But on Aug. 18, Gottlieb posted this message on the Selma Cafe website: ”Dear friends and supporters of Selma Cafe, As we move towards September, the board of directors of Selma Cafe, and I, are discussing what is next for Selma Cafe. The monthly breakfast parties are currently on hold. Please stay tuned for updates on activities, and thanks to all for the love!”

Selma Cafe began as a weekly breakfast salon in 2009, held on Friday mornings at the home of Gottlieb and Jeff McCabe in Ann Arbor’s Eberwhite neighborhood, on the city’s west side. Operations were suspended in mid-April of 2013, after the city notified the group that the breakfasts were violating local zoning ordinances. At roughly the same time, Selma’s previous fiscal sponsor – the nonprofit Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) – froze funds it held on behalf of Selma Cafe, citing violations of a memorandum of understanding between the two entities. Artrain, an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit, agreed to take on the sponsorship responsibilities, and the IRS expedited Selma’s application for nonprofit status.

The volunteer-supported fundraising breakfasts resumed in June of 2013 at a new location – in the common house dining room at Sunward Cohousing, 424 Little Lake Drive. The cohousing community is located off of Jackson Road, west of Ann Arbor in Scio Township. The events shifted to a Saturday brunch, held monthly and featuring guest chefs and locally sourced food. Chefs this year have included Eduardo Rubio of Aventura and local attorney Nick Roumel, among others.

About a year ago, Selma Cafe received a 501(c)3 nonprofit designation from the IRS, a final step needed to secure financial autonomy.

Board members for the nonprofit include Roumel, local farmer Nathan Lada, long-time Selma Cafe volunteers Susie Baity and Kyoko Yamamoto, and McCabe, who also is owner of Nifty Hoops.

Gottlieb, who emailed The Chronicle with the news on Aug. 18, indicated that the transition over the past year has been difficult, requiring a tremendous amount of work for her personally, although she stressed that Sunward Cohousing has been welcoming and has worked to accommodate Selma Cafe’s needs. She has also become interested in nonviolent communication (NVC), describing it as “a form of conflict resolution and peace making that seems essential to our world these days.” She’s been working closely with NVC-certified trainers to bring workshops and classes on into the Ann Arbor area, including a year-long training program. “I am finding that is currently where I have passion and stamina,” Gottlieb wrote in an email.

“The board of Selma Cafe and I are in discussions about what is next for our organization,” Gottlieb wrote, “and we are all very invested in finding new and creative ways to support local food and sustainable agriculture in the near future, while allowing the format of the breakfast parties to shift to other activities. We are all tremendously grateful and appreciative for the love and support from volunteers, guests and friends of Selma Cafe. I’ll keep the website updated as we move forward.”

Logo for The Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan.

According to former executive director Kimberli Cumming, the first priority will be to resume services to existing clients. The center provides affordable personal counseling, job coaching and divorce support, among other services.

On June 12, the board of the Ann Arbor-based nonprofit emailed a message to supporters announcing that the center would be closed. From the email: ”The loss of grant support for the types of services we offer has led the Board of The Women’s Center to decide to close the doors. Although our women-focused approach and support for emotional and economic well-being are unique and very much needed in this region, the economic reality of our current grant funding – and future prospects – make it impossible to continue operations.” The email stated that the board would be working with the center’s academic partners “to ensure that clients will continue to receive uninterrupted counseling services through the interns that they have been seeing at The Women’s Center.” [.pdf of June 12 email]

Board members at the time included: Cindy Straub, Claire Hogikyan, Sarah Williams, Lori Bestervelt, Elise Buggs, Jennifer Cornell, Sharon Ragland-Keys, and Jackie Jenkins.

Since the announcement, supporters have been working to figure out a way to fund and resume services. As of the afternoon of July 1, that June 12 message was still posted on the center’s website. Cumming indicated that more details will be posted on the website soon, as well as on the center’s Facebook page.

Cumming, who earlier this year took a job as director of executive transition services & associate teams with the Nonprofit Association of Oregon, emailed this statement to The Chronicle:

The Board and long-standing supporters have been working with client services staff on a transition plan with a new a new business model that balances earned-revenue now possible from the ACA with an ongoing commitment to those not covered by insurance. The newly constituted Board will include two Board leaders who will continue on, its (now-former) clinical staff, The Center’s founding Board Chair, and its long-term executive director [Cumming]. The team supporting the re-launch includes devoted volunteers representing clinical/client-services expertise, business planning, and philanthropy.

The Women’s Center was founded in 1977 as a nonprofit called Soundings: A Center for Women. It later merged with other nonprofits and became HelpSource, then in 2000 restructured to form The Women’s Center of America. In 2006, the nonprofit was renamed The Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan to reflect a regional focus. Then in 2011, the center honored Jean Ledwith King’s advocacy for gender equity by becoming The Jean Ledwith King Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan.

From left: Washtenaw County corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2). (Photos by the writer.)

Following a lengthy discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing about a possible countywide road millage. The hearing will be held at their meeting on May 21 so that the public can give input on a proposal to levy up to 1 mill for roads in 2014. The tax would be levied under Act 283 of 1909.

No final decision is expected at the May 21 meeting about levying a tax – although a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax is on the May 21 agenda for initial consideration.

Commissioners all appeared to support finding a way to secure more road funding, but some voiced concern about process and timing – especially because a tax under Act 283 would be levied without voter approval.

The May 7 discussion began when Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would authorize levying a 1 mill tax – under Act 283 – in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” The board ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

During the wide-ranging discussion, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed concern that the public hadn’t yet been informed about the Act 283 proposal. At the request of board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Roy Townsend – managing director of the county road commission – had prepared a list of road projects that could be funded by an Act 283 millage, which was distributed at the May 7 meeting. Townsend and two of the three road commissioners – Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane – attended the May 7 meeting, and Townsend fielded questions from the board.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December. Hedger pointed out a risk in that approach: If someone sues the county and a court issues an injunction, then the county might be unable to levy the tax – after already spending general fund dollars.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) supported the Act 283 tax. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider,” he said. Smith preferred the Act 283 levy over a ballot initiative that voters would be asked to approve, saying there are other funding proposals he’d rather put on the ballot – for public safety and human services.

The board discussion on this issue will continue at the May 21 meeting.

In other road-related items on the May 7 agenda, the board voted to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

The May 7 meeting also included an update about the community’s approach to addressing homelessness. The briefing was in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Responding to information that there’s been an increase in people from outside of Washtenaw County coming to the Delonis Center shelter in Ann Arbor, Conan Smith cautioned against making that kind of distinction, saying it “dehumanized” people who are seeking help, regardless of where they’re from.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.” Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. She said it was her job “to hold that line.”

During the May 7 meeting, commissioners also gave initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

In other action, the board appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department; passed a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour; and received a first-quarter budget update from the county’s finance staff. First-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. At this point, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Road Funding

The May 7 agenda included a discussion item for road funding options, but there was originally no resolution on the published agenda. At the end of the ways & means committee meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the board has discussed road commission issues for years. He said he continuously hears from residents that they’re sick of the terrible roads, and they’re tired of hearing explanations about why the roads are so bad. People seem willing to raise their taxes to do it, Smith said. He’d even heard support from “an old Dutchman” at his church, which Smith characterized as the strongest endorsement for increasing taxes that he’ll ever get.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller.

Smith thought the board needed to act on this issue, pointing to the impact that an unusually harsh winter has had on the roads. So he put forward a resolution to levy a 1-mill tax authorized under Act 283 of 1909.

Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to undertake the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Commissioners have previously held several discussions about the possibility of additional funding sources for road repair – most recently at a lengthy working session on April 17, 2014. In addition to a possible Act 283 levy, another option that’s been discussed is to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot for voter approval. A draft resolution circulated at the working session called for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year.

The resolution brought forward by Dan Smith on May 7 would authorize levying a 1 mill tax under Act 283 in December 2014. It would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.” [.pdf of draft resolution]

Smith’s resolution would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners asks the county’s legislative delegation, State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge and Adam Zemke, to request an Attorney General opinion regarding the ability for counties to levy a tax under Act 283 of 1909 in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

Road Funding: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d met with the road commission earlier that week. He noted that the road commission had prepared a list of possible projects that could be funded under Act 283. The project list had been prepared based on levying 0.4 mills. [.xls spreadsheet of proposed road projects based on 0.4 mill tax] [.xls spreadsheet of possible amounts raised by jurisdiction] [.pdf map showing location of proposed projects]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Rabhi said if the board decided to levy the full mill, there would be more projects that could be added to the list.

However, Rabhi said he’d spoken with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, and now had concerns that Act 283 might not be the right approach to get road projects done this year. It might work for next year, Rabhi noted, “but unless we find a creative way of financing this, I think it’s going to be difficult for us to put the dollars levied to road projects in 2014, just because of limitations in the law.”

Yousef asked Hedger when the county could collect the tax under Act 283. Hedger replied, saying he understood there’s some urgency to get money to fix roads. Hedger cautioned that Act 283 lays out a specific process, which calls for a presentation of proposed road projects at a meeting in late September or October, prior to the December levy. It’s meant to be an annual levy, with the road commission determining the projects that need to be done and how much it would cost to do the work. That project list is given to the county clerk, who passes it along to the county board for consideration at an “annual meeting of the board of supervisors.” Hedger noted that Act 283 defines the annual meeting as one that takes place after Sept. 14 and before Oct. 16. Three county board meetings are scheduled during that period this year, he noted.

However, Hedger thought it’s premature to look at levying a millage under Act 283 right now, because the process needs to be followed. The county can’t put the levy on the summer tax bills, he added. Right now, the county levies its general operating millage in July, and every other county tax in December. The state statute allows certain smaller levies to be put on the July tax bill, but not one as large as the Act 283 levy, he said.

Rabhi said he supports what Dan Smith is trying to do, and he knows the road commission is working hard to address the condition of the roads. But no effort, however well-meaning, can overcome the force of nature combined with the force of Lansing, he said, “or the unforce of Lansing.” The situation demands creative thinking, Rabhi said, and there are at least two options. One is levying a millage under Act 283, and the other is asking voters to approve a millage for roads.

Rabhi called the Act 283 levy a “stopgap, Band-aid approach.” If used properly, it can help, he added, but he didn’t know if it would be possible to use it in 2014.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) chaired the board’s subcommittee on possible road commission restructuring.

Responding to those concerns, Dan Smith noted that options might include passing a resolution this month or in June to indicate the board’s intent to levy the Act 283 tax, then possibly using money from the general fund’s fund balance to pay for road work this summer. The fund balance would be reimbursed when the tax revenues are collected in December.

Rabhi asked Hedger if it would be possible to use general fund dollars for road work, then get reimbursed later from Act 283 revenues. Hedger replied that general fund dollars can be used for anything. The reimbursement aspect is trickier, he said, because the statute states that the Act 283 revenues must be used “exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned.” So if the money is fronted from the general fund, the Act 283 revenues wouldn’t technically be used for the purposes of road project – they’d be reimbursing the county.

The bigger issue, though, is if the county paid for the work out of the general fund, but then is sued later in the year and given an injunction that would prevent levying the Act 283 tax, Hedger said. “Then we would have spent the money, and you have no way to recoup it.” He noted that as the county’s attorney, he’s paid to be a pessimist and to explain the potential downsides.

Rabhi then asked if the road commission would be comfortable spending money this year with the understanding that a millage would be levied in December. Hedger noted that the same risks would be involved for the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether an Act 283 millage would be subject to a voter referendum, if citizens decide to do a petition against it. Hedger said it’s not mentioned in the act, so he didn’t think it would be subject to a referendum.

Peterson wondered what would be wrong with putting a millage proposal on the ballot. Let the citizens decide, he said. Peterson complained that the board didn’t support his progressive agenda, and had cut programs like Head Start – yet he was expected to support a road millage. He said he wasn’t necessarily against the road tax, but thought residents should be allowed to weigh in.

Peterson also wondered why the road commission couldn’t issue bonds to cover the work. He said he’d support postponement until the May 21 meeting, so that these questions could be addressed, and so Hedger can put some of these things in writing.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) directed a series of questions to Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission. He asked about the flexibility of funding that the road commission uses, including formula funding from Act 51. Are those funds discretionary? Townsend replied that the road commission receives Act 51 funding each month from the state, which varies between about $1.1 million to $1.8 million. Townsend indicated that there’s some flexibility in spending those funds. It depends on what priorities are for the townships, and how much township funding is available.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

If the road commission gets direction in May or June, Townsend said, there’s still time to do more road work this season.

Conan Smith suggested working with the road commission on projects for 2015 that could be paid with an Act 283 levy in December of 2014. That approach might free up funds this year for other projects that can be funded with non-Act 283 revenues.

Townsend hoped there’d be a way to figure out how to make more revenues available. He reported getting a call from a resident who lived on Willis Road, who had collected pieces of the road in a wheel barrel – because the road was disintegrating – and wanted the road commission to pick it up.

Conan Smith noted that Act 283 isn’t the best vehicle for road funding, but it’s an option. “I’m almost of a mindset of ‘Let’s do it’ – and if someone wants to sue us over it, you know, then when they file a lawsuit we can reconsider. But know that if you file a lawsuit, there isn’t money for the project anymore.” There’s a sense of urgency that the county board needs to meet, he said.

Responding to Peterson’s question about putting a road tax before voters, C. Smith noted that the earliest the board could get to the ballot would be August – if they voted on it that night – and after that, it would be in November. And there’s no guarantee that voters would approve it, he noted.

The other issue, C. Smith said, is that he has other priorities that can only be funded by going to the ballot. The sheriff has repeatedly articulated challenges regarding public safety, Smith said, and the only mechanism for funding that is to put a millage proposal on the ballot. Human service needs are another area that could be funded with a ballot initiative. With roads, the county has the option of going to the ballot, but also has another means of funding – Act 283. “I’d like to use the other means [for road funding], and save the ballot for those issues that I really, really deeply care about,” Smith said.

C. Smith thanked Dan Smith for bringing forward this proposal, and for designating 10% of the funds raised through Act 283 to work on the non-motorized transportation network. “If you’re a biker or a walker, you know that network is as messed up as the road system is,” C. Smith said.

C. Smith said he was comfortable taking an initial vote on this resolution that night at the ways & means committee meeting, with a final vote on May 21. If everyone else wanted to postpone, that was fine with him too.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d been in Lansing the previous day, and had spoken to both of the state senators who represent parts of Washtenaw County. One of those was Sen. Randy Richardville (R-District 17), who is the senate majority leader. Richardville had indicated support for a plan that’s being worked on in Lansing, that might allocate up to $2 billion for a more comprehensive fix to repair roads in Michigan. LaBarre didn’t think it would hurt to wait a few weeks to see what the state legislature would do. “I have zero faith in them as an institution – that’s probably by this point a relatively bipartisan statement – but here’s the deal: They are the only ones, short of the feds, that can dedicate enough resources to actually do this in a way that’s comprehensive.”

LaBarre also wanted to wait so that the other issues raised during the May 7 discussion could be addressed. He wanted to be in a position to defend the board’s decision, if they levied Act 283, to show they did it in the most prudent, thought-out way.

Dan Smith said he was comfortable with the options discussed – postponement or initial approval. As far as seeing what state legislators might do, “I’m greatly tired of waiting for Lansing,” he said. State lawmakers have been talking about it a long time, he noted, and if the county board wants to do anything about its infrastructure, they need to do it themselves. If the state steps in later, “so much the better for transportation infrastructure in Washtenaw County.”

He stressed that an Act 283 levy would raise revenues for projects in cities as well as townships. He also supported putting a tax proposal before voters, but he understood the concerns that Conan Smith had raised.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Postponement

Peterson moved to postpone the Act 283 resolution until the May 21 ways & means committee meeting, for an initial vote. He stressed the need for some kind of public process – particularly since it’s an election year. [All nine county commissioner seats are up for election in 2014.]

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners postponed the resolution until May 21. Dissenting was Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Board Discussion – Public Hearing

Yousef Rabhi proposed scheduling a public hearing to get feedback on road funding proposals. Dan Smith moved to schedule a public hearing for the board’s May 21 meeting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the voters would be responding to: Would the road commission have a plan prepared before then? He also wanted a document from corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, laying out the legal issues. He thought the public should have access to the same information that commissioners have.

Rabhi said the plan that was prepared by the road commission – based on an Act 283 levy of 0.4 mills – had been approved by the road commission board. Rabhi said he appreciated Peterson’s comments, because the resolution for funding proposes a 1-mill tax.

Dan Smith noted that a public hearing isn’t required, but he was in favor of having one anyway. He thought that by the time the May 21 agenda was posted, there would be sufficient information available to the public. He wasn’t too worried about the board eventually deciding to levy less than 1 mill – he didn’t think any citizens would object to a lower levy.

Felicia Brabec wanted time to talk with township officials in the district she presents.

Rabhi noted that the board already has a plan from the road commission for projects that could be funded with Act 283 revenues. But it was confusing, given the different amounts mentioned in the road commission’s plan and Dan Smith’s resolution, so he wouldn’t support scheduling a public hearing yet.

Alicia Ping pointed out that the allocations outlined in the resolution: Of the 1 mill levy, 50% of the revenues would go back to the individual jurisdictions – townships, villages and cities – and 10% would be designated for non-motorized transportation. That brings the amount close to the 0.4 mills mentioned in the road commission plan, she said.

Dan Smith pointed out that a public hearing would be a generic public hearing about levying 1 mill under Act 283. He thought there would be more than enough information in the board packet.

Hedger suggested that the wording of the public hearing notice could be for a levy of “up to 1 mill.” Conan Smith offered that wording as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: On a 5-3 vote, commissioners approved setting a public hearing for an Act 283 levy at the May 21 meeting. Dissenting were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Road Funding: Public Commentary

During the evening’s second opportunity for public commentary, Jeff Hayner of Ann Arbor spoke to the board. He said he’d been watching the proceedings from home and thought he’d come to the meeting to say a few words. He’d been surprised to see a public hearing scheduled for May 21 on the Act 283 millage. He noted that a road millage had recently passed in Grand Rapids, and that the previous day, on May 6, a new transit tax had been passed by voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. “Now we’re paying more for buses than we pay for the roads they ride on,” Hayner said. “And it got me thinking, you know? The taxpayers’ corpse isn’t even cold yet, and you guys are reaching into their pockets for more.”

He didn’t think it was right that a tax proposal wouldn’t be put before voters for approval. He thought the state’s Headlee Amendment was put in place to give taxpayers a voice. He didn’t think it was right that taxes would be doubled. Hayner pointed out that advocates for a public transit millage had years to prepare, and even that didn’t seem like enough time for a decent conversation, he said. He urged commissioners to take more time so that they could hear from people about the possible road tax.

Road Funding: Subcommittee Recommendations

In another road-related item, the May 7 agenda included a resolution to accept the recommendations of a subcommittee that was appointed last year to explore options enabled by state legislators. The subcommittee had recommended not to make the road commission part of county operations, and not to make the job of road commissioner an elected position.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

Outcome: The resolution passed, initially without dissent. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken. A few minutes after the vote, Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke with Pete Simms, a member of the county clerk’s staff who takes minutes for the board. The communication was inaudible to the public, but board chair Yousef Rabhi subsequently announced that Smith had indicated his intention to vote against the resolution.

The following night, on May 8, the board’s working session included a discussion of another restructuring option: Expanding the road commission board. See Chronicle coverage: “County Debates Expanded Road Commission.”

Road Funding: Letter to State Legislature

Dan Smith (R-District 2) drafted a letter to be sent to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from state legislation that had been enacted in 2012 regarding the possible restructuring of road commissions. [.pdf of letter]

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

Yousef Rabhi, Alicia Ping and Kent Martinez-Kratz asked that their names not be included as signatories. After consulting with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the meeting, Rabhi told commissioners that if anyone else wanted their names removed from the letter, they should let Smith know.

Outcome: It was not a voting item.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

Community activist Lefiest Galimore and Eileen Spring, president and CEO of the nonprofit Food Gatherers.

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, passed on Nov. 6, 2013. The changes were described in a staff memo:

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

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

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary about coordinated funding and the county’s support for nonprofits. Several others who are involved in coordinated funding – as board members or executive directors of the nonprofits that receive funding – attended the meeting but did not formally address the county board.

Lefiest Galimore noted that he had previously shared his concerns with the board about the coordinated funding approach. The process eliminates African-American organizations out of the funding process, he said. He’s heard that the issue is a nonprofit’s capacity, but “that’s no longer an acceptable excuse,” he said. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. People are trying to do good things but they can’t get funded, he said, so they’re taking money out of their own pockets. Some organizations are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, Galimore said, but there’s no accountability. African-Americans account for 16% of the county’s population, but over 50% of people incarcerated at the county jail are African-Americans, he said, and the situation isn’t getting better.

Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers told commissioners he wanted them to understand that the Ann Arbor city council is fully committed to the coordinated funding process. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council endorsed the coordinated funding model, and council would be considering the city’s over $1.2 million general fund allocation for coordinated funding at its May 19 meeting. The process is bringing together the community, the public and private sector, and nonprofits to focus on outcomes that matter, he said.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, told commissioners that she lives in Washtenaw County, and is also a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and the HIV-AIDS Resource Center. She thanked the board for supporting local human service agencies, and for spending time later in the meeting to talk about homelessness in Washtenaw County. She reminded everyone of the children and families that experience homelessness, who often aren’t talked about. There are 8 parents and 13 kids at the Alpha House shelter that night, she said. Any discussion about homelessness should include not just individual adults, but also children and families.

Speaking next was Debbie Jackson, director of community impact for community impact for the United Way of Washtenaw County, one of the coordinated funding partners. She noted that together, the six partners leverage about $12.5 million for human services. On May 5, the United Way board had approved the recommendations that county commissioners were now considering. United Way’s commitment to the process this year is $1.8 million, she noted. She thanked commissioners and others in the community for their support.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing, thanked the board for their interest in homelessness, calling it an urgent priority for the community. She reminded them that Avalon’s work to provide permanent supportive housing is an effective solution to homelessness. They operate 260 apartments at 20 different sites around Ann Arbor, providing housing to 160 adults, about 100 families and 150 children. She described the range of services that Avalon provides, and noted that Avalon is a founding member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Chris Levleit, operations director for Michigan Ability Partners, described the work of that nonprofit in providing housing stability for veterans and others with disabilities. She encouraged commissioners to continue providing support to address homelessness.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said the board had passed a resolution to set up a committee to look at human services funding, and he wondered what the status was for that committee. He said the vote had occurred during the board’s budget discussions last year, at the same time that the board had voted to establish a committee to handle Act 88 allocations.

No one else on the board indicated that they recalled such a resolution, nor did county administrator Verna McDaniel. Peterson hoped someone could research that by the next board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who serves as board chair, promised to follow up with Peterson.

Peterson spoke at length about the need for supporting human services nonprofits and the residents they serve – especially those struggling with homelessness. He noted that the eastern part of the county, including the Ypsilanti area that he represents, is one of the few places that has affordable housing. The county needs to be involved in addressing some of these unmet needs, he said, and in providing a better “front door” to the county’s own human service agencies.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked the representatives from local nonprofits who were attending the meeting, saying he also interacted with many of them during his “day job.” [LaBarre is vice president for government relations at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber.] He thanked them for their work in the community.

Rabhi also thanked the nonprofit leaders, noting that they help leverage public dollars for the public good.

Outcome: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) recused herself from the funding allocation for Food Gatherers, noting that she serves on that nonprofit’s board. Otherwise, the coordinated funding allocations were endorsed unanimously. The board is expected to take a final vote to allocate funding on May 21.

Response to Homelessness

At their May 7 meeting, commissioners were briefed on possible responses to homelessness and a lack of affordable housing in this community. The briefing came in response to a board directive given to staff on April 2, 2014 to develop a plan for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness. The blueprint was adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County.

The May 7 presentation was given by three different staff members: Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community and economic development; Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter; and Amanda Carlisle, director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Several WHA board members also attended the May 7 meeting, including former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who serves as WHA board president, and attorney Dick Soble, the board’s secretary. [.pdf of presentation]

Schulmeister reviewed the contributing factors to homelessness, including untreated mental illness, increased poverty, a lack of affordable housing and more. She noted that 78% of the people who come to the shelter have income less than $500 per month, and 71% have no income.

The good news is that homelessness “just plain ends with housing,” she said, “and that’s an important phrase to remember.” The formula for success, she added, is permanent affordable housing plus supportive services. That includes “rapid rehousing,” where people who are homeless are quickly given housing with a short- to medium-term subsidy, coupled with supportive services.

This community has a long history of addressing the problem, including creation of the Blueprint to End Homelessness. That effort involved over 300 community members and organizations, including the private sector, sheriff’s office, University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. Carlisle reviewed the blueprint’s four main goals: prevention, housing with services, reforming the system of care, and engaging the community.

Carlisle also described some of the achievements since the blueprint was developed, and pointed commissioners to a more comprehensive report about these efforts that’s posted on WHA’s website. [.pdf of progress report] Highlights include work by Project Outreach Team (PORT) and the Justice Project Outreach Team (JPORT); the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC), which provides a single entry-point for people seeking services; creation of an endowment for permanent supporting housing; the FUSE (Frequent User Systems Engagement) project, a national pilot program that integrates services for high-risk adults; and creation of a street outreach court and rapid re-housing program, among several other initiatives.

A map showing the percentage of households on public assistance, by census tract: Dark orange (over 30%), light orange (20-30%), tan (10-20%) and cream (0-10%).

Callan noted that a lot has happened in the last 10 years, but it’s no surprise that they haven’t come close to ending homelessness. In 2013, 4,542 people were homeless in Washtenaw County – a 25% increase since 2011. On any given night, 510 people experience homelessness in Washtenaw County. Callan also pointed out that the Delonis Center has seen a 38% increase in people using the shelter from outside of Washtenaw County, from 2012 to 2014.

Several organizations provide a total of 299 emergency shelter beds, but demand far exceeds available resources. Callan noted that the goal isn’t to add more shelter beds, because the solution to homelessness is housing. Temporary shelters are also the most expensive way to address homelessness, she said.

Callan reviewed the spectrum of affordable housing options in Washtenaw County, from temporary shelters and transitional housing to market-rate apartments, public housing, cooperatives, group homes, vouchers, and other options. She noted that during the recession, it was easier to find affordable housing to rent and easier to find landlords who were willing to reduce their rents. Now that the economy is recovering, affordable units are getting more difficult to find, Callan said.

Callan also reviewed the many barriers to helping people find housing. This is the costliest housing market in Michigan. There are only 18 units of affordable, available housing for every 100 of the lowest-income families. The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor is $942, compared to the average $784 statewide. Callan noted that there’s a $106 difference in rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti – less than a mile away. “That disparity grows bigger as you go further east,” she said.

Dick Soble, a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

To put the rent in context, Callan noted that you’d need to earn an hourly wage of $18.31 to afford a two-bedroom apartment renting at $942 a month. The living wage set by the county board is $13.65, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25. Residents who earn that federal minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to afford the two-bedroom apartment.

Callan noted that a growing number of residents are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, and there’s a growing income disparity.

Callan also highlighted the increased pressure on the county’s shelter system, with a 38% increase in the number of out-of-county people using the Delonis Center in Ann Arbor. It’s untenable for everyone to have Washtenaw County serve as the shelter for all of southeast Michigan, she said.

Schulmeister noted that the three-county region of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne have 14 shelters and a population of just over 4 million. Washtenaw County has 8 shelters for a population of 344,000. There are no shelters in Livingston County, and only two shelters in Jackson County, she noted. In the last year, 43% of the out-of-county people who used the Delonis Center came from Wayne County.

Callan laid out several options that the county and its partners have for addressing these issues:

• Restore funding for affordable housing projects, such as rapid rehousing, affordable housing development, and permanent supportive housing.
• Create and fund a mission-style shelter and/or a permanent warming center.
• Use county assets to advance affordable housing projects.
• Continue to stabilize existing providers, including PORT and local nonprofits.
• Provide funding for short-term motel/hotel stays to engage people in permanent housing programs.

As an example of costs, Callan explained that it would cost about $1.5 million annually to operate a “mission-style” shelter with a day center. That’s based on a 25,000-square-foot facility for overnight sleeping and daytime “warming” for 100 people. It assumes a staff of about 17 full-time employees but does not include capital costs or overhead like accounting.

By comparison, that same $1.5 million could provide rapid rehousing of about 200 people each year, or permanent supportive housing for 107 people. It could also pay for a new housing development with nine units, Callan noted. She again stressed that shelters are the most expensive option, and not a long-term solution. Schulmeister told commissioners that the goal is to turn over shelter beds by finding housing for people, not by kicking them out because they’ve “timed out” of the system.

Callan provided a list of advocacy options that the county board could pursue:

• Support waiver requests from HUD for an increase in the fair-market-rate allowance for Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor housing commission has already started working on this issue.
• Advocate for a “local preference” option for individuals seeking shelter services. “Does it mean we’d turn away anyone who’s not from Washtenaw County? No, we have never done that,” Callan said. But Washtenaw County is doing more than its fair share, she said, so the state should either provide more funding or allow the county’s shelter services to prioritize working with people from Washtenaw County.
• Advocate for state enabling legislation to allow “voluntary inclusionary zoning.” This is more of a city or township issue, Callan said, that would allow jurisdictions to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units in any new development.
• Implement and support new source-of-income anti-discrimination policies at the county and state level. A lot of landlords automatically exclude any income that comes from a housing voucher, and there’s nothing to prevent that.

There are also several options for the county board to engage in working to overcome homelessness, Callan said. They could support the recommendations of a task force on sustainable revenue for supportive housing services, which will be making a presentation at the board’s May 22 working session. They could participate in the Continuum of Care, a broad-based community group that focuses on housing and homelessness. In September, there will be a bus tour of housing and homelessness providers, and later in the fall there will be a “community conversation” forum on these issues.

Response to Homelessness: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he’d been hoping to see a specific timeline for how the Blueprint to End Homelessness will be updated. Amanda Carlisle of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance said the WHA board had been talking about that, and it’s something that will likely happen in the fall. Mary Jo Callan said the original blueprint was developed as a community-wide project, and the update would involve a broad community effort as well, led by the WHA.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development.

Responding to another query from Rabhi, former county administrator Bob Guenzel – who serves as WHA’s board chair – said the county and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had authorized WHA to work on developing the blueprint 10 years ago. Then each of those three public bodies approved the blueprint. He said the WHA would appreciate that same kind of support for the update.

Rabhi hoped it would be possible to develop a more detailed timeline on how the update would occur, to ensure it would be done in 2014. Guenzel indicated that WHA has the same goal.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was really disturbed by how homeless people are “dehumanized” if they come here from other communities. “They came here because we have high quality of life,” he said. He wanted to stop making that issue a part of the conversation regarding shelter services.

Ellen Schulmeister of the Shelter Association responded. She noted that 96% of the shelter’s budget comes from local public funding, and the shelter was built for people who became homeless in Washtenaw County. It was her job, as director, “to hold that line,” Schulmeister said. To do that, they established the location of a person’s last permanent residence as well as the reason for coming to this county. About 25% of the shelter’s spots were provided to out-of-county people. Anyone who was turned away who isn’t from Washtenaw County was given transportation to wherever they had connections, she said.

A lot of supportive services are funded based on the county’s boundaries, she noted. Many people had court cases in other counties, and didn’t have transportation to get there. There are many barriers to helping people who aren’t from this county, she said.

Conan Smith said he appreciated how Schulmeister framed the issue, calling it a “very hot-button thing” with some people objecting to their money being spent to support anyone who’s not from here. To him, that’s a poor attitude.

Schulmeister pointed out that the shelter is a limited resource. “So we have to make sure we’re taking care of the people in our community with the building that we have,” she said.

C. Smith replied that it’s a very difficult line to draw. What if someone works here but lives in Oakland County and becomes homeless there? Schulmeister said that if someone has a job in Washtenaw County, they’re considered a resident here. She told commissioners that other counties are shipping people to Washtenaw County for shelter services. “That’s not an appropriate way to treat people, either,” she said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

C. Smith told Schulmeister that she was taking the conversation too personally about the shelter. He was talking about a community attitude.

Mary Jo Callan told Smith that his point was well taken. But she noted that unless the state asks other communities to provide something close to the level of support that Washtenaw County provides, “then it’s an issue of volume. I’m sorry, but it’s not about dehumanizing.”

Smith responded: “What you’re saying is it’s a matter of triage. You’re saying a certain kind of person is a better kind of person to serve.”

“I’m not saying that,” Callan replied. “Your point is well taken, but I don’t think that’s what we’re saying.”

Smith acknowledged that it’s a huge challenge, and a comprehensive solution across the entire system is important. Regardless of where people come from, “homeless people have rights, and one of those rights to me is housing.” He hoped they wouldn’t get hung up on the distinction of where people came from. “I think we should just own the fact that we’re going to care for people because they need to be cared for.”

Smith said he thought an economic development strategy needs to be a key component of a solution to homelessness. People need an income in order to sustain their housing, he noted. He asked that Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle give the same presentation to the county’s workforce development board. Smith said that the chamber of commerce and Ann Arbor SPARK need to understand their role in this effort, too.

Smith also wondered how many of the 4,500 homeless people would likely need supportive housing permanently. Carlisle said that an estimated 1,700 units of permanent supportive housing are needed. Callan added that an upcoming needs assessment will attempt to quantify the need.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Smith said the county wants to have a big role in addressing homelessness, because there are resources that the county can bring to bear on the issue – spanning everything from economic development to community corrections. “Please think holistically and reach out to all of our teams and engage them,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she didn’t believe housing could end homelessness, because there are so many contributing factors to homelessness that also need to be addressed. If people don’t have the supportive services they need, they won’t be able to sustain their housing.

She pointed to the example of Utah, where officials decided it was more economical to providing housing to everyone who needs and wants it, as well as supportive services. She thought it was an inventive approach.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) invited Callan, Schulmeister and Carlisle to the board’s May 22 working session, to continue the discussion. He chairs the working sessions and sets the agenda.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wanted to talk more about partners who can help the county address this problem, including partnerships with surrounding counties.

Yousef Rabhi wrapped up the discussion by saying people should have a choice about where they live, but “if Washtenaw County is their only option, then we have failed them as a region.” The goal should be making sure that each individual can live in the community of their choice, for whatever reason, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

1st Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered a financial report on the county’s general fund budget, for first three months of 2014 – from January through March. She noted that the first-quarter projections tend to be conservative, because they’re based on only three months of the year, with limited evidence of budget trends. [.pdf of Gavalier's presentation]

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

As the board had learned at its April 16, 2014 meeting, Gavalier reported that property tax revenues will be about $720,000 greater than originally projected. The budget had been adopted in late 2013 with an assumption that the tax base would increase by 1% in 2014. According to the equalization report delivered in April, the increase is higher – 2.02%.

Also showing a revenue surplus is the sheriff’s office, with a projected surplus of $111,000 primarily due to higher-than-expected local, state and federal reimbursements.

There are currently projected revenue shortfalls in several areas, including the clerk/register of deeds office ($403,000), district court ($89,000) and interest revenue ($71,000).

In total, there’s now a projected revenue surplus of $277,335 for the general fund, Gavalier said – with shortfalls being more than offset by the property tax surplus.

On the expense side, the sheriff’s office is about $564,000 over the amount budgeted for this year, due to higher-than-expected overtime costs, expenses for inmate food and medical expenses. For all other departments combined, so far expenses are projected to be about $54,000 over budget. Those amounts are partially offset by a projected surplus of about $239,000 in tax appeals and refunds – that is, it’s expected that those expenses will be less than budgeted. Gavalier noted that most of that tax appeal and refund activity will take place in the third quarter, so the amount of any surplus would be clearer then.

Gavalier noted that structural and non-structural adjustments made to the budget since it was passed in late 2013 total about $560,000 in increased expenses. Those include the addition of autism health care coverage, the board’s decision to hire a position for budget work, a “local government initiative” intern, a position in the sheriff’s office, and allocations to keep the homeless shelter’s warming center open in April.

In total, there are $347,565 in general fund over-expenditures as of March 31.

Based on the first-quarter report of revenues and expenses, the 2014 general fund is projected to have a $70,230 shortfall by year’s end – with total revenues of $103,404,537 and total expenditures of $103,474,767. There is no planned use of fund balance for this year’s budget.

Gavalier also reported on several items that will be monitored in the coming months:

• higher expenses in child care programs – for the trial court, children’s services detention, and the department of human services – due to increased caseloads and placements
• fringe benefits
• personal property tax reform
• Act 88 legislation repeal or reform
• annual actuarial valuations for pensions and retiree health care
• annual cost allocation plan
• state revenue-sharing

In the near future, Gavalier said, county administrator Verna McDaniel will present the board with recommendations for dealing with any projected deficits or surpluses. The next quarterly update will occur in August, with a budget affirmation process for 2015 through 2017 taking place this fall.

1st Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the “local government initiative intern” line item. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that it refers to a fellowship that’s being developed to help with budget-related work.

By way of background, at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners authorized McDaniel to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. As county administrator, McDaniel has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts. She’s taking the approach of creating a fellowship, with the hopes of tapping students from institutions like the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, for example.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Smith then asked how the current first quarter compares to other years. Gavalier noted that one of the main differences this year is that the budget doesn’t include the use of fund balance. In recent years, the budget has used reserves to help balance the general fund budget.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked about the shortfall in the clerk/register of deeds office. It had been primarily related to a decrease in revenues from document-processing, so he wondered if there was a corresponding decrease in expenses. If so, was the $403,000 a net or gross amount? Gavalier replied that revenues and expenses are looked at separately, because most departments don’t have enough general fund revenue to cover their general fund expenditures. She noted that the budgeted revenues for the clerk/register of deeds in 2014 was $700,000 higher than 2013.

Dan Smith said that his expectation would be to see expenses decrease, if fewer documents are being processed. Gavalier said she’d follow up with him on that.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked about the budget for veterans relief. It seems that the department of veterans affairs regularly shows a shortfall, he said. If the county isn’t levying at a high enough rate to take care of veterans in Washtenaw County, the board should look at increasing that levy, he said. Rabhi asked Gavalier to comment on that.

By way of background, the board voted to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services on Oct. 16, 2014. The rate of 1/30th of a mill was levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It was expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 in 2013.

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

Gavalier noted that the board has increased the rate in the past two years. Rabhi replied that it still might not be enough. It’s a priority to take care of veterans who have sacrificed so much, he said. Gavalier indicated it would be possible to discuss options, based on looking at the last two years and the first quarter of 2014. Rabhi noted that the levy is relatively small, which is good from a taxpayers’ perspective, but there’s a need to provide services for indigent veterans.

Switching topics, Conan Smith said he’d like to consider creating a “budget stabilization fund,” like the state has. The state has a “rainy day” fund with money set aside in case something goes wrong, he said. The county’s approach is to leave money in its fund balance, he noted. The target is to have a fund balance that’s 20% of the county’s general fund budget. Smith noted that since November 2013, the board has tapped the fund balance for about $500,000 for various reasons. “When we spend money without identifying a source, that means it comes out of fund balance,” he said. So if they really want to be deliberate in building up a strategic reserve, he thought they should consider creating a separate budget stabilization fund. He hoped the board could talk about that as part of its budget discussions.

Dan Smith said he liked the idea. The board could then as a body make decisions on allocating the funds toward specific activities. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) also supported creating some kind of designated fund reserve.

On another note, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) observed that last year, the administration and board had been on a path to borrow $350 million to cover employee pension and retiree health care costs. He thought they needed to discuss that issue too.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Rabinowitz Appointment

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated for appointment as health officer for the Washtenaw public health department, after serving in that position on an interim basis since late last year. The appointment is effective May 19.

Ellen Rabinowitz.

Rabinowitz will receive a salary of $126,098. That salary includes her role as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’s held for 11 years.

A staff memo notes that the county will see a savings of $30,266 in personnel costs as a result of this appointment. The salary will be covered by the public health department (80%) and the Washtenaw Health Plan (20%). Fleece’s salary was covered in full by the public health department.

The county board appointed Rabinowitz as interim health officer on Nov. 6, 2013. The appointment was spurred by the retirement of former health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28, 2013.

The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resume]

Outcome: The appointment was approved unanimously. Rabinowitz received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

Support for Minimum Wage Increase

The May 7 agenda included a resolution calling for an increase in Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

At the board’s April 2, 2014 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had indicated his intent to bring forward this resolution. Earlier that day, President Barack Obama had given a speech at the University of Michigan that focused on the need to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10.

The resolution debated on May 7 includes a quote from Obama’s speech: “We believe our economy grows best not from the top down, but from the middle out, and from the bottom up paychecks and wages that allow you to support a family…Nobody who works full-time should be raising their family in poverty.” [.pdf of resolution]

The two resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby voices support for the efforts of President Obama to increase the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 per hour.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the current efforts of legislators and citizen groups to increase Michigan’s minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

There was no discussion on this item prior to the vote.

Outcome: The resolution passed, over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Not voting yes was also Dan Smith (R-District 2), who stated “Present” for his vote. In the past, Smith has objected to the board weighing in on state-level issues. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was not in the room when the vote was taken.

Resolutions of Appreciation

The May 7 meeting included three resolutions that showed appreciation in various ways:

• Declaring the week of May 11-17, 2014 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and designating May 15, 2014 as Peace Officers Memorial Day to honor all police and corrections officers who’ve lost their lives in the line of duty;
• Recognizing work of the county’s office of community & economic development as part of the 50th anniversary of the federal Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, when community action agencies were created, and declaring May 2014 as Community Action Month;
• Honoring Tyler Lukomski, a Chelsea resident, for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College and a member of the county’s Community Action Board, accepted the resolution declaring May as Community Action Month. He thanked commissioners for including human services in their list of budget priorities, and for committing $1.15 million to coordinated funding.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 7 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: Environmental Issues

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d been in Lansing talking with Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality staff about the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He said it seems like there’s progress on that issue, although the timeline is much longer than he hoped. He said he’d continue to press on that.

Rabhi also said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. A drilling permit has been applied for in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit. Residents might be coming to the county board to ask for support in delaying the permitting process, so that there could be more community input. He hoped to bring forward a resolution at the May 21 meeting.

Update: A resolution is now on the May 21 agenda. The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

1. Opposes said oil exploration and drilling, and any future oil exploration and drilling in this area and other areas within the boundaries of Washtenaw County; and

2. Respectfully requests that the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, deny the permit application to drill the Wing 1-15 well as proposed; and

3. Hereby requests that the State of Michigan and federal legislators move to enact legislation and improve regulations to reduce the risks to public health, safety, welfare and the environment posed by the oil and gas industry, and re-commit to promoting and protecting quality of life, our economic well-being, and our environment through less reliance on non-renewable energy resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted as the County’s official comment on said oil drilling permit and application by the Clerk, to each elected official representing Washtenaw County in Lansing, the Office of the Governor, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a similar resolution opposing oil exploration in Scio Township.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (left early), Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 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!

The county is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the county is providing $1.015 million. [.pdf of staff memo and list of funding allocations]

Among the organizations that are being funded in this cycle are Corner Health Center, Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County, Child Care Network, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw, Food Gatherers and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. Several nonprofit leaders spoke during public commentary in support of this process, as did Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers. He noted that the city council would be voting on its share of the allocation – $1,244,629 – at its May 19 meeting, as part of its budget approval process.

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

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized as part of the county board’s overall coordinated funding resolution, passed on Nov. 6, 2013. The changes were described in a staff memo:

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

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

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The county board is expected to take a final vote to allocate funding on May 21.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During a discussion on this item at the county board’s Oct. 16 meeting, some commissioners expressed concern about controlling the allocation process related to the county’s contribution. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reported that she’d be bringing back recommendations to the board for approval, prior to any allocation of funding. This has also been the process in previous years.

On Nov. 6, Callan provided additional details about the allocation process, and provided a handout with information about community outcomes for coordinated funding. [.pdf of outcomes handout]

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

Selma Cafe now holds its monthly breakfast fundraisers in the common house dining room at Sunward Cohousing in Scio Township. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Gottlieb.)

According to co-founder Lisa Gottlieb, the IRS approval of Selma’s 501(c)3 application came late last week. Artrain, an Ann Arbor nonprofit that took on fiscal sponsorship of the cafe in early June, will transfer about $43,000 in cash assets back to a Selma Cafe account at University Bank as soon as a new account is set up. That’s likely to happen later this week, Gottlieb wrote in an email to The Chronicle. Artrain will take a 5% fee for their fiscal support in the transition to Selma’s 501(c)3 status.

Selma Cafe began as a weekly breakfast salon in 2009, held on Friday mornings at the home of Gottlieb and Jeff McCabe in Ann Arbor’s Eberwhite neighborhood. Operations were suspended in mid-April of 2013, after the city notified the group that the breakfasts were violating local zoning ordinances. At roughly the same time, Selma’s previous fiscal sponsor – the nonprofit Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) – froze funds it held on behalf of Selma Cafe, citing violations of a memorandum of understanding between the two entities. FSEP set a May 31 deadline for organizers to find a new fiscal sponsor, or receive a 501(c)3 nonprofit designation from the IRS. Artrain agreed to take on the sponsorship responsibilities, and the IRS expedited Selma’s application for nonprofit status.

The volunteer-supported fundraising breakfasts resumed in June at a new location – in the common house dining room at Sunward Cohousing, 424 Little Lake Drive. The cohousing community is located off of Jackson Road, west of Ann Arbor in Scio Township. The events shifted to a Saturday brunch, and are being held on a less regular basis. A second breakfast was held on Aug. 3, and others are set for Sept. 14, Oct. 12, Nov. 9, Dec. 14, and Jan. 11. All brunches run from 9 a.m. until noon, with suggested donations of $12-$15.

Of the transition, Gottlieb wrote in an email: “The Sunward Cohousing community has been extremely warm and welcoming, and many of the cohousing residents have been volunteering, which is generous of them and really fun. Selma Cafe guests and volunteers are sharing that they love the new digs. It’s a beautiful setting, with a great kitchen and spacious dining room. The first two breakfast events there were successful and everyone had a great time. Everyone is happy that Selma Cafe didn’t miss a beat in getting things going again.”

Selma’s nonprofit board members are Susie Baity, Kyoko Yamamoto, Nathan Lada, Nick Roumel and Jeff McCabe, with Gottlieb serving as board president and operations/general manager. Gottlieb stated that the board is reviewing projects and events it might pursue, in light of its new independence as a nonprofit.

She also addressed previous concerns that had been raised regarding a possible conflict of interest by McCabe. He owns Nifty Hoops, a business that sells kits to make hoop houses to extend the growing season. “Selma Cafe hasn’t purchased any kits from Jeff, ever, and does not intend to do so,” Gottlieb wrote in an email. “All the hoop houses Selma loaned farmers money to purchase happened before Jeff started Nifty Hoops.” Kits that were purchased using Selma loans were bought from a hoop house company in Ohio, she stated.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Selma Cafe Finds New Fiscal Sponsor: Artrain” and “City Notifies Selma Cafe of Zoning Violation.”

The leadership of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, from left: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4 of Pittsfield Township), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7 of Ann Arbor), and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8 of Ann Arbor). Rabhi is board chair. Brabec serves as chair of the board’s ways & means committee, and LaBarre chairs the board’s working sessions. (Photos by the writer.)

Those priorities, listed in order of importance, are: (1) ensure a community safety net through health and human services; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents; and (4) reduce environmental impact. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials]

The vote on the budget priorities resolution was 6-1, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who indicated that his No. 1 priority is long-term fiscal stability, followed by public safety and justice. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting before the vote, and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. Although it was not part of the four priorities, a resolved clause was added during the meeting, stating that “the long-term fiscal stability of the county [will] continue to be of import throughout the budget development process.”

The resolution was brought forward by Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board. It also laid out a framework for developing strategies to measure the effectiveness of county investments in these priorities.

Brabec described this approach as “both a policy and a paradigm shift” that can’t happen overnight, but one that’s critical for the county’s future. The board is forming work groups focused on each of the four priorities, as well as on the topic of human resources. These work groups will be meeting to develop as many as five “community impact” goals in each category, in work that’s expected to continue into next year and beyond.

The July 24 meeting also included an update from county administrator Verna McDaniel about the county’s current financial condition and preliminary projections for 2014. At her last presentation, on May 15, 2013, McDaniel told commissioners that the county needed to identify $6.99 million in structural reductions for the 2014 budget. The approach to addressing this $6.99 million target depended on whether the county moved ahead with a major bond proposal to cover obligations to retirees, she said at the time. That bond proposal was put on hold earlier this month.

Now, the projected general fund shortfall is $3.93 million on a roughly $101 million budget. McDaniel indicated that the shortfall will be addressed primarily with operating cost reductions ($3.83 million) as well as $100,000 in cuts to funding of outside agencies, including support for nonprofits. The lower shortfall resulted from revised actuarial data that significantly lowered the contribution that the county is required to make toward its unfunded retiree obligations. Other factors include: (1) a decision not to make a $1 million contribution to the general fund’s fund balance; and (2) $2.4 million in higher-than-previously-anticipated revenue.

McDaniel noted that if the county had chosen to bond, then operational cuts would not be needed, and the fund balance contribution could be made. She also reported that the general fund budget doesn’t factor in serious state and federal cuts to non-general fund programs. “Revenue is needed,” she said. “We need to figure that out.”

Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) both voiced interest in exploring possible new taxes. “I think it’s important that we strongly consider asking the voters of Washtenaw County if they’re willing to support some of the ongoing operations that we have,” said Rabhi, the board’s chair. “We need to pose that question at least to the voters in the form of a millage of some kind.”

Smith cited human services and public safety as areas that might gain voter support for a millage. During public commentary, representatives from SafeHouse Center urged commissioners to continue funding of that nonprofit, as well as for human service organizations in general.

The upcoming budget will be prepared without the major bonding initiative that until earlier this month was anticipated to occur later this year. The bonding was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million, but updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million. During the July 24 meeting, commissioner Conan Smith said it’s unlikely that bonding could occur this year, although he’s still supportive in general of taking that approach.

McDaniel plans to present the 2014 budget to the board at its Oct. 2 meeting. Commissioners are required to adopt a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of 2013. At its May 1, 2013 meeting, the board had approved development of a four-year budget. However, commissioners have not yet decided whether to follow through by adopting a budget with that four-year horizon. And some commissioners – notably Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – have expressed skepticism about this longer-term approach. For the past few years, budget plans have been developed for a two-year period, though the board must confirm the budget annually.

Budget Priorities

One of the main agenda items at the July 24 meeting was a discussion of priorities that the administration would be asked to use as the staff develops the budget for 2014-2017. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials] Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board, began by saying that this year, the board would focus on community impacts and creating a vision.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4 of Pittsfield Township) is leading the board’s budget process as chair of its ways & means committee.

In 2014, that work would shift to developing strategies and metrics related to the community impacts, she said. The board would ask the administration to report back on a more regular basis to talk about how the budget reflects community impacts and investments in the board’s priority areas. It allows for a fuller and more rigorous look at what’s typically been called the budget reaffirmation, Brabec said. [In the two-year budget cycle that the county currently uses, the board votes to "reaffirm" the second year of the budget, usually with only minor changes.]

Brabec noted that the board had held two budget retreats – on March 7, 2013 and May 16, 2013 – and a July 11, 2013 working session focused on the budget. She said she’s had follow-up conversations with commissioners, and these four budget priorities were her best attempt to synthesize that feedback.

“This is both a policy and a paradigm shift for our county,” Brabec said. It can’t happen overnight, she added, and there will be bumps along the way. But this model is an attempt to create a solid process that will help reach the county’s goals, she said. It also sets forth a model for transparency, responsibility and accountability to the community, Brabec noted. Her hope is that, by working with the administration, the board can achieve the community impacts that will be set as part of this process. The framework will allow the board and administration continuously to assess and adjust its investments, she said, assuring that they’re making choices that align with their priorities and vision. She described it as a strategic, longitudinal and dynamic process.

The four priorities stated in the resolution are:

1. Ensure a community safety net through health and human services;
2. Increase economic opportunity and workforce development;
3. Ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents;
4. Reduce environmental impact.

The resolution on budget priorities also “directs the Administrator to lead a structured and transparent process by which the Board, representatives from throughout the organization, and community partners engage collaboratively to develop a balanced budget proposal that (1) aligns the organization’s programs and services with the Board’s four priorities, and (2) includes a summary set of ‘community outcomes’ that declares benchmarks related to the Board’s priority areas.”

The board has named the framework for this budget decision-making process: “Community Impact Investing.” Part of the framework includes six “decision-making principles” that commissioners are asking staff to use in developing the budget. Those principles are:

1. impacts and outcomes drive investment priorities;
2. services are delivered optimally by the right provider, social and financial returns are calculated and articulated;
3. programs are evidence- and performance-based;
4. mandates that support outcomes and impacts are better funded;
5. the excellence of the County’s internal workforce is foundational;
6. programs and services should be encouraged to achieve the triple bottom line of financial returns on investment, contribution to social equity, and reduction of environmental impact.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wondered when the board would actually discuss dollar amounts for this upcoming budget, especially for funding of organizations like SafeHouse and other human service programs.

Brabec described the priorities as the “big picture,” which will in turn determine allocations in the budget. It’s a huge shift in process, she said. Noting that the priorities are listed in order of importance, Brabec said the board will be able to look at the budget that the administration brings forward and see how the allocations are aligned with the budget priorities.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said it looked like the board was duplicating things they’ve already discussed. Why is the board spending time on this, he asked, when they already have a list of guiding principles that they’ve used for years? Is there anything different here?

By way of background, the “guiding principles” of the county are listed on the county administrator’s website:

1. Ensure long term fiscal stability for the County.
2. Reduce the cost of conducting the County’s business.
3. Enhance customer service.
4. Provide the necessary knowledge, skills and resources to County employees to carry out these principles.
5. Ensure adequate provision of mandated services.
6. Focus on the root causes of problems that affect the quality of life of County citizens by aggressively pursuing prevention strategies.
7. Provide leadership on intragovernmental, intergovernmental and intersectoral cooperation and collaboration aimed at improving services to County citizens.

Saying he didn’t understand the purpose of the proposed budget priorities, Sizemore asked Brabec to explain the difference between the current proposal and the existing principles.

Brabec said that in the past, the board would present its budget priorities, then the administration would develop a budget based on those priorities. The current proposal is an attempt to keep the board involved – not just during the budget development, but continuously as the county makes investments.

Sizemore said that as someone who is elected by residents, he already keeps the budget priorities in mind throughout the year. Although he felt it was duplicating a mechanism the board already had, Sizemore said he had no problem with it if the board is going to follow through on it. But if these priorities are just going to be put on the “back shelf,” he said, there are already plenty of reports like that. Brabec said her hope is that it will be a dynamic process.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) noted that Sizemore had spoken about the classic issue between the board and the administrator, who’s been hired by the board to present a balanced budget. Brabec is trying a different approach, Rabhi said – to involve the board in evaluating and benchmarking the priorities that it’s setting. Some of the priorities are carried over from the previous budget cycle, he noted, but a lot of it is new. The hope is that this process will be more dynamic than in the past, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) highlighted the working groups that will focus on the budget priorities. This approach hasn’t been taken before, he noted. The working groups will be developing a list of “community impacts” for each priority. LaBarre asked for clarification about the timeline for that work.

Brabec replied that the work groups will be meeting in August and develop up to five community impacts for each budget priority. Those impacts will be delivered to the administrator as the budget is developed.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6 of Ypsilanti).

Peterson brought up the issue of long-term legacy obligations to retirees, and stated that it should be one of the priorities. “It’s not going to go away, and it should be something we should be talking about,” he said. The county made a commitment to employees, and has an obligation to meet it, he said. The board has discussed it for the past few months in terms of a potential bonding to cover those obligations, he noted, and the public should continue to be part of that discussion. He pointed out that the state legislation allowing the county to bond for this purpose doesn’t sunset until the end of 2014. The public should know that the board isn’t hiding this issue, he said.

Peterson added that he wasn’t trying to make it a controversial issue, but “money’s always controversial when you lack it.” He said if the topic became part of the budget document, “I will be quiet for the rest of the night.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked Brabec and Rabhi for their leadership on this budget framework. It’s important to know what your goals are when you’re developing a budget, he said. For a legislative body, the messiest part of doing that is creating the framework. Giving clear, good direction to the administration is the board’s job, he said. It’s essential to know what the board wants to achieve over the long-term with its investments. The document that the board is voting on that night doesn’t make any allocation of funds, Smith noted. However, he said, it builds on the “experiment” that the board has been undertaking to identify goals for the community, and then pursues those goals “very deliberately.”

Smith called Brabec’s proposal a “significant step forward.” The process calls for defining metrics and clearly articulating those metrics for each priority. In the past, the board simply talked about its priorities, he said, and that wasn’t sufficient. He also said he appreciated the “consistent accountability method” that’s being proposed. The board will be checking outcomes, not just funding amounts. Commissioners will be asking if the investments are delivering the change in the community that they really want, Smith observed.

Rabhi in turn thanked Conan Smith for his leadership in identifying the importance of metrics during budget discussions earlier this year. Rabhi also agreed with Peterson about the importance of addressing unfunded liabilities. A lot of other communities have ignored the issue of unfunded liabilities, he said. The fact that the county is evaluating its options is the most fiscally responsible thing to do, Rabhi said. He asked Brabec how that issue could be incorporated into the budget priorities document, perhaps by noting the importance of long-term fiscal responsibility.

Rabhi suggested taking a certain percentage of any increase in revenues above what’s been budgeted, and using that excess to help cover unfunded liabilities – or adding it to the fund balance. In order for that to happen, that goal needs to be built into the budget priorities, he said. Fiscal stability and workforce sustainability are really overlays to the budget priorities, he added – saying you need those things in order achieve the other priorities.

Peterson clarified that he wasn’t necessarily saying that he wanted to continue the conversation about bonding, but it’s more about the obligation to employees. He alluded to Detroit’s bankruptcy, noting that the issue of unfunded obligations are affecting many communities – but it’s especially affecting people who were promised pensions. He’s concerned that if the county borrows money but doesn’t meet its investment goals, the shortfall will be made up on the backs of county employees. The county doesn’t have a strong reserve, he noted. The state constitution is supposed to protect pensions, but the constitution doesn’t mandate that governments have to make payments to cover those pension obligations.

Peterson also expressed concerns about the proposed four-year budget process. He didn’t see how the county could be responsive to possible fluctuations in contributions to WCERS and VEBA, if a four-year budget was in place. Anything can happen in this country, he said, citing specifically the panic after Sept. 11, 2001. If the stock market crashes, the county would have to meet its obligations out of the general fund, he said. Peterson added that he might be the only one to vote against a four-year budget, if the county doesn’t have a plan in place that is fiscally sound. At one point, the retiree obligations were fully funded, but “we got off track,” Peterson said. Time has passed, he said, but now the issue is how to get back on track.

LaBarre echoed Peterson’s comments, saying the county had to meet its retiree obligations – from a moral and reputation perspective. He considered the budget priorities as a guide for the future, with the assumption that the county won’t be bonding. It will be a long, hard process to develop a budget with the current constraints, LaBarre noted. But the intent is to meet the county’s retiree obligations fully, he said, even though that won’t be handled through bonding.

Brabec described the budget framework and priorities document as separate from a discussion about bonding, or about any other strategies the county might pursue to meet its retiree obligations.

Conan Smith (D-District 9 of Ann Arbor).

Conan Smith suggested that one of the measurable objectives for the budget should be that the unfunded liabilities are addressed. He said his personal preference would be to fully fund it. [The allusion was to funding those obligations by borrowing the full amount through bonding, which Smith supports.]

Smith asked Brabec whether a separate budget work group could focus on employee issues. That’s possible, Brabec replied, but she also wanted to make sure that each of the work groups keep in mind the importance of employees.

Smith agreed, but said he still felt there should be a work group that addresses personnel issues. One example he cited is a “blurring” of compensation between supervisors and the employees they supervise. So the compensation of the leadership across the organization should be examined, he said. Smith also mentioned some commissioners want to revisit the “red circle” policy. [That policy authorizes the administrator to increase an employee’s salary above the position's pay range. If an assignment extends past six months, the administrator must provide a report to the board about employees on extended assignment.]

The county has been a place where people crave employment because of the expertise they’re surrounded by, Smith said. “Putting ‘Washtenaw County’ on your resume really meant something out in the world,” he said. It’s important to keep fostering that environment.

Rabhi described the budget as one of the tools to help address the unfunded liabilities, among other issues. He said he respected Peterson’s concerns about a four-year budget, but he felt the unfunded liabilities could be addressed during the budget process – even if the budget is taking a longer-term view. The county could be locking in that commitment to fund those liabilities for a longer period, he said.

Brabec pointed out that long-term fiscal stability is one of the county’s guiding principles. She proposed adding a resolved clause to the resolution that would highlight this point:

Be it further resolved that the long-term fiscal stability of the county continue to be of import throughout the budget development process.

Peterson said he’d be supportive of that.

Outcome: Brabec’s proposed addition was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Discussion continued. Peterson spoke at length about various impacts to county revenues, including cuts in federal and state funding. He didn’t understand how the county could develop a four-year budget with such huge legacy costs, as well as uncertainty related to state and federal grants. In four years, there will be a new president and possibly a new governor, he pointed out. The county also doesn’t know what the actuary will require in terms of contributions to cover unfunded liabilities for retirees. It’s setting the county administrator up to fail, he contended, if her budget projections are off. If her projections are wrong, the only thing that she could do would be to cut from the board’s priority areas, he said.

It might be different if the county were generating revenues that would offset its retiree costs, Peterson said.

Rabhi picked up on that idea, saying that without having “new dollars” on the table, the county will face similar struggles in the future. “I think it’s important that we strongly consider asking the voters of Washtenaw County if they’re willing to support some of the ongoing operations that we have,” he said. “We need to pose that question at least to the voters in the form of a millage of some kind.”

The county can’t rely on state and federal funding that has traditionally supported county-run programs, Rabhi said. Property taxes are constrained by various state laws and constitutional amendments, he noted. The problem of unfunded retiree liabilities was created over time and no single person can be blamed, he added, but it’s important to address it head on. So the voters need to be asked if they’re willing to keep the county’s commitments to employees while keeping the same level of programs and services. He noted that the liabilities are huge and will impact the budget for years to come.

Taxes are a sensitive issue, Rabhi said, but voters need to be asked. Are they content with shrinking county government to the point of maybe only providing the lowest level of mandated services? Given current realities, “we just can’t expect to continue the way we are,” he said, providing the current breadth of services. “I know that’s kind of a doom-and-gloom statement, but I think it’s the reality that we’re facing and it’s the challenge of local government.”

Conan Smith said he fully supported Rabhi’s suggestion to talk about new revenue. Regarding the funding for unfunded liabilities, however, he reminded commissioners of something that their bond counsel, John Axe, had told them: It’s perhaps a riskier proposition politically to fund those liabilities via a voter-approved millage, because that gives the board the unilateral authority to raise taxes if the funds aren’t sufficient to meet those obligations.

Smith also said he’d love to put a human services millage on the ballot, and is eager to have a conversation about that. A millage for police services is another option to discuss, he said.

Smith noted that the bonding scenario had been presented as a “tax neutral” solution. To cover the unfunded liabilities by bonding, the county wouldn’t need to ask for an additional millage, he said, “nor would we have to cut the general fund.” To him, the bonding question is “unresolved.”

Dan Smith (R-District 2 of Whitmore Lake).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) cited several concerns he had with the budget priorities resolution. His first priority above all else is the short-term and long-term financial stability of the county. It’s troubling to see that the county is contemplating putting $1 million less in its fund balance next year than originally contemplated, he said. A healthy fund balance is a critical part of financial stability. His second priority would be public safety and justice, and there are a lot of mandated and non-mandated services that fall under that category. A distant third priority would be roads, Smith said.

Conan Smith responded, saying he thought that public safety was a priority that was interwoven with the four priorities stated in the resolution. He cited sheriff Jerry Clayton’s focus on a “social justice” approach to public safety, and wondered if Brabec had talked to Clayton about his team’s role in the proposed working groups.

Brabec said she had talked to Clayton about the notion of a social justice campus, but hadn’t discussed it in the context of the budget work groups. She saw public safety as integrated into several of the priorities, primarily the priorities on creating a community safety net and ensuring economic opportunity.

Conan Smith also clarified with Brabec that roads would be part of the third priority – on ensuring mobility and civic infrastructure. He said he supported everything that Dan Smith had identified as priorities, adding that the board needs to ensure that the work groups tackle those subjects. “I think the framework allows for that,” he said.

LaBarre reported that the topic of the next working session, on Aug. 8, would focus on the budget. So commissioners can continue hashing out some of these issues then, he said.

As the discussion came to a close, Peterson again voiced his opposition to a four-year budget, saying he was “totally opposed” to that approach. Rabhi responded, noting that although an original draft of the resolution had mentioned a four-year budget, the most recent version had eliminated references to that. Brabec had made those changes in order to address Peterson’s concerns, Rabhi said.

Brabec added that the resolution is meant to provide a budget framework, regardless of the timeframe. The discussion about whether to develop a four-year budget will be addressed separately, she said. Peterson replied that “in front of all of these witnesses, I’ll take your word and hold you to it.” He indicated he’d vote for the resolution based on that assurance.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the budget priorities resolution on a 6-1 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting prior to the vote.

Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the county’s financial condition, and a look ahead at the upcoming budget. [.pdf of McDaniel's presentation] She had previously given a report to the board on May 15, 2013, when she’d been advocating for a bond proposal. At that time, she had told the board that $6.99 million in structural reductions were needed in 2014, in order to provide a balanced budget for the four-year period of 2014-2017. If the county didn’t bond, she’d said at the time, all of that $6.99 million – including $5.06 million related to covering unfunded retiree obligations – would need to come from operational cost reductions.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

On July 24, she told the board that revenues would be $2.4 million more than previously projected. [That's based on information from the equalization report that was delivered at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.]

She noted that many of the previous assumptions are unchanged. That includes projecting a 1% increase in property tax revenue each year through 2017, and getting $5.3 million per year in state revenue-sharing.

Her current analysis is that $3.93 million in structural reductions are needed, McDaniel said. In explaining the lower shortfall, she said the original estimated amount of $5.06 million in contributions needed to cover unfunded retiree obligations had turned out to be high, and was now estimated at about $2 million.

To address the $3.93 million shortfall, McDaniel said most of the reductions ($3.83 million ) will come from operational cuts. In addition, she’s proposing cuts of $100,000 to “outside agency” funding, which includes the county’s support of nonprofits. She also expects to eliminate a previously planned $1 million contribution to the general fund’s fund balance in 2014.

However, McDaniel also proposed that any additional revenues above the projected 1% increase in property taxes each year should be allocated to the fund balance as unearmarked reserves. Any surpluses at the end of each year would also be moved into unearmarked reserves, she said. The additions to the fund balance will be incremental, “as opposed to being baked in,” she said, “because baking it in will create an undue burden on the organization.”

McDaniel reminded the board that the county had made $30 million in reductions over two years in 2010 and 2011, and another $17.5 million in cuts during 2012 and 2013. With $3.93 million in proposed cuts next year, “we’re close to the finish line,” she said. “We think we can do this.” She plans to make a formal budget recommendation to the board on Oct. 2.

For the non-general fund portion of the budget, programs and services that are funded with federal and state grants face serious challenges, she said. Those issues were not addressed in her budget presentation, she added, but she wanted the board to keep it in mind. “Revenue is needed – we have to figure that out.”

Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith noted that when the budget had factored in bonding, the structural reductions were originally estimated at $1.83 million. If bonding were to move forward now, he said, there would be no need for operational reductions and the county could make its $1 million contribution to the fund balance. By abandoning the bonding proposal, he added, it is forcing cuts on the organization and reducing the contribution to the fund balance.

Kelly Belknap, Washtenaw County’s finance director.

Smith then asked for an explanation of the relationship between the fund balance and the annual cash flow. Each June for the past couple of years, “we’ve cut it pretty thin,” he said.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, confirmed that the county had “dipped below zero” in the summer, in terms of its ability to meet payroll with cash flow. Each year, the county in May or June enters into a negative cash balance, she said, because property taxes aren’t collected until July. The county’s policy is to borrow internally from its fund balances that are outside of the general fund, she said. When tax revenues are received later in the year, those other fund balances are repaid.

Conan Smith clarified with Belknap and McDaniel that this is considered an acceptable practice, but not a best practice. He said he wasn’t trying to blame anyone, but wanted to make clear that there are “consequences of walking this particular path.” He noted that the other way to address it would be to make even deeper operational cuts to the general fund, which is not something that the administration is proposing.

Ronnie Peterson confirmed that the county was making actuarial-recommended contributions to both WCERS and VEBA. He noted that some employees are in the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan (MERS), a statewide system. McDaniel reported that most employees in the sheriff’s offices are in the MERS plan, though she didn’t have specific figures on hand. She noted that the county also makes required contributions to that system, in addition to WCERS and VEBA.

Peterson wondered if the county could expect large fluctuations in the amount of contributions it would need to make to MERS in the future. That should be part of the board’s discussion, he said. McDaniel replied that the amount fluctuates each year, and it’s been going up. Those figures are included in the budget projections, she said. Peterson wanted to make sure that MERS was included in the discussion about legacy pension costs, saying that it also impacts the budget.

Conan Smith noted that the MERS system is the healthiest fund – saying that it’s about 88% funded. But the challenge is that the county doesn’t control the assumptions for that system in the same way that it can for WCERS and VEBA, he said. So in 2010, there was a $600,000 increase in the contribution that the county was required to make for MERS, for example. He agreed with Peterson that it was important to be aware of the volatility of MERS.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Financial Update: Public Commentary

At the beginning of the July 24 meeting, Doug Smith – wearing a Washtenaw Watchdogs T-shirt – told the board that commissioner Conan Smith has repeatedly stated that the county has made its scheduled contributions to the retirement accounts, and that the county is therefore not responsible for underfunding those accounts. “He’s deceiving you – whether he’s deceiving himself is not clear,” Doug Smith said. In 2000, the WCERS account was overfunded by $4 million. Since then, it has been progressively underfunded until it became underfunded by more than $40 million in 2007. That was before the financial crisis of 2008, he noted, and before the pension plan was re-opened for new members. That means the county board watched the fund lose ground by about $6.5 million each year between 2000 and 2007, Smith said, and nothing was done to investigate or correct the situation. The county didn’t pay its annual contribution to VEBA in full until 2010, even though it was severely underfunded, he said.

From left: Conan Smith (D-District 9 of Ann Arbor) and Dan Smith (R-District 2 of Whitmore Lake).

Smith referred to a New York Times article he’d given to the board, which reported that actuaries have been making unrealistic assumptions about returns on investments for many years. That means pension funds are much more underfunded than industry practices would estimate, he said. For Washtenaw County, actuaries are still using an unrealistic net gain on investments of 7.75%, he said. For the WCERS account, the actual return has been 3.4% since 2000. If the actuary used a more realistic number, the current underfunding would be much higher than $300 million, he argued.

In 2007, the board made a decision “so stupid that it must have been on purpose,” Doug Smith said. Even though the county had eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in 1984 in favor of a defined contribution plan – which by 2007 covered about 80% of county employees – the county in 2007 decided to let all employees buy back into the pension plan. It was a “gift to employees, including Verna McDaniel, at taxpayer expense,” Smith contended. McDaniel is employed by taxpayers, he said, and she is not serving them well. The entire problem with underfunding the retirement plan rests with the board, “and I’m tired of hearing Conan Smith say otherwise,” he concluded.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Doug Smith asked for confirmation of his understanding of McDaniel’s presentation: Even if the administration isn’t happy about making budget cuts, the roughly $4 million cut over four years is manageable without the bonding. He also wanted confirmation that the budget was being prepared with the assumption that the county would not be bonding.

Financial Update: Public Commentary – Commissioner Response

Conan Smith acknowledged that Doug Smith was right: “I had missed the shorting of the VEBA in 2006-09. I’d been told differently, and I didn’t validate that information.” He said he’d go back and look at what the rationale was for that decision, but “it almost doesn’t matter. We’ve got to deal with it looking into the future.”

Conan Smith also affirmed that “absolutely the budget is manageable.” There are sufficient general fund revenues to cover the contributions that must be made each year toward unfunded retiree obligations. “The question is always: What are the consequences of doing that?” he said. The county has been making operational cuts ever since he got elected, Smith said, and it would be possible to make more cuts. But “we have cut to the bone already,” he added. Making additional cuts would result in measurable, immediate reductions in services to residents, he said.

As for bonding, it’s almost inevitable that they wouldn’t be able to bond this year, he said, because of the timing needed to move through the bonding process. Given that the board must adopt a balanced budget by Dec. 31, it would be irresponsible of McDaniel not to present a budget on an assumption that no bonding would take place, he said.

Andy LaBarre addressed Doug Smith’s comments that had questioned the motives of commissioners. LaBarre felt those comments were wrong. He said he appreciated the service of Conan Smith, Yousef Rabhi and Verna McDaniel. “I just wanted that said for the record,” LaBarre concluded.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: SafeHouse Center, Human Services Funding

Three representatives of SafeHouse Center – a nonprofit that provides support for people affected by domestic violence or sexual assault – addressed the board at the start of the July 24 meeting. Barbara Niess-May, the nonprofit’s executive director, thanked the board for its support of SafeHouse as well as other safety net services in the community. It makes an enormous difference to people who find themselves struggling and needing an extra hand during a difficult time. She noted that the coordinated funding program is critical, and she encouraged commissioners to keep it a priority. Any loss to that funding would impact the quality of life for many people, including survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Molly Resnik, a co-founder of SafeHouse Center, and SafeHouse board president Rob Oliver addressed the county commissioners during public commentary, advocating for continued support of the nonprofit.

About 10 years ago, SafeHouse took on the task for providing sexual assault services on behalf of the county, Niess-May explained. There was an agreement about how much funding it would take to support that work, she said, but those amounts subsequently have been reduced. Like everyone else, SafeHouse is doing its best to do more with less, she said, but the need has not lessened. SafeHouse serves about 5,000 women, children and men each year, with a staff of 24 and 150 volunteers. SafeHouse is “definitely leveraging every last bit that we can,” she said. SafeHouse serves as a support for law enforcement, and works cooperatively with the county prosecutor’s office, “and in the end, we save lives,” Niess-May said. A loss of funds would mean a drastic reduction of services.

Molly Resnik, one of SafeHouse’s co-founders and a long-time volunteer, said she knew there were a couple of people at the board table who had been there in the early 1970s when organizers started putting together services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. It’s heartening to see the continuity, she said, but frightening to see that in many ways, “we’ve gone backwards in response to budget cuts.”

Until recently, she had served on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, a partner in the coordinated funding approach. She’s very aware of the importance of prioritizing and of coordinating an approach to meet community needs. The one problem is that some services – like those offered by SafeHouse – “don’t comfortably fit into categories.” It’s been put into the category of emergency housing and homelessness, she noted, but it’s not exactly a fit. As the U.S Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and others have redefined what homelessness means for the purpose of funding, it’s leaving SafeHouse out in the cold. Resnik said that for her, it comes down to saving lives. She has no doubt that there are women and children alive today because SafeHouse was there. She asked the board to remember that SafeHouse stands out, and somehow the community needs to reinvigorate the comprehensive services it offers.

The president of SafeHouse Center’s board, Rob Oliver, noted that the organization is effective despite cuts by the county, federal sequestration and funding cuts from the HUD. That’s why money from the county is so important. SafeHouse has hired a consultant to help with fundraising, so the nonprofit is doing as much as it can to be sustainable, he said. Oliver recalled his own experience with domestic violence years ago, saying that thanks to Resnik, his family had a place to go when they had to flee an abusive stepfather. Now, other families also have a place to turn. He urged commissioners to support SafeHouse and its work.

From left: Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1 of Chelsea) and Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

Several commissioners responded, expressing support for human services funding in general and SafeHouse specifically. Conan Smith noted that there are fiscal pressures on all local governments, and some of the cuts are because of economic conditions. But some cuts are because of decisions that the board chooses to make, he said, so having people come and articulate the critical importance of maintaining certain investments is really important. People need to know that even making small cuts to organizations like SafeHouse can have a direct impact on people’s lives, he said.

Ronnie Peterson said SafeHouse had brought its secret weapon by having Molly Resnik speak to the board. Washtenaw County government was part of the birth of SafeHouse, he said, and it’s important to make sure that this kind of safety net service is always a part of the county’s institutional funding. He joked that some people might think his politics have swung to the right because of his friendship with Dan Smith, a Republican commissioner. But Peterson said he’s always been focused on the delivery of services and outcomes. Every community should have a SafeHouse, he said. If the county can make a major long-term commitment to the humane society, Peterson added, then it should make a commitment to SafeHouse too.

Yousef Rabhi said he supported SafeHouse, and he thanked the representatives for advocating on behalf of the nonprofit. The partnership between SafeHouse and the county goes way back, he said, adding that he plans to continue advocating for human services funding in general, and for SafeHouse specifically. Although SafeHouse has a separate line item in the county’s budget, its funding has been decreased significantly over the years, Rabhi said. That decision needs to be reviewed.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for an FBI investigation of municipalities in Washtenaw County, including the city of Ann Arbor, because of egregious, long-standing violations of civil and human rights of residents. In particular, he cited budget manipulations and priorities that resulted in the loss of substantial amounts of money between 2008 and today. He contended there’d been investment losses at the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Public Schools as well as at the University of Michigan.

At his last turn at public commentary, Partridge told commissioners that priority items are being ignored, including plans for affordable housing, ending homelessness, an affordable countywide transportation system, and affordable, accessible education and health care. County residents are suffering, he said, and Washtenaw County is being left behind compared to other areas in the state. Commissioners should be seeking additional revenue sources, and lobbying the state legislature to allow for a progressive income tax, he concluded.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (present during the first part of ways & means committee only), Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The budget allocation for $1,244,629 had already been made at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. A total of 20 programs operated by 16 different organizations are receiving funding from the city of Ann Arbor this year. It’s the same amount that was allocated last year.

Half of those organization are receiving more than $90,000: Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County ($91,645); Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County ($94,490); Food Gatherers ($95,171); Community Action Network ($104,944); Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor ($109,851); Avalon Housing Inc. ($142,851); Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($177,052); and the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County ($245,529).

In the coordinated funding approach to human services taken by the city, a total of $4,369,102 is being allocated by the city and other entities. In addition to the city’s share, other contributions include: United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,797,000); Washtenaw County general fund ($1,015,000); Washtenaw Urban County ($288,326); and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation ($24,147).

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

The paperwork is being completed to transfer fiscal sponsorship from the nonprofit Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) to Artrain, an arts and cultural organization. In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Gottlieb said the new sponsorship by Artrain means that FSEP will release the Selma Cafe funds that had been frozen, including $46,500 from cash donations.

In late March, FSEP had frozen funds it held on behalf of Selma Cafe and had set a May 31 deadline for organizers to find a new fiscal sponsor, or receive a 501(c)3 nonprofit designation from the IRS. If neither of those actions occurred, FSEP could take the Selma assets permanently, under terms of a memorandum of understanding between the two entities. FSEP’s board had decided to end its fiscal sponsorship of Selma Cafe because of what FSEP characterized as significant violations of the MOU’s terms.

At about the same time, Selma Cafe had been notified by the city of Ann Arbor of zoning violations. The violations were related to the location of the weekly breakfasts – in Gottlieb’s home, in the Eberwhite neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s west side. Because of those zoning issues, Selma Cafe suspended operations in mid-April. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "City Notifies Selma Cafe of Zoning Violation."]

This week, Gottlieb said she’s close to securing a new location – or possibly more than one – for Selma Cafe to restart in some form. The basic format of guest chefs and volunteers will remain, with a focus on locally produced food and support for the farming community. But the previous weekly format will be reduced in frequency to once a month – at least initially. The monthly Saturday brunch would last from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. Gottlieb hopes to hold the first one in late June.

Regarding Selma Cafe’s new fiscal sponsorship, Gottlieb made the connection to Artrain through Mark Braun, a musician known as “Mr. B” who attended high school with Gottlieb in Flint. He suggested approaching Artrain as a possible fiscal sponsor for Selma Cafe. Artrain had recently added “Mr. B’s Joybox Express Mississippi River Ride” to its roster of projects.

In a phone interview on Thursday with The Chronicle, Artrain CEO Deb Polich said the board approved Artrain’s fiscal sponsorship of Selma Cafe at its meeting in early May. She described the sponsorship as a “short-term reality” until Selma Cafe gets its 501(c)3 designation. If that doesn’t happen, then “we’ll work on a longer-term solution,” she said.

Polich reported that Artrain had set up a fiscal sponsorship program a couple of years ago, with a board-approved application process. Creation of the program was prompted by an individual artist who ended up not using it, Polich said.  So Selma Cafe is the first entity to go through the process. It’s not something that Artrain has promoted, she said.

According to FSEP board chair Ginny Trocchio, FSEP’s board approved the transfer of Selma Cafe assets at a board meeting earlier this week.

Gottlieb described Artrain as a better fit than FSEP, because Artrain is not asking for as much control over Selma Cafe’s operations. As a fiscal sponsor, Artrain’s main role will be financial oversight. In addition to the cash funds, Artrain will also be a fiduciary for about $110,000 in additional assets, including CD investments and loan payments related to hoop house kits and equipment.

As for the 501(c)3 application, Gottlieb said the IRS has agreed to give Selma Cafe’s application an expedited review.