in,” Schwartz said. McFarlane has worked with municipal budgets, and understands the difference between primary roads and local roads. He’d be an excellent choice, Schwartz concluded.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was glad that McFarlane would be back working for the county. He described McFarlane as very bright and “super genial,” and as someone who is trusted by the communities that are impacted by decisions of the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) described McFarlane as a personal friend, and said there was no question about his integrity. He was pleased that McFarlane was willing to serve, and he supported the nomination.

However, Peterson said he was concerned about following proper procedures, and that the board hadn’t always done that. In the past, they’d gotten rid of a 24-year veteran on the road commission, Peterson said, “through a process that was very questionable.” [Peterson didn't mention any names, but was possibly referring to Steve Puuri, who retired as managing director of the road commission in 2011 after nearly 25 years.]

Following the rules and procedures is the only way that people know that something is being done in a fair, consistent way, he said. Peterson questioned why there hadn’t been public interviews of potential candidates to the road commission board.

Peterson also said he hadn’t yet heard about the recommendations regarding the future of the road commission, which a board subcommittee had undertaken. He wanted to have some discussion about that. If the nomination were anyone else besides McFarlane, Peterson said he might not vote for that person, because he didn’t think the process had been fair, clear or consistent.

Conan Smith responded, saying that candidates for the road commission in the past had been interviewed, but that hadn’t happened for at least seven years. The more recent appointments to the road commission hadn’t been made that way, he noted, and perhaps the board should return to its past practice. He said he knew how rough it was for the board chair to have to make the decision.

C. Smith noted that since the current appointment runs only through the end of 2014, there would be a chance soon to implement an interview process when the county board makes an appointment for the term that begins on Jan. 1, 2015. He thought it would be very valuable for the public to have input.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he supported McFarlane. He disagreed with Peterson and C. Smith, saying that citizens elected the county commissioners so that the commissioners would make decisions. It’s the board’s job to make these appointments, he said, not to set up an advisory committee to make recommendations. He thought the board was letting go of its authority, and letting residents decide “when they don’t know a third of the story.”

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that the road commission would be the topic of an April 17 working session, which he chairs. He suggested continuing discussion of the issue at that time. The working session will also include a report from the subcommittee that is making recommendations on the future of the road commission. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission.”]

Rabhi described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one. He appreciated the diversity of backgrounds among the applicants. He said he called all 10 applicants for 15-30 minutes or more, to talk about their interests and qualifications. “It was a very hard and stressful process for me.” McFarlane has the qualifications necessary to fill this vacancy, Rabhi said, and he was happy to put his name forward.

Rabhi said it would be great to find a way to engage all the applicants, who are passionate about roads and road funding. Perhaps there’s a way to do that in an ongoing basis, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board.

Noting that this might be extremely controversial, Rabhi then said the county needs a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. “This process highlighted that need” to expand, he said. With five members, the road commission would have more representation from more backgrounds and more parts of the community. That would result in a more productive dialogue than three commissioners can have, Rabhi said, especially given the restrictions of the state’s Open Meetings Act.

It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at the April 17 working session.

Rabhi said he’d love to hear about how the public interview process has worked in the past, noting that he wasn’t on the board when those kind of interviews occurred. He’d like to review that process, as long as it’s not taking away the decision-making from the board.

In this case, given the vacancy and the need for a full road commission board, a new commissioner needed to be appointed quickly, Rabhi said. He again stressed that he’d spent a lot of time talking to applicants as well as to fellow county commissioners, to get their input. He hoped the board would support McFarlane.

Sizemore wanted to know when the county board could change the pay of the road commissioners. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said it can’t be done during a road commissioner’s current term. It would have to be done and take effect at the beginning of the new term. Sizemore said that if the road commission board is expanded to five members, perhaps the salary should be reduced to $6,000 each. Hedger pointed out that there would be varying salaries for a period, because the terms for the road commissioners are staggered.

Peterson said he didn’t know where the idea of having a citizens advisory committee had come from, and emphasized that the appointments are made by the board. Whatever process is put in place should also be decided by the board, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously appointed Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson asked whether expanding the road commission to five members would actually mean dissolving the existing road commission and establishing a new one. He asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to research that question. He said he wasn’t advocating for it, and joked that he hoped people wouldn’t call him about it.

Yousef Rabhi also suggested that the board might consider designating positions on the road commission board based on specific skills – like community outreach, or technical expertise – so that there’s more diversity of background, especially if the road commission board is expanded to five members. It might even include geographic designations, he said. That might be something else that Hedger could explore.

In general, Rabhi said he wanted to move road commission appointments away from being political and more toward being policy-driven.

Appointments: Other Commissions & Committees

Yousef Rabhi made several other nominations on March 19:

• Accommodations ordinance commission, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).
• Agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Erica Bloom (environmental/conservation group/natural resources professional).
• Workforce development board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: John Haberthy (private sector) and Matthew Sandstrom (private sector).

In addition, five nominations were made to the Act 88 advisory committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014. Three county commissioners – Conan Smith (D-District 9), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were appointed, along with citizens Todd Clark and Art Serafinski.

Action on appointing the Act 88 advisory committee had been originally considered at the board’s Feb. 19, 2014 meeting. The item was postponed after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns over the policy governing the committee’s role. The committee had been created at the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, as part of a broader policy to help the board allocate revenues levied under Act 88 of 1913. No appointments had been made at that time, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf of March 19 staff memo on Act 88]

Outcome: All appointments were approved by the board.

Staff for Budget Work

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a proposal to hire a contract position that would support budget-related work for the county board and administration. The item had been originally considered, but postponed, at the board’s meeting on Feb. 5, 2014. It was subsequently given initial approval on March 5, 2014.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

This process started on Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, when commissioners gave direction to county administrator Verna McDaniel to research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities. As part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help it determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved.

The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

The dollar amount for this position wasn’t included in the resolution, which stated that “compensation shall not exceed the scope of the Administrator’s authority.” The administrator has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] A four-page job description had been included in the Feb. 5 board packet. The person would report to the county administrator in terms of daily operations. [.pdf of job description] [.pdf of scope of services]

The issue was debated at some length during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support. On Feb. 5, several commissioners expressed concern about spending money on this position and wanted more details about funding and duties, which led to the postponement. There was no discussion about the item on March 5, when it was given initial approval on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had been absent.

Staff for Budget Work: Board Discussion

On March 19, Ronnie Peterson asked for the item to be pulled out for a separate vote. He said he supported the staff position, but wanted to clarify some things. He joked that the chair, Yousef Rabhi, “took me to the back room, to make sure I did not waver.”

Peterson referred to the following “whereas” clause, highlighting a reference to the board leadership:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with Board Leadership to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Peterson said he wasn’t part of the board leadership, and he wanted to know how they perceived the role of this new employee. [The leadership includes board chair Yousef Rabhi; vice chair Alicia Ping; Felicia Brabec, chair of the ways & means committee; and Andy LaBarre, chair of the working sessions.] How would the communication flow from the leadership to the rest of the board? Peterson asked. He noted that the new staff person would be under the supervision of the county administrator, but would report to the board.

Felicia Brabec said that the “whereas” clause relates to hiring the person, and she encouraged all commissioners to be involved in that process. She was open to changing “board leadership” to simply “the board.”

Regarding the flow of information, Brabec said the person would regularly come to board meetings to update commissioners about the work. That way, commissioners would be on the same page when they needed to make decisions for the budget reaffirmation later this year, she said.

Rabhi supported an amendment to strike the phrase “to work with Board Leadership.” But Conan Smith said he thought the board should be involved in the hiring. Peterson agreed, saying the board should be very open about this hiring, and should let other employees know what this person will be doing. The role should be clearly defined, he said. Peterson agreed that the entire board should be involved, not just the leadership.

The proposed amendment changed the “whereas” clause to state [emphasis added]:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with the Board to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Outcome on amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners approved the amended “whereas” clause.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered whether in the future he should contact county administrator Verna McDaniel, or the new staff person that would be hired. He was skeptical about the need to hire someone new. “We’ve already got 1,300 employees, but you guys feel we need to hire somebody else to do Verna’s job, and Verna’s job is to tell somebody on her staff to get some work done.”

Sizemore also asked why there were no dollar amounts specified in the resolution for this new hire, or a timeframe for this work. Finally, he asked whether the county would also need to hire someone to implement the recommendations made by the new employee. He didn’t support the hire, saying that the county already had staff who could do this work.

Brabec and McDaniel clarified that the contract would likely be between $50,000 to $75,000, and would not exceed the amount that the county administrator is allowed to spend without board approval – a $100,000 limit. In terms of a timeframe, McDaniel said it would likely be a contract at least through 2014. The board would need to decide whether the work would continue beyond that, she said.

Sizemore noted that not long ago, the county was poised to borrow up to $350 million “because we were in such desperate straits,” but now there’s money to hire someone new. He would not support the resolution. [Sizemore was referring to a bond proposal that had been floated in early 2013 to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations. McDaniel had initially said the bond was crucial to the county's financial health, but the proposal was dropped in July of 2013 amid concerns over cost and process, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that was required for this type of bonding.]

Outcome: The resolution on hiring a contract employee for budget work passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Dan Smith was out of the room when the vote was taken, and Alicia Ping was absent.

Autism Coverage

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) brought forward a resolution from the floor, authorizing the county to provide health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. The resolution would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state. LaBarre described the amount of claims that the county might be required to pay as a “moving target, but one I think we can meet.” He said the policy is needed for employee recruitment and retention, as well as for the “basic moral argument” that coverage should be provided.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

The board has been discussing this possibility for several months. LaBarre noted that Conan Smith (D-District 9) had brought up the issue last fall, pointing out that the county didn’t provide full mental health parity. That was because of budgetary constraints, LaBarre said.

At its Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, the board received a staff presentation about the possibility of offering such coverage. Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, attended that meeting to answer questions and advocate for coverage. The board created a committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. Committee members were LaBarre, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). The committee’s charge was to (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

The federal Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 mandates that any group plan with 50 or more members – like Washtenaw County government – must offer both medical and mental health benefits. Under more recent federal health care reform, there’s been an expansion of benefits, and mental health benefits are considered a mandatory part of basic health care, starting this year. However, autism isn’t included as part of that mental health mandate.

On the state level, in October 2012 a state of Michigan mandate took effect stating that all fully insured plans must provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The county is not a fully insured plan, however. Because the county is self-funded, it was exempt from this state mandate.

The costs of treatment are estimated to be about $60,000 a year to cover a child with autism. The state of Michigan has made coverage a priority, and has started setting aside funds to reimburse organizations that provide coverage. In fiscal year 2012-13, $15 million was made available, with an additional $11 million in fiscal 2013-14. Of that, only about $500,000 has been expended on reimbursements. The program is handled by the Michigan Dept. of Insurance and Financial Services.

The state program provides for reimbursement of up to $50,000 per year per child between the ages of 0 to 6, up to $40,000 per year from ages 7-12, and up to $30,000 per year for ages 13-18.

County staff have estimated that offering the coverage would result in up to a 5% increase in medical expenses, or up to $1 million annually. This year, medical expenses are budgeted at about $20 million. The county is expected to be fully reimbursed by the state of Michigan for the amounts that are allowed under the autism program.

The resolution given initial approval on March 19 included two resolved clauses:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the implementation of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADS) rider to existing active and retiree as soon as feasibly possible through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, providing mental health and physical health parity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Washtenaw County commits to a review of claims paid and/or reimbursed on an annual basis as our individual experience is not yet known. Such review would occur prior to the annual review process with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to determine if such benefit (rider) would be continued in the next year of benefits.

Autism Coverage: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the committee and staff for their work. He asked Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, what percentage of costs the county could be expected to bear for this coverage.

Heidt described the annual payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield – of about $182,000 – as a kind of “permission slip” that would allow the county to offer the coverage. That amount will be pre-funded from the county’s medical fund reserves, and it will then be charged out to each county department based on the number of employees in each department – both general fund employees and non-general fund employees.

Employees that take advantage of the coverage would pay if there’s a deductible on their current insurance plan, or if there’s co-insurance, Heidt explained. The majority of employees pay 10% as co-insurance. She reminded the board that the administration is still negotiating with unions that represent about 300 employees at the sheriff’s office, so the benefits for those employees are different at this point.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The remainder of the claim would be paid by the county, with the expectation that the county would be reimbursed from the state, based on the age of the child that’s receiving treatment. The annual state reimbursement levels are $50,000 through age 6, $40,000 from ages 7-12, and $30,000 from ages 13-18.

Rabhi noted that Lansing is “a very dynamic place,” and he wondered what the impact would be if the state reimbursement program is eliminated. Heidt replied that currently about $25 million is available in the state reimbursement fund. The committee recommends that the county review the benefits and claims annually, to determine if the coverage would continue to be offered in the following year, Heidt said.

Rabhi noted that once the county offers a benefit, it’s hard to take that benefit away. If for some unforeseen reason there’s suddenly no money available from the state, he said, the county would need to evaluate if it’s a benefit that they can continue to pay for. But it’s hard to see the county removing that benefit, he said. Heidt stressed the importance of annually evaluating the county’s expenses, because at this point it’s unclear how many employees will take advantage of the coverage.

Rabhi supported offering coverage, but wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t a guarantee every year. He was concerned about what might happen if state funding disappeared, and what impact that would have on employees as well as on the county budget. He also noted that a lot of the county’s departments that get funding primarily from non-general fund sources are short on cash. What kind of burden will this coverage place on those departments? Heidt replied that of the $182,000 total, about $102,000 of that will be charged to non-general fund departments, based on the number of employees in each of those departments.

But this year, that $182,000 total would be pro-rated based on when the coverage begins, she noted – so that total amount will likely be only about $75,000 this year, since the coverage won’t be started until well into the year.

Rabhi said he wanted to be clear that the families who access this benefit aren’t a burden – that’s not what he meant. He was simply trying to understand the dollars that the county will be spending.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the $182,589 payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield, noting that it effectively doubles the cost of providing the coverage. He wondered what BCBS was doing with that money. Heidt replied that BCBS is charging that amount in anticipation of the claims that might be made. Based on whatever the county’s actual experience is with autism claims, that annual payment to BCBS might be less in the following year, she said. Smith asked what the dollars are used for within the insurance company. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that the basic understanding is that the money goes into an insurance pool, but beyond that, it’s not clear how it is allocated.

Smith said the issue of autism coverage didn’t arise because there’s state funding available for reimbursement. It came up because of the desire for mental health parity, and because many commissioners thought the county already provided autism coverage and were surprised when that wasn’t the case. Every other mental health issue is covered. Heidt noted that autism is the only mental health issue that doesn’t have coverage mandated by the state. Smith wondered how it’s possible that this relatively minor coverage is costing the equivalent of $15 per employee per month to add to the county’s health care costs. Heidt said it’s probably because there are so many unknowns.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Smith asked how the cost of the autism rider compares to other riders that the county has with BCBS. Heidt said it’s been a long time since the county added a new rider, so she didn’t have those costs broken out. Smith replied that he “loved the Blues” and has been covered by that entity his entire life. But he wanted some sort of explanation about how BCBS calculates the autism rider. Heidt said she’d talk to the county’s BCBS agent to get more information.

LaBarre agreed with Rabhi about the county needing to go into this with “our eyes wide open.” The county can leverage state funds now, but it’s not a given in the future. LaBarre noted that some commissioners wonder why this isn’t being done as part of the budget reaffirmation later this year. It’s not without risk in terms of cost, he said, but the merits of doing it as soon as possible make it worth supporting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he hoped the county never takes back the benefits offered to employees. They should figure out how to finance this benefit, regardless of state aid. It’s about making a commitment to employees who have made previous sacrifices, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was happy to move this item forward for an initial vote. But because of the budgetary impacts it has, and the fact that the county is barely three months into a four-year budget, he hoped that it would come back to the board for final approval not on April 2 but rather as part of the board’s budget reaffirmation process later in the year. At that time, they’d have a better handle on the county’s finances for the year and how the county could fund this benefit, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) thanked the staff for working on this issue, saying it was important to “right this wrong.” She agreed that it was important to figure out how to pay for the benefit if the state fund is eliminated, but it’s important to move this forward so that families who need this benefit can access it.

Brabec noted that Heidt is working on how families can get coverage for older children, from ages 18-26, who aren’t eligible for reimbursement from the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to offering autism coverage.

2013 Year-End Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the year-end financial update by telling commissioners that “I think you’ll be pleased.” [.pdf of financial update]

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered the report. She noted that the audit is still in progress so these are preliminary results. It’s unlikely that anything will change drastically, she added.

From left: Washtenaw County finance director Kelly Belknap and finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

The county had a projected general fund revenue surplus of $2.356 million for the year. Surpluses in several areas contributed to that result, including intergovernmental revenue ($1.3 million, primarily due to payments in state revenue-sharing), fees and service revenue from the county clerk/register of deeds office ($591,000), and the sheriff’s office ($495,000).

On the expenditure side, the county spent $1.564 million less than budgeted. The bulk of that comes from $1.338 million in personnel savings from attrition, position vacancies, and planned reductions. Over $1 million of that was in the sheriff’s office, Gavalier reported, where there are 25 vacancies.

The total year-end surplus for the general fund was $3.92 million. Total revenues were $105.797 million, with total expenses of $101.876 million.

Looking ahead, Gavalier noted that there are several areas to monitor, including child care fund expenditures that are rising due to caseload and placements. [The child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. Fifty percent of the fund comes from state dollars.]

Other issues to watch that could have a financial impact include fringe benefit projections and trends, personal property tax reform, the possible legislative repeal of Act 88, and state revenue-sharing/county incentive program payments. Regarding Act 88, Gavalier noted that the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy in 2014, to fund economic development and agricultural-related programs. “So if that’s repealed, there are some decisions that will need to be made,” she said.

Gavalier outlined the next steps for budget-related action that involves the board. The 2014 equalization report will be presented in April, along with a year‐end audit and financial statement. Quarterly budget updates for 2014 will occur in May, August and November. And this fall, the board will make a budget affirmation, with possible amendments to the remaining years of the four-year budget that was adopted in late 2013, for the period from 2014 through 2017.

McDaniel told the board that the county was recently notified that it’s receiving a national Alliance for Innovation award for its four-year budget. [Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel previously served on the board of that group, which is based in Phoenix.]

2013 Year-End Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Tina Gavalier for more details about the intergovernmental revenue line item. She replied that the surplus of about $1.3 million comes from combining federal, state and local government revenues going into the general fund. Most of that came from a $1.495 million surplus in state revenue-sharing. The county received $9,602,028 in state-revenue sharing in 2013, compared to the budgeted amount of $7,665,098. The $1.495 million surplus in state-revenue sharing was offset by a $238,046 shortfall in local government revenue.

The $1.495 million in state revenue-sharing reflects the first two payments for 2014 that were actually made in October and December of 2013. There will be six payments in total for 2014, including those two, she said, but the payments that were made in 2013 had to be recorded in that year. She described it as a “one-time windfall.”

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, pointed out that the state and county are on different fiscal years. The state’s fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The county uses a calendar year as its fiscal year. That difference resulted in the timing of the payments, she explained, and the way in which they are accounted for in the county’s budget.

Gavalier also noted that the state Dept. of Treasury issued a guidance letter (No. 2013-1) stating that revenue-sharing is no longer based on statewide sales tax revenue, but instead will be a state appropriation.

C. Smith asked that the upcoming steps in the budget schedule reflect a supplemental budget update in the May-June timeframe, to reflect the updated revenue projections that will be coming in the equalization report. The board would be looking to adjust the budget at that time, based on any revenue shortfall or surplus. When Gavalier replied that it would be part of the budget update in August, Smith stressed that it should happen earlier – in May or June.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

In an annual action to help the cash flow of local governments in Washtenaw County, the county board was asked to give initial authorization to county treasurer Catherine McClary to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary.

The estimated amount of delinquent taxes is lower than in recent years, possibly reflecting a recovering economy. Last year, the board authorized borrowing up to $40 million, and the treasurer’s office ended up actually borrowing much less.

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

Under the state’s General Property Tax Act, the county treasurer is required to collect delinquent taxes. Section 87 of the act allows the county to set up a revolving fund – which was done several decades ago – so that the county can borrow the estimated amount of delinquent taxes, then pay in advance to all the taxing jurisdictions the amount that they would have collected if there had been no delinquent payments.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) thanked McClary for making this happen, saying this was very helpful to the townships and other municipalities that can get all their taxes upfront and then settle up after properties are foreclosed.

McClary noted that foreclosures are going down, “which is very, very good news.” It also appears that there will be a slight drop in delinquent taxes, she said. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, so that’s also good news, McClary said. There’s also been a definitive drop in forfeitures, which is the step immediately preceding a foreclosure.

Last year, the county had authorized the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $40 million, but there ended up being only $21 million in delinquent taxes, McClary said. And only $16 million was borrowed, because there was a small reserve in the county’s tax revolving fund – about $4 million. So a small amount of self-funding is possible, she said, which saves the county money. Approximately 4% of what the treasurer’s office borrows represents either interest or fees. “So any time we can reduce the amount of delinquent tax borrowing, we’re doing a favor for the taxpayers,” McClary said.

She noted that the $4 million in the tax revolving fund is the result of a county board decision. Commissioners could decide to put that money into a capital projects fund or the county’s general fund, she said, but they’ve chosen to keep it as reserves. That helps the county when credit rating agencies make their evaluations, she said. It would help more if there were more money in those reserves, she added.

McClary noted that the county board recently approved a new way to pay off debt incurred from bonding, typically for public works projects in local municipalities. [At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board authorized the change to allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments while posing no financial risk to the county. At the same meeting, the board approved restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township, which owed $585,000 on $1.095 million in bonds issued in 2004 to fund a sewer system.]

The treasurer’s office agreed to loan Bridgewater Township money to pay off the bonds, with the township repaying the treasurer’s office at a lower interest rate than it was paying for the bond debt, which was averaging 4.1%. The interest rate that is being used to repay the treasurer’s office is slightly above the average weighted yield that the county was getting on its portfolio, McClary reported, “so it’s a very good deal for the county coffers as well.”

McClary also told the board that she’s been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner. That office has a lot of small bond issues for drain projects, in the range of $200,000 to $400,000. Depending on the size of the issue, they might be spending as much as half of any issue on fees and interest. If the $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund could be raised, she said, the county would gain more stability from the credit rating agencies and would be in a position to do more internal loans. She said she hasn’t yet made a formal proposal about that, but that’s where she’s headed.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the authorization, with a final vote expected on April 2.

Treasurer’s Report

County treasurer Catherine McClary gave a report on investments in 2013. [.pdf of 2013 treasurer's report] [.pdf of 2012 treasurer's report]

Investment earnings were $637,866 for the year. That compares with $755,681 in 2012. Fees and interest on delinquent taxes totaled $3.72 million in 2013, compared to $5.046 million in 2012. Fees for dog licenses were $62,718 last year, up from $59,748 in 2012. And income from tax searches was $23,052 compared to $31,760 in 2012.

Chart showing three-year historical comparison of Washtenaw County investments.

Total cash and investments reported as of December 2013 was $145.226 million, down from $156.081 million at the end of 2012. The 2012 figure included $4.67 million in funds related to the county accommodations tax, which at that time was administered by the treasurer’s office. In October 2012, the board approved an ordinance change that shifted control over administering and enforcing Washtenaw County’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

McClary noted that the average weighted yield of the county’s investments was 0.476% in 2013, compared to the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.07%.

McClary highlighted three other items during her remarks to the board. The social workers in her office – who work with residents with delinquent taxes – have been certified by the state Dept. of Human Services to do intakes for residents in a range of programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Her office is also participating in the Step Forward Michigan program, which uses federal mortgage prevention funds to also prevent tax foreclosure. It’s the only state in the country to do that, she said.

Finally, McClary reported that property assessments are increasing. She told commissioners that she had prepared a brochure for residents about how to appeal their assessments.

Resolution of Appreciation for Pat Kelly

The March 19 agenda included a resolution of appreciation for former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly. [.pdf of resolution]

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District8) began by wishing Kelly a happy birthday.

Rabhi noted that Kelly had stepped down from her role as Dexter Township supervisor, after serving in that role for 12 years. He said he had served on many boards and committees with her, and knows that she’s someone who cares about all residents of Washtenaw County. He read aloud the resolution, which highlighted Kelly’s work on the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, the Washtenaw County Transit Master Plan, Washtenaw County Police Services Steering Committee, and several other public entities.

The resolution also noted that Kelly “led Dexter Township’s response to a devastating tornado in 2012 and worked tirelessly and diligently to establish communication channels with affected residents, safely coordinate volunteer efforts to aid in the massive clean-up, and, with significant and important assistance from the County and Road Commission, supported and led township efforts to remove debris and fallen trees from private property at little or no cost to residents…”

Kelly was visibly emotional when she responded, saying she was touched by the recognition. Almost two years ago, she said, she’d stood at the same podium and thanked commissioners for helping her community after the 2012 tornado. “It’s been a good partnership,” she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) praised Kelly’s negotiating skills in representing her township as well as the entire county. When he first was elected, Smith said, the tension between the county and townships over police service contracts, provided through the sheriff’s office, seemed insurmountable. “It seemed like we were going to be at war for a generation,” he said. At one of his most frustrating moments during his first term, Smith recalled, Kelly called him and “very gently explained the interests that your colleagues in the townships had and concerns in a way that just opened my eyes to the possibility of a real partnership.” The county could not have reached a resolution without Kelly’s leadership on that issue, he said. “You’ve been a calming force in huge turmoil, and a passionate deliverer of messages without creating conflict in that process.”

Smith said he knew the county would find some way to keep her deeply engaged with policy work and community leadership.

Outcome: The board unanimously passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist

Lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc. gave a presentation to the board about action in the state government that might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor.

The state budget is actually in good shape, Profit said, with about $52 billion in expenditures and a surplus of about $970 million. He commended the state legislators who represent districts in Washtenaw County, saying that they represent the local interests very well, even though they’re in the minority, as Democrats. He said it was great to have the state Senate majority leader representing part of Washtenaw County as well. [Sen. Randy Richardville, a Republican, represents District 17, which includes six southern and central townships in the county, and the city of Saline.]

Kirk Profit, a paid state lobbyist for Washtenaw County, and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Revenue sharing is moving in the right direction, Profit said. This year the county will get about $5.5 million, and he expected the county would get about $6.9 million in 2015. The state doesn’t have a good track record in terms of the county’s ability to count on state revenue-sharing, he said. It’s good to understand that going forward.

He noted that the personal property tax referendum will be on the ballot in August of 2014. [The tax is being phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for Aug. 5, 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources.]

Eliminating the PPT removes about $576 million statewide, which primarily are revenues that fund local municipalities. The voter referendum would authorize a use tax to be collected by a new Michigan Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan Authority, which would distribute the funding by statute.

Profit noted that TIF (tax increment finance) capture is “hot” in Lansing right now. State Rep. Eileen Kowall has drafted legislation that addresses several issues related to TIF, including the ability to opt out, resetting the base for TIF capture, and sunset clauses. “It’s going to receive a lot of attention and a lot of dialogue,” Profit said, but it wasn’t clear whether it will pass.

While noting that the state budget is in great shape, Profit said there are also some areas that have holes, including health care funding, education and roads. Some legislators would prefer to give the entire surplus back to taxpayers as refunds, he noted. Profit said he wasn’t sure how these issues will be resolved, but the legislature will be addressing these matters over the next 60-90 days.

The legislature recently approved about $215 million in supplemental funding for roads, which will bring about $1 million to Washtenaw County, Profit said. The city of Ann Arbor will get about $450,000. Other cities and villages will get much less, he said. Profit praised Gov. Rick Snyder, saying that Snyder is “right there on roads” and had demanded that the legislature produce funding for roads.

The southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), which includes Washtenaw County, received close to $2 million for operating expenses to fund it until an anticipated millage vote in 2016, Profit said.

Profit told the board that Act 88 is under some attack, with legislation introduced that would repeal it. [The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax was enacted in 1913, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county currently levies 0.07 mills under Act 88.]

Profit said that GCSI’s Gary Owen was working aggressively to make sure legislators understand the significance of Act 88 funding for Washtenaw County. Profit said the target of the repeal legislation is Gratiot County.

The state’s supplemental budget included $750,000 for indigent defense, and Profit credited Washtenaw County public defender Lloyd Powell for successfully advocating for that funding.

Collective bargaining continues to draw a lot of attention in Lansing, Profit said. He also noted that GCSI is working with judge Donald Shelton and Dan Dwyer, court administrator of the Washtenaw Trial Court, on implementing e-filing statewide.

Breastfeeding in public is another issue that GCSI is following, Profit said. He noted that state Sen. Rebekah Warren introduced legislation that was passed in the Senate to guarantee a woman’s right to breastfeed in public places.

Profit also mentioned interest at the state level regarding the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act. Pending legislation “would dramatically limit your ability recoup costs that you might incur for FOIA responses, and also perhaps to dramatically limit your ability to have certain protected conversations from open meetings requirements.” Profit said GCSI would work closely with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger on that.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Profit highlighted an increase in state arts funding from $2 million to $10 million, which translates into about $590,000 coming to Washtenaw County for a variety of arts organizations.

Gary Owen of GCSI said he’d been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, regarding action at the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) that will affect the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane cleanup in Washtenaw County. The MDEQ is updating its cleanup standards, and Mike Gebhard has been participating in that process and is on the MDEQ’s toxicity committee. Gebhard is a former environmental analyst/hydrogeologist with Washtenaw County who now works for the county’s information technology department.

The MDEQ will make a recommendation to the state’s Office of Regulatory Reinvention in July, which will include the new standards, Owen said, but those recommendations will be known before then. “It will most likely be a drastic difference than what it is today, but the process will determine that,” he said.

Regarding the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund, Owen cited the county’s success in getting grants in the past few years. He credited Bob Tetens, director of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, with that success, which Owen said is probably unparalleled across the state. Owen cited several grants, including $300,000 for the Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti, $300,000 for the Ann Arbor skatepark, and over $1 million for the acquisition of 54 acres near Domino’s Farms.

Regarding the possible repeal of Act 88, Owen said GCSI is working to make sure that Washtenaw County’s interests are addressed.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said the comments regarding Act 88 are “misplaced.” It’s not about what the money is spent on in Washtenaw County, he said. “It’s about how the money is collected, and what the law says that money can be spent on.” In his opinion, Smith said, the Washtenaw County board hasn’t done its proper due diligence, “despite my repeated requests.”

Regarding roads, D. Smith noted that legislation has been introduced to repeal the sunset clause on the ability of a county board of commissioners to absorb the duties and responsibilities of a road commission. He asked for a prognosis of that bill. Kirk Profit replied that the outcome is hard to read. GCSI will continue to watch it, but Profit didn’t think legislators had made up their mind yet.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

D. Smith noted that a subcommittee of the board had recently finished a process regarding what the county would do, but the recommendation hadn’t yet been brought forward to the full board. A working session on that is scheduled for April 17. But Smith’s take on the bill is that it would provide the board with a lot of tools, while forcing the board to dramatically alter things right now. It would be productive to have a longer time to discuss how to best manage this critical transportation infrastructure, he said, noting that it’s not something that can quickly be decided. People are very resistant to change, Smith said, and need more time to work on it. He hoped the legislature would repeal the sunset clause.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed with Dan Smith on the road commission issue. Removing the sunset wouldn’t mean that the county would get rid of the road commission, he said. Statewide, not many counties have taken advantage of the current ability to do that. But he hoped that option would be made available for a longer period.

Regarding Act 88, C. Smith said he had a different perspective from Dan Smith. But he thought they might agree on the fact that Act 88 is just one response that the county has to a “broken municipal finance system.” The state took millions of dollars of state revenue-sharing away from the county over the past several years. If that hadn’t happened, he said, perhaps the county wouldn’t be scraping to find other revenue sources.

C. Smith said he understood why some people want to repeal Act 88, but they should be beating the bigger drum of fixing the system. Lots of cities are on the cusp of financial insolvency, he noted, so he’d advocate not to mess with Act 88 until this bigger problem is fixed.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed C. Smith’s sentiments on Act 88. The county needs tools to address the needs of citizens, Rabhi said, “and right now the state is just tying our hands.” Personal property tax repeal is another example, he said. Rabhi said that Act 88 funding works and benefits the community, and he didn’t think legislators understood that.

Urban County Plan Public Hearing

The March 19 meeting included a public hearing to give input for the Washtenaw Urban County 2014-15 action plan. The hearing was set to solicit feedback about proposed projects and programs that the county intends to implement with federal funding – through community development block grant (CDBG), HOME and emergency shelter grant programs – from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of action plan]

Computer screen: Notes being taken by Brett Lenart of the county’s office of community & economic development during a public hearing on the Urban County action plan.

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during the public hearing. He said the Urban County organization is isolated, like many county organizations. Meetings are held at locations outside of Ann Arbor and aren’t televised on the Community Television Network, he said. The body should be very prominent, Partridge said, because it gets funding for affordable housing. But that funding is under attack, he noted, and more financing from the private sector is needed. Homelessness can’t be eliminated without more attention to this issue.

Thompson Block Brownfield Public Hearing

The board agenda included a resolution to set a public hearing for input on the brownfield development plan of the Thompson Block redevelopment in Ypsilanti. The street addresses for the block are 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St. The hearing will be held at the county boardroom in downtown Ann Arbor, 220 N. Main, during the April 2 meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m. [.pdf of staff memo]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set the public hearing, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Communications & Commentary

During the March 19 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Regional Transit Authority

Jim Casha spoke about the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). He lives in Canada, and noted that Ann Arbor reminds him of Canada – “except for the roads.”

He’d attended the recent Michigan senate transportation committee hearings in Lansing, and listened to the RTA board chair, Paul Hillegonds, ask for more money for that organization. He also attended the transportation appropriations committee meeting and heard Amtrak’s presentation about service between Chicago and Detroit, through Ann Arbor.

From left: Jim Casha and county commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Casha said he’s still confused about why the RTA board isn’t making a fight for the 163-acre state fairgrounds. He’d just attended the RTA board meeting, and he thought that RTA board members are confused as well. One of the big supporters of the state legislation that created the RTA, state Sen. John Pappageorge, is a “military guy,” Casha said. “He understands that it’s always cheaper to hold what you have than to retake what you’ve lost – and there’s no reason to give up the fairgrounds.” Even if the fairgrounds turns out not to be a great property to own, though Casha said he thought it was, there’s no reason to give it up now. “We should retain it and evaluate it,” he said.

The situation is rather perilous, Casha said. He reported that Hillegonds had been surprised by the lack of knowledge that state legislators had regarding the RTA. Casha found that the same thing was true with the state fairgrounds. They pass legislation in Lansing, but then don’t keep up with its impact, he said.

Casha asked commissioners to talk with the state legislators and with Washtenaw County’s representatives on the RTA board to keep people informed about what’s happening. [The two RTA representatives from Washtenaw County, who were appointed by the county board, are Liz Gerber and Alma Wheeler Smith, the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith.] Legislators are making some serious mistakes that could seriously impact the ability to have a regional transportation system, Casha said.

Later in the meeting Casha spoke again. At the recent transportation appropriations committee meeting, the RTA presented documentation showing that state legislation allows for the RTA to generate revenue from the sale, exchange, mortgage, lease or other disposition of property acquired by the authority, he said. So his question was: Why doesn’t the RTA take advantage of it? One reason is that the RTA has been misled by people in the governor’s office, Casha contended. There was misinformation, he said, and the state fairgrounds was transferred to private individuals. “It’s definitely not a done deal yet,” Casha said. There are ways out of any legal contract, he added.

Casha noted that the Michigan Land Bank has a new director, “and maybe she has a different opinion of what the land bank’s done so far with this land.” The state owes it to the people in the four-county RTA district to look after their interests in this matter.

Communications & Commentary: Roads in Manchester

Allison Tucker of Manchester, who had spoken to the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting about the GED (general education diploma), began by reporting that the Washtenaw Community College’s adult transitions program recently secured $3,000 in funding. It reinstated her faith that one person can make a difference. But she was there that night to talk about the condition of roads in Manchester. She had hoped to address commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes Manchester, but noted that Ping was absent. There are a lot of potholes, and many of them are deep, Tucker said. The situation could kill someone, she said. For smaller communities, it’s difficult to have funding for plowing and salting the roads, she noted. Tucker hoped that the county could help, so that someone like her who travels to class wouldn’t face that problem.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge addressed the board during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged commissioners to come up with a fundamentally sustainable agenda for county government, with top priorities of eliminating homelessness, funding affordable housing and countywide public transportation, and supporting human rights. He said Washtenaw County has a programmed way of doing business that leaves out a substantial number of residents in making decisions about these issues.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Site plan for Staebler Farm.

Commissioners approved an application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund for a grant to help develop Staebler Farm for recreational use. WCPARC has owned the 98-acre property in Superior Township since 2001, and Donald Staebler – who is 103 years old – still lives there in a lifetime agreement with WCPARC. The plan calls for adding fishing piers to the property’s two ponds, as well as putting in a trail system and other features. A second phase might involve developing a farm incubator program.

Commissioners also awarded $600,000 in grants through WCPARC’s Connecting Communities program, which supports trail projects throughout the county. Grants were given to projects in Ann Arbor Township, Northfield Township, Pittsfield Township, and the village of Manchester.

In non-voting business, WCPARC director Bob Tetens gave an update on the east county recreation center, a proposed partnership between the city of Ypsilanti and WCPARC in which the city would supply the property and WCPARC would provide the building. The center would be located on part of the 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area. Tetens said they’ve been working with the city of Ypsilanti on a development agreement.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber and city councilmember Pete Murdock both spoke to the commission about Water Street during public commentary. Schreiber told commissioners that he wasn’t aware of any “show-stopping” issues. He also gave an update on Water Street Flats, an apartment project that’s planned for the site. The complex would be rental apartments for residents with between 50-90% of area median income.

In other action, commissioners approved about $500,000 for repairs at the Rolling Hills water park, and were briefed on several financial reports and project updates.

An issue that had been raised during public commentary at the Feb. 11, 2014 meeting emerged again on March 11: How should deer overpopulation be managed? Two residents – Maurita Holland and Barb Lucas – urged commissioners to play a role in dealing with the issue, which is affecting WCPARC parks and preserves. “We know there’s a lot of political fallout and a lot of education that needs to be done,” Holland said. She reported that a new group has formed – Washtenaw County for Ecological Balance. Members of WCEB include Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County’s clerk/register of deeds, and Chris Graham, who serves on Ann Arbor’s environmental commission.

Commissioners discussed the issue at length. Jan Anschuetz advocated for a cautious approach, noting that it’s a complex problem that needs to be addressed by multiple entities, not just WCPARC. She also expressed concern that action by WCPARC could affect the 10-year renewal of the operations millage that WCPARC expects to be put on the November 2014 ballot. “If we do something that displeases our public, we will not have a millage and will not have a parks commission and we will not have a preserve,” she said.

Janis Bobrin noted that in this community, “If we start talking about killing anything, there are people who will just not hear anything after that.” There’s the actual management of the problem, she said, but also a major education piece that’s needed. “How do we begin to get a dialogue that isn’t one camp against another? That would seem to be a productive first step.”

Tetens told commissioners that WCPARC has applied for a $29,960 grant through the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources wildlife habitat grant program. Those funds would allow WCPARC to quantify the deer impact on county parks and preserves more precisely. Everyone agrees that the growing deer population is a problem, Tetens said, but “nobody can solve it on their own.”

Commissioners also authorized Tetens to draft a letter opposing a proposed sand and gravel mine that McCoig Materials wants to start in Lyndon Township, on 189 acres north of Chelsea on M-52. The rural site is located near several parks and nature areas, including Waterloo State Recreation Area, the Pinckney State Recreation Area, Park Lyndon, the Green Lake Camping area, and the Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail. WCPARC has been interested in buying the property for at least two decades, and is hoping to work with the current landowner to add the site to the county’s nature preserves, rather than being mined.

The March 11 meeting began with a moment of silence for Fred Veigel, a long-time parks & recreation commissioner who represented the road commission on WCPARC. He died on March 2. Commissioners also passed a resolution of appreciation for his work. A replacement to WCPARC will be appointed from one of the current three road commissioners: Barb Fuller, Doug Fuller or Bill McFarlane.

Staebler Farm

The meeting included two items related to a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund grant application for Staebler Farm: a public hearing, and a presentation to commissioners about the project.

Coy Vaughn, WCPARC’s deputy director, told commissioners that this is a resubmission of an application that was originally made in 2013. Feedback from the state was that the original project emphasis was weighted too much toward preservation, education and agriculture, and not enough toward recreation. So WCPARC withdrew the application, modified it, and is resubmitting for the current grant cycle. “We’re confident that we have a much stronger application,” Vaughn said. [.pdf of staff memo]

By way of background, commissioners had approved the 2013 grant application at their March 12, 2013 meeting. The public hearing at that time had drawn four nearby property owners who raised concerns about trespassing. No one spoke at the public hearing on March 11.

First phase of the master plan for Staebler Farm.

The $300,000 grant would help a master plan for the Staebler Farm County Park. The 98-acre property, which straddles Plymouth Road in Superior Township, had been a family farm for nearly a century. WCPARC has owned the property since 2001, but Don Staebler – who is 103 years old – still resides there under a lifetime agreement with WCPARC. A farmer also raises hay on several acres south of Plymouth Road. Fleming Creek runs through the property, and it has frontage on Frains and Murray lakes. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks: Options for Staebler Farm."]

The acreage on the south side of Plymouth Road, where Staebler lives and which is still being farmed – will be part of a second phase, Vaughn explained. So the initial phase to develop for recreational use will focus on the north side of Plymouth. There are two ponds that were created as a result of the construction of M-14. There’s a demand for fishing from the public, he said, so the application is proposing a parking lot, a trail system with a pavilion and restroom, some improvements to Fleming Creek, and fishing piers in each pond. Vaughn noted that fishing piers receive extra points on the trust fund applications.

Eventually, the site will provide a learning center to teach the history of farming, including sustainable farming practices that are currently used. “We don’t want this to just be a farm theme park,” Vaughn said. “We want it to be an active farm.”

The total project is expected to cost about $700,000. WCPARC is asking for the maximum amount from the trust fund – $300,o00 – with the remainder coming from a $400,000 WCPARC match.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked if WCPARC would need to find a way to let people cross Plymouth Road. Vaughn said they hoped to discourage that, so the design will reflect that. Fences will be installed on both sides of the road, for example.

Sizemore then said he’d gone out to talk with Staebler recently, and had gotten the impression that Staebler was worried about upkeep on the property. “It’s the county’s building now, but it’s not up to our standards,” he said. He suggested spending $5,000 or $6,000 to clean it up and add gravel to the driveway. Sizemore also suggested organizing a volunteer day to help with the cleanup.

Vaughn replied that Staebler and his family have been part of the design process. Jan Anschuetz noted that a video interview of Staebler is posted online.

Dan Ezekiel, the newest WCPARC member and former chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

Evan Pratt clarified with Vaughn that revisions to the plan are still in line with what WCPARC wants to accomplish. Vaughn noted that Superior Township has also seen the new plans and is supportive. Pratt then asked if a farm management plan would be developed for the site, for the portion of the site that is being actively farmed. WCPARC director Bob Tetens said the tricky thing is that not a lot can be done while Staebler lives on the property. However, WCPARC has talked with Michigan State University about the possibility of a farm incubator program, Tetens said, as well as with the Veterans Affairs hospital about a possible program for veterans who are receiving treatment.

Dan Ezekiel noted that there’s a lot of pent-up demand for fishing, so he was glad to see the fishing piers as part of the project. He also supported the idea of a farm incubator. Pointing to the dramatic decrease in the butterfly population, Ezekiel wondered whether this project could incorporate habitat for butterflies – particularly the Monarch – into the pasture and meadow areas. Other commissioners and staff supported his suggestion.

Janis Bobrin clarified with Tetens that the fishing piers would be accessible to those with disabilities. Tetens replied that the plan’s goal is for universal accessibility throughout the site.

Jan Anschuetz noted that the County Farm Park’s playground has a farm theme, and she wondered if the playground on the Staebler Farm would also have that theme. “Everything we do out there is going to have a farm theme,” Tetens replied.

Sizemore asked if the project would include a petting zoo. It won’t, Tetens replied. Anschuetz noted the proximity to Domino’s Farms, which has a petting farm, and said WCPARC wouldn’t want to compete with a private enterprise.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved applying for the MDNR trust fund grant for Staebler Farm.

Connecting Communities Grants

At WCPARC’s Feb. 11, 2014 meeting, commissioners had reviewed applications for this year’s cycle of Connecting Communities grants, which covered six proposed projects. Staff made recommendations for commissioners to review and approve on March 11. [.pdf of February staff memo] [.pdf of applications] [.pdf of March staff memo with recommendations]

Coy Vaughn, WCPARC deputy director.

By way of background, in May 2009 WCPARC authorized the Connecting Communities initiative. The program makes up to $600,000 available annually from 2010 through 2014 – a total of $3 million – toward the cost of eligible trail projects. According to a staff memo, “eligible projects will be those that accomplish the Commission’s primary objective of providing valuable non-motorized connections between communities and activity centers, offering a healthy alternative for recreation, transportation, fitness, and energy conservation.” Grant recipients have two years to fulfill any contingencies, such as acquiring grants from other organizations.

As an example, the city of Ann Arbor was granted $300,000 in 2013 (of total cost of $1 million) for 1,500 feet of trail, part of a project for the “development of pathways, storm water features to improve the quality of Allen Creek … on property which will serve as a trailhead for the proposed Allen Creek Greenway.” The site includes city property at 721 N. Main. Paths would connect Felch Street to both North Main and west Summit Street. The proposal stated that the city would also apply for a match from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund (MDNRTF), and that the city would consider using the adopt-a-park program to help maintain the facility. The grant required success with the MDNRTF, but the city’s application in 2013 failed. The city has another year to try again.

WCPARC developed criteria for selecting projects, which include 10 primary considerations. Among those considerations are projects that provide important links between communities, parks and other points of interest, that are adjacent to waterways, or that are major multi-jurisdictional efforts. There are 14 types of projects that generally are not eligible, such as trails solely within existing local parks.

Applicants must document a compelling need for a project. Six criteria that are used to evaluate the projects. For example, projects are evaluated based on whether they directly relate to the county’s important natural features, such as a river. The Huron River corridor is WCPARC’s highest priority. Five secondary criteria – such as land availability, or the likelihood of funding from other sources – are then applied to high-ranking projects.

The process for selecting projects to be funded involves a staff review of the applications. The projects are then presented to the Greenways Advisory Committee, which provides input that staff uses to prioritize the applications and make recommendations to WCPARC for final approval.

Connecting Communities: Applications & Staff Recommendations – Ann Arbor Township

Ann Arbor Township applied for $300,000. The total project cost is $1.2 million for two miles of pedestrian and bicycle trail connecting Parker Mill and Plymouth Road along Dixboro Road, to connect to the Parker Mill trail at Geddes and Dixboro on the south, and the proposed trail from Plymouth/Dixboro to Main Street/Cherry Hill on the north.

Evan Pratt, county water resources commissioner, and Patricia Scribner, Pittsfield Township treasurer. They both serve on the county parks & recreation commission.

The application states that other confirmed project funders include $600,000 in private donor matching funds. Potential project funders include the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund, the Washtenaw County road commission, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation alternatives program, and additional private donors. It’s part of a broader project that WCPARC has taken the lead on, hoping to build partnerships with the township and the University of Michigan to create a north-south Border-to-Border trail connection. The township has received no previous grants from the Connecting Communities program.

Dan Smith noted that he had attended a forum the previous night hosted by Ann Arbor Township about non-motorized pathways. He’d talked with some residents who live on Geddes Road, as well as someone from Pittsfield Township who rides mountain bikes in that area. Smith said he’d been taken aback because these people weren’t too keen about the trail project. The residents were concerned about increased traffic and parking. Parker Mill is already a popular destination. And the mountain biker prefers natural trails over engineered trails, Smith said. “You can’t make everybody happy, he said, adding that he fully supported this project.

WCPARC director Bob Tetens said they try to make the trails accessible to the broadest possible number of people. Last year, he noted, a cyclist had been hit along that section of road, so a non-motorized trail is needed in that area.

Evan Pratt clarified with staff that Ann Arbor Township had never received an MDNR trust fund grant. He suggested that WCPARC staff help out with the application. Tetens said that the staff works with all of the entities that apply for trust fund grants, when WCPARC is offering matching funds. Pratt said he knew that applications including regional trails score higher.

Responding to a query from Bob Marans, Vaughn indicated that the township hadn’t completed its design of the trails yet, but that WCPARC will be involved in that process.

Jan Anschuetz noted that the broader project has been on WCPARC’s “dream list” for more than 20 years, and they’ve put a lot of energy into it. “My poor husband has become a very old man – I don’t know if he’ll be able to walk this trail,” she quipped.

Tetens noted that the university hasn’t always been interested in providing trail connections in its property, which includes the Matthaei Botanical Gardens. But there are some new people who want to make it happen now, he said.

Staff recommendation: $250,000.

Connecting Communities: Applications & Staff Recommendations – Village of Manchester

The village of Manchester applied for $150,000 (of $225,000 total cost) to improve an existing rail bed owned by the village into a walking/biking trail traversing the entire community and linking several parks, businesses, schools, and neighborhoods, ending at the county’s Leonard Preserve.

The Chelsea Area Wellness Foundation will provide $100,000, and the Kiwanis Club of Manchester another $2,000. Potential additional funders include community fundraising and private donations; and grants such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21); Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and Surface Transportation Program (STP), which are both programs of the Federal Highway Administration in the federal Dept. of Transportation; and the Rails to Trails Conservancy.

The village had previously been awarded $150,000 from the Connecting Communities program in 2011, which it planned to use as matching funds for a Michigan Dept of Natural Resources trust fund grant. However, it decided not to apply for that grant, so the WCPARC funds weren’t awarded. The village now intends to apply for the state grant this year. WCPARC considers this a renewal of the previous 2011 grant, so the money won’t come from the $600,000 in Connecting Communities funds that are available this year.

Staff recommendation: $150,000 (renewal).

Connecting Communities: Applications & Staff Recommendations – Northfield Township

Northfield Township applied for $260,000 (of $600,000 total cost) for 2,925 feet of trail along Barker Road in Whitmore Lake, connecting Whitmore Lake’s downtown with the Northfield Township Library and Whitmore Lake Elementary School. This is the third phase of a project that received $120,000 in 2010 and $250,000 in 2011 from the Connecting Communities program.

Other confirmed project funders are $60,000 from Northfield Township, $60,000 from the Whitmore Lake Downtown Development Authority, $1,000 from the Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce, and $1,000 from the Kiwanis.

Staff recommendation: $250,000.

Connecting Communities: Applications & Staff Recommendations – Pittsfield Township

Pittsfield Township applied for $400,000 (of total cost of $1.9 million) for 1.8 miles of trail, phase 2 of the Lohr-Textile greenway, extending it east from the corner of Lohr and Textile, on Textile, to the Marshview Meadow Park and the Pittsfield Preserve.

Grants from WCPARC’s Connecting Communities project to the township were $300,000 in 2010; $290,000 in 2011; and $150,000 in 2013. Those 2013 funds were intended as matching funds for a MDNR trust fund grant, which the township did not secure.

Confirmed funding is from Pittsfield Township (up to $400,000); and MDOT/SEMCOG through the federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) program ($1,064,708).

Bob Tetens noted that this project is compatible with the township’s State Road corridor improvement authority project. Coy Vaughn pointed out that Pittsfield Township has received more money from Connecting Communities and other WCPARC sources than other communities, but the township has been successful in completing its projects and in leveraging WCPARC’s money to secure other funds.

Staff recommendations: $250,000 as matching funds for the TAP grant. (Includes $100,000 in new Connecting Community funds, and renewal of the $150,000 from 2013.)

Connecting Communities: Applications & Staff Recommendations – Ypsilanti Township

Ypsilanti Township applied for $240,000 for two projects totaling 3,032 feet (total cost of $240,000). One project (2,032 feet) would run along the east side of Tuttle Hill Road from Textile Road north across South Huron River Drive and into Ford Lake Park. The other (1,000 feet) would run on the south side of Textile from just east of South Huron River Drive to the entrance of Lakeview mobile homes.

The township received WCPARC funding for trail projects in 2010, 2011 and 2013.

Bob Tetens noted that one of the criteria for new Connecting Communities funding is that any previously funded project must be completed. The township is still working on finishing the trail that was funded by WCPARC in 2013, he said.

Staff recommendation: No funding for this cycle.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved all staff recommendations for Connecting Communities grants.

Connecting Communities: Next Steps

Bob Marans noted that this is the last year of the five-year Connecting Communities program. He wondered if WCPARC staff was going to recommend continuing it. “There’s always that option,” Bob Tetens replied.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) also serve on WCPARC.

Tetens told commissioners that the program has been extremely popular. In surveys of county residents, trails and open space typically rate the highest in terms of support. The Connecting Communities program was developed because WCPARC was receiving a lot of requests from local communities for help with trail projects, and it was difficult to objectively evaluate each project when there weren’t other projects to compare against.

Every year, requests are typically double the amount of available funding, Tetens said. In looking ahead, WCPARC staff had looked at using the funds that would be available after the end of the Connecting Communities program to instead fund debt payments from the proposed east county recreation center, if WCPARC decides to bond for that project. But given the popularity of Connecting Communities, Tetens said, the staff will likely propose keeping some version of it – assuming that the WCPARC operations millage is renewed by voters.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. jokingly asked if some of the money can be used to repair roads. Tetens noted that WCPARC has funded some road shoulder projects, in partnership with the road commission. WCPARC is usually involved in any significant trail project in the county, Tetens said. Much of that is through the Border-to-Border Trail project. In addition to projects in the Connecting Communities program, other trail projects are in the works for North Territorial, and an effort to connect Dexter and Chelsea, among others.

Dan Smith clarified that Tetens anticipates continuing Connecting Communities, but it’s contingent on the millage renewal. That’s right, Tetens replied. “It would be hard to do it if we don’t have that assured cash flow.”

Eastern County Recreation Center

WCPARC director Bob Tetens gave an update on the east county recreation center, a proposed partnership between the city of Ypsilanti and WCPARC in which the city would supply the property and WCPARC would provide the building. The Ann Arbor Y would then contract with WCPARC to manage the center, which would be located on part of the 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage from WCPARC's Dec. 10, 2013 meeting.]

Tetens said they’ve been working with the city of Ypsilanti on a development agreement. “There are some terms that we’re not fully comfortable with, and I think the city probably has the same feeling,” he said. WCPARC staff have met with attorneys several times to review the agreement, and work on that continues. He thought he’d have a better sense of how it was progressing at the commission’s April meeting.

Paul Schreiber, mayor of Ypsilanti, told commissioners that he wasn’t aware of any “show-stopping” issues.

Earlier in the meeting, Schreiber had spoken during public commentary to update WCPARC on actions by the city of Ypsilanti that affect the rec center. The previous week, on March 4, the Ypsilanti city council approved a purchase agreement for Water Street Flats, a development with 90 residential units. He thought it was something that’s good for the city.

Paul Schreiber, mayor of Ypsilanti.

The complex will be rental apartments for residents who earn 50-90% of area median income. For Ypsilanti, that comes out to market rate, he said. So it’s market-rate housing, Schreiber said, that’s being financed through low-income housing tax credits.

The apartments will bring more people to that area, Schreiber said. The development won’t be next to the rec center, but will be nearby – on the south edge of the Water Street property. He thought the complex would attract young professionals making $30,000 to $40,000 a year, just starting out after graduating from Eastern Michigan University or other institutions. There will be some Section 8 housing, he said. Other properties by the same developer – Herman and Kittle Properties – have had Section 8 units for between 4% and 21% of the entire development, he noted. Since this location is on the river, near downtown and the Border-to-Border Trail, “I think we’re going to be on the low end of that [percentage],” he said.

Schreiber told commissioners that there had been a “lot of spirited discussion against it,” but the majority of the Ypsilanti city council decided to approve it. The developer is applying for tax credits and financing. That’s a competitive process, he noted, so it’s still unclear how it will turn out.

Schreiber felt that the project fits in with the rest of the Water Street plans, including the rec center and WCPARC’s goals. Construction would be in 2015, with completion likely in 2016.

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock also addressed commissioners, noting that the developer still owns similar properties that it built, “so they’re not just getting in on the front end and then leaving.” He said the developer would also be building a lot of infrastructure that would serve the rest of the site, including several roads, sidewalks and utilities.

Responding to a query from Rolland Sizemore Jr., Murdock said that even if the rec center isn’t built, the apartment project would move forward.

Rolling Hills Water Park Repairs

WCPARC director Bob Tetens described this item as the “convergence of several problems.” Part of the issue is related to the capital improvement program, but a lot is tied to conformance with current regulations, he said.

From the staff memo:

A few years ago, through dye testing, we discovered the Lazy River was leaking water from four of the seven floor and wall expansion joints. As result, this past fall we removed one of the leaking joints to investigate the extent of the problem. It was confirmed that the rubber membrane in the expansion joints had failed causing the leak. To remedy the situation each expansion joint will be removed and replaced.

The operation of the pools and Lazy River are regulated by several County/State and Federal codes or guidelines. One of these is the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (VGBA) of 2008 (with updates in 2011). This Act was enacted to prevent hazards of drain entrapments in public pools and spas. Since enactment of the VGBA, we initiated replacement of drain grates throughout the Main Pool facility to comply with the 2008 requirements. However, the drain grates within the Lazy River have not been replaced due to their custom configurations and other needed modifications. Now VGBA and State regulations mandate further changes be made to the drain sump structures and grates to be compliant.

“Slide Mountain” and its associate stairway system are some of the original features of the Waterpark. Over time through regular patron usage and weather, the stairs have developed significant deterioration requiring extensive repair and reconstruction.

Due to the complexity of the project work, Stantec Consulting of Michigan (a local engineering firm) was hired to evaluate the above issues and recommend corrective measures to address each. As a result, an RFP was developed and structured to allow a portion of the work to be completed this spring before opening, then resume after Labor Day shut-down. The scope of work is somewhat specialize and the documentation required perspective bidders to demonstrate previous years of experience with this type of project. [.pdf of full staff memo]

Four bids were received in response to the RFP. The low bid was by Baruzzini Construction Co. of Brighton, for $497,549. The firm had worked on the water slide addition last year and is familiar with the Rolling Hills facility, according to the staff memo. Baruzzini also is doing work on Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti.

The staff recommended approval of this contract with Baruzzini, plus a $35,000 contingency for potential change orders.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the contract for work at the Rolling Hills water park.

Communications & Commentary

Each WCPARC meeting includes opportunities for public commentary, as well as various communications from staff and commissioners. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Deer Management

Two people spoke on the issue of deer damage in the county. Maurita Holland noted that she’d spoken to commissioners at their previous meeting, on Feb. 11, 2014. A group has formed called Washtenaw County for Ecological Balance, she reported, with members including Larry Kestenbaum [Washtenaw County's clerk/register of deeds] and Chris Graham [who serves on Ann Arbor's environmental commission].

Maurita Holland.

Holland pointed out that Time magazine had a picture of a deer on the cover of its last issue in 2013. A chart in the article shows that the deer population has grown more than any other animal since the middle of the last century. In the past 50 years, the U.S. deer population has increased about 800% to about 32 million head, she noted.

The Forest Preserves of Cook County, in Chicago, has developed a sustainability plan, Holland reported, which includes an annual cull of deer. She reported that the city of Jackson, Michigan, has been culling deer for several years. During that time, about 500 deer have been culled in the city and provided to food pantries there.

Holland concluded by asking commissioners what they needed. “We do understand that the political part of this is undoubtedly much more difficult than getting the MDNR in here with a special permit, if you were to vote as a board to do that,” she said. “We know there’s a lot of political fallout and a lot of education that needs to be done.” The new group is very dedicated to this cause, she said, but only in ways that can be as positive as possible.

Barb Lucas also spoke on this issue. She is contracted by Washtenaw County to do environmental shows on WEMU and Community Television Network – called the Green Room. The November show on WEMU focused on deer overpopulation. It had been very illuminating to interview different stakeholders about it, she said, and it led her to feel that people need to find commonalities because there are such passionate feelings on all sides.

Both sides want to preserve life, Lucas said. If the animal rights supporters were educated about the “web of life” and how there are so many different creatures that depend on the ecosystem, they might have a different view. If deer graze heavily in an area, other species will suffer and starve to death, she said. Animal rights activists talk about “species elitism,” Lucas said, so that’s something to talk about – whether it’s better to protect a “charismatic” species like deer or to protect a range of other species too. That might be a way to find common ground, rather than to start by talking about culling deer, which would “polarize everybody immediately,” she said. Lucas concluded by urging commissioners to listen to the Green Room segment on this issue.

Holland spoke again, noting that she’d spoken with Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere. Holland said that Briere was also very concerned about this issue, and had indicated that she’d be contacting WCPARC because it was a good idea to talk about how this affects both the city and the county. The deer right now are in the county’s northwest quadrant, Holland said, and are moving towards Ann Arbor. “This is going to be a moving target,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Deer Management – Commission Discussion

Later in the meeting, WCPARC director Bob Tetens noted that the board packet included some material related to this issue. [.pdf of February 2014 staff report on deer populations in county parks] [.pdf of Feb. 17, 2014 Inside Michigan Politics article] [.pdf of Meridian Township deer management plan] [.pdf of 2012 Ann Arbor Observer article]

Tetens thanked Holland and Lucas for providing more information, and told commissioners that WCPARC staff would be collecting as much information as possible. He reported that WCPARC has applied for a $29,960 grant through the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources wildlife habitat grant program. Those funds would allow WCPARC to quantify the impact on county parks and preserves more precisely.

WCPARC member Jan Anschuetz.

Tetens told commissioners that this will now be a regular agenda item, as the staff continues to research this issue. He noted that the county board of commissioners held a working session in February that focused on the deer population in Washtenaw County, which included a presentation by Timothy Wilson of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Everyone agrees that the growing deer population is a problem, Tetens said, but “nobody can solve it on their own.”

Bob Marans asked about a timeframe for putting some kind of plan in place. Dan Smith, who serves on the county board representing District 2, described a couple of points from the February working session. The USDA would assist in helping carry out various remediations, he said, but only after some other entity assesses the problem. In Michigan, that falls to the DNR and local entities.

Smith also reported that the “lethal” technique was surprisingly expensive. He’d expected that to be the least expensive, but that wasn’t the case. According to the USDA, the most effective technique would be even more unpopular than other management efforts, Smith said – to bring back natural predators. “That would be even more unpopular than bow hunters.”

Marans asked Tetens where he saw this headed, in terms of WCPARC’s role. Tetens replied that the DNR is responsible for managing the deer population, so ultimately it would need to be a collaborative effort with the DNR, local communities, the Farm Bureau, and others.

Marans then asked: “Is it our responsibility to push the DNR?” It’s everyone’s responsibility, Tetens replied. Right now, it’s a problem that the county can’t manage alone. The USDA representative had noted that even if the problem is solved in one location, the deer move elsewhere, he said.

As a society, “we have created the perfect environment, with our rural residential development,” Tetens said. Scio Township has been in the top five municipalities statewide in terms of the number of deer-vehicle accidents, he noted. Hunting is limited, while suburban homes plant landscape gardens that attract deer. He likened it to putting up a sign that says: “We’re not going to hunt you. Here’s free food. Come on in!” There needs to be a cultural shift, Tetens said.

Dan Smith said that from a policy perspective, WCPARC can be a driver as far as the county is concerned, because it manages significant acreage in parks and natural areas. The elected county board of commissioners has indirect control, but the county board doesn’t directly own a lot of land.

Marans agreed that WCPARC plays an important role, but “the directive should come from the county board,” he said.

Smith noted that the townships in Michigan have the most control over land use issues, so it’s important to work with the township officials too. Based on his research, Smith said, it’s clear that there are conflicting interests – farmers want one thing, hunters want another, conservationists want yet another thing, depending on what type of conservationist they are.

Barb Lucas.

Janis Bobrin referred to a point that Barb Lucas had made regarding the need to find common ground. “This is a community where if we start talking about killing anything, there are people who will just not hear anything after that,” she said. There’s the actual management of the problem, she noted, but also a major education piece. “How do we begin to get a dialogue that isn’t one camp against another? That would seem to be a productive first step.”

Jan Anschuetz said it would be presumptuous to say that culling deer would solve the problem. About five years ago, WCPARC considered the issue seriously, she said, adding that she’d spent about 40-50 hours researching the problem at that time. Studies that she’d read revealed that culling deer actually encourages reproduction. It’s a very complicated issue, she said, and WCPARC shouldn’t just jump into it.

Marans replied that clearly they need to move slowly. He described a deer management program at the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, which he said was very successful. [Marans also serves on the board of the HCMA, which oversees the Huron-Clinton Metroparks.] He noted that HCMA has more land than WCPARC, and it’s also hard to know what happens on land outside of the metroparks.

Anschuetz urged commissioners and staff to be “a little bit humble.” They need to work with and listen to the animal rights advocates, she said.

Dan Smith noted that it’s clear the deer are harming native plants and wildlife in the county’s preserves. The reason the county invests in these preserves is to ensure that native plants and wildlife have protected areas. He thought that managing the deer population could be part of the broader management efforts for those areas. But the success of that management isn’t known, he added. Smith said he’d read that deer have evolved so that their reproduction is a way to survive predators. When there are no predators – aside from vehicles – then they overpopulate.

Evan Pratt said it would be helpful to get feedback from staff about what WCPARC’s role should be. Should they be hosting symposiums? Or just providing information?

Anschuetz argued that WCPARC exists in order to serve the entire population of Washtenaw County that pays for parks. “If we do something that displeases our public, we will not have a millage and will not have a parks commission and we will not have a preserve,” she said. Deciding how to handle the deer issue is an important decision, she added – not just for the people who are concerned about this issue, but for the entire parks system.

Dan Ezekiel suggested seeing if there are any resources at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment.

Dan Smith asked if Tetens would be comfortable preparing a recommendation over the next month or two. Smith said it sounded like Marans wanted direction from the county board of commissioners. Marans thought the county could be a leader in initiating a program, whatever that might be. It wasn’t wise to just be passive, he said.

Tetens said his staff hadn’t been able to spend much time on this issue so far. Marans wanted to see a proposal for various options within six months or so.

Regarding HCMA’s deer management, Anschuetz pointed out that HCMA’s millage is permanent and doesn’t require renewal. But WCPARC’s millage does need renewal, she noted, and “if we aren’t representing the community, we are in a very vulnerable position.” Marans countered that commissioners don’t know what the community thinks as a whole.

Bobrin said that Anschuetz’s point is well taken – WCPARC needs to understand that. Anschuetz told commissioners that she’s very involved in animal rights issues, and is very involved with the Humane Society. “I know what goes on,” Anschuetz said. “You may be underestimating the power of the people in this community.” She didn’t see WCPARC as leading this effort, but rather they should partner with other entities.

Pratt drew an analogy to weed control in lakes. Once you start spending money to try to manage it, “you’re just rolling the rock up the hill,” he said. “You just start this Sisyphean task when you try to force-fit nature into what you want it to be.” He said he wasn’t arguing against a deer management program, but WCPARC first needs to figure out what its role should be.

Dan Smith said he wasn’t suggesting that WCPARC take on deer management itself. But because they’ve invested in preserves, that’s why WCPARC has a role in it. “If the preserve just becomes a bunch of prairie grass, that’s not a very interesting preserve,” he said. “That’s not why we’re buying this land with tax dollars.”

Smith noted that if the best solution turns out to be introducing natural predators to the area, that introduces an entirely new set of problems. “Now the farmers will really be up in arms,” he said.

Communications & Commentary: Lyndon Township Mining Proposal

McCoig Materials is proposing a sand and gravel mine in Lyndon Township, on 189 acres north of Chelsea on M-52. The rural site is located near several parks and nature areas, including Waterloo State Recreation Area, the Pinckney State Recreation Area, Park Lyndon, the Green Lake Camping area, and the Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail.

Janis Bobrin, a member WCPARC. In the background is WCPARC director Bob Tetens.

Bob Tetens reminded commissioners that the southern part of WCPARC’s Park Lyndon covers most of the edges of Lake Genevieve, and “we’ve always sort of felt, despite where the fences are at, that the whole lake was ours, and it’s not.” A small portion of the southern tip of the lake is part of the Cunningham family property – the site that McCoig wants to purchase.

In the past, WCPARC had talked to the family about possibly buying that land, Tetens said. WCPARC has been interested in it for at least two decades.

Residents in the area are very concerned about McCoig’s proposal, Tetens said. It would mean a lot of additional traffic from trucks – 60-80 round-trip gravel haulers each day would be driving through Chelsea, throughout the estimated 30-year life of the operation. There are also concerns about the impact on local ecosystems and hydrology, Tetens said.

Part of what makes the northwest part of Washtenaw County so special is its concentration of parks and recreation areas, Tetens said, so it doesn’t make sense to take 190 acres out of that for mining.

Tetens asked for the commissioners to support drafting a letter to Lyndon Township and state officials, opposing a special use permit that would allow the company to remove sand and gravel. He stressed WCPARC’s continued interest in buying the property for the county’s natural areas preservation program, and said that an application for NAPP had been sent to the Cunningham family. The resources are available in NAPP’s budget to buy the property at fair market value, Tetens said. Any added value related to mineral rights would have to be negotiated.

Tetens also reported that the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources has been working with McCoig to try to find an alternative site – possibly property that the DNR owned or could acquire, that could be traded for the Cunningham property so that the ecosystem in that area could be maintained.

Janis Bobrin noted that because of relatively recent state legislation, it’s very difficult for local governments to turn down mining operations in their communities.

On its website, Lyndon Township has noted that its authority is limited:

Michigan State Legislators have greatly reduced township control by passing Act 110 of 2006 (125.3205). Under that law, the township must not “prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources are considered valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.” The township’s authority is limited to “reasonable regulation of hours of operation, blasting hours, noise levels, dust control measures, and traffic that are not preempted by part 632 of the Michigan environmental laws,” 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.63201 to 324.63223.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to direct staff to send a letter to Lyndon Township regarding the McCoig proposal. [.pdf of Tetens letter]

Communications & Commentary: Millage Renewal

Bob Tetens updated commissioners on the process of renewing the county’s 10-year parks & recreation operations millage, which is likely to be on the November 2014 ballot.

Bob Marans, president of WCPARC.

The countywide parks & recreation operations millage is a 10-year, quarter-mill tax that was first approved in November 1976 1978, and subsequently renewed in 1984, 1994, and 2004. The current millage expires on Dec. 1, 2016. Typically, a renewal proposal is put on the ballot two years before the existing millage expires.

Tetens said there will be two separate tracks. The county staff and commission can market its services and programs to the greatest extent possible – that’s well underway, he said. As part of that, staff are developing the next five-year strategic plan.

In 2004, when the millage was most recently renewed, the county board of commissioners – the elected body that has the authority to put a millage proposal on the ballot – was asked to do that in June, Tetens said. That’s likely the timeframe that will be followed this year. WCPARC staff will be making a presentation to the county board to describe what’s been done in the past 10 years. “We’ve got a good story to tell about that,” he said. The presentation will also include a planning document about how the millage would be used in the next 10 years.

Parallel to that is the organization called Friends of the County Parks. It’s the group that handles fundraising for the millage campaign itself, Tetens explained. Nelson Meade, the long-time WCPARC member who retired in December of 2013, used to lead that effort. Tetens said that commissioners might want to designate someone to serve as treasurer of that group, in place of Meade.

Financial Reports

Each month, staff provide several different financial reports to WCPARC, focused on the past month’s expenses (the claims report), monthly and year-to-date reports on expenses and revenues in the form of fund balance reports, and a listing of major non-recurring expenses when they are significant.

There are separate reports on parks and facilities, and on the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which includes preservation of agricultural lands. Each of these has its own, separate funding, although WCPARC administers all of these programs.

Financial Reports: Claims Report

Director Bob Tetens began by saying that the reports reflect WCPARC’s off season. Parks and facilities paid a total of $113,859 in claims during February. Most of those expenses were for capital improvements, primarily at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center and Rolling Hills.

NAPP claims totaled $661,101 in February. Most of those expenses – $613,784 – were spent on a conservation easement for the Bloch property in Superior Township, which commissioners had approved at their Feb. 11, 2014 meeting.

Total expenses in February were $774,961. [.pdf of February 2014 claims]

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – Parks and Recreation

Tetens noted that there hadn’t been any dramatic changes since the previous month’s report.

January 2014 began with a fund balance of $10,521,250. [This is the total of the $3,146,250 fund balance on Dec. 31, 2013, plus the $6.7 million operating reserve and the $675,000 committed to funding partnerships.] Revenue as of Feb. 28, 2014 was $4,128,849 with expenses of $696,711. The operating reserve for 2014 is $6.7 million, and the funding commitments for partnerships is $820,000. [.pdf of February 2014 parks & rec fund balance]

The projected fund balance at the end of 2014 is $6,430,817.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – NAPP

The February report started with the fund balance of $7,195,911 and showed revenue of $1,968,881. Expenses totaled $622,947, for a projected fund balance at the end of 2014 of $8,450,839. [.pdf of February 2014 NAPP fund balance]

There was no substantive discussion of the reports.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously voted to receive, accept, and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

Typically, there are several monthly reports on attendance at WCPARC facilities where attendance can be counted, with information about participation in measurable activities and revenue received at those facilities. The reports include the current year-to-date summary as well as similar information for the prior two years.

For the March 11 meeting, only one recreation report was presented.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

At the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, year-to-date participation as of Feb. 28, 2014 was 56,541 and revenue was $250,023. In 2013, year-to-date participation was 63,615 and revenue was $262,635. In 2012, participation was 67,824 and revenue was $249,565. [.pdf of MLM recreation center report]

WCPARC director Bob Tetens noted that activity had been slow during February, which he attributed to the bad weather. “People just weren’t getting out,” he said.

Tetens reminded commissioners that two years ago, the county’s Pierce Lake golf course opened in the third week of March, and in 2013 they opened in the last week in March. So things will be slow at the golf course this year too, he said.

Outcome: The recreation report was received and accepted for filing unanimously.

Projects and Activities

Staff of WCPARC provide monthly updates to commissioners about ongoing improvements at facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. Some of this information is provided in writing in the board packet; more is provided with visuals and informal commentary. [.pdf of projects/activities report]

Here are some highlights of items discussed at the March meeting.

• The annual ice fishing derby at Independence Lake had a good turnout, Coy Vaughn reported. Rolland Sizemore Jr. observed that in the photos that Vaughn showed of the event, there weren’t any minorities. He asked how WCPARC advertised the event. Vaughn replied that they used posters, partnered with businesses like Cabela’s and local bait shops, and posted information online. WCPARC director Bob Tetens said there is typically a larger turnout of minorities for events at Rolling Hills, on the county’s east side.
• The annual “Daddy Daughter Dance” at the Meri Lou Murray recreation center on Feb. 22 drew 168 people this year. Vaughn played a clip from a feature about the dance that aired on Community Television Network’s FYI show.
• A summer job fair was held at the gym in the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, with several county departments and the Michigan Works office represented. Attendees could apply and be interviewed on the spot. It drew over 100 people.
• Vaughn showed two short videos that will be used to promote various WCPARC facilities online. He plans to show one or two new videos at each WCPARC meeting over the next few months. The videos shown on March 11 highlighted County Farm Park and the water parks at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake.

Remembering Fred Veigel

The March 11 board packet included a resolution of appreciation for Fred Veigel, who died on March 2. [.pdf of resolution] Veigel was a long-time WCPARC member who held a seat designated for a county road commission representative.

WCPARC director Bob Tetens described Veigel as “an even more colorful figure than we’d realized,” based on pictures that had been on display at Veigel’s memorial and funeral. Veigel had been a member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 252 for 60 years, and the union is planning a memorial “toast and roast” on Friday, June 13.

Evan Pratt noted that the family is encouraging people to come and share stories about Veigel. “It sounded like there weren’t going to be many boundaries,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners passed the resolution of appreciation.

Present: Jan Anschuetz, Janis Bobrin, Dan Ezekiel, Robert Marans, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Dan Smith.

Absent: Conan Smith.

Staff: Director Bob Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. 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!

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given final approval by county commissioners on Sept. 4 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

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

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given initial approval by county commissioners on Aug. 7 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

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

The resolution authorizes the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help Lyndon and Sylvan townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.25 million remains to be repaid. According to a staff memo, the project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

The staff memo also states that additional funds might be available from special assessment prepayments and connection fees paid by the state of Michigan. These funds might reduce the total refunding bond amount even more, and would increase the savings.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

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

The resolution authorizes the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remains to be repaid. According to a staff memo, the project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

The staff memo also states that additional funds might be available from special assessment prepayments and connection fees paid by the state of Michigan. These funds might reduce the total refunding bond amount even more, and would increase the savings.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

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]