Dave Fisher of the accounting firm Rehmann presented the AADL 2012-13 audit. (Photos by the writer.)

There was no discussion among board members on that item, though Fisher noted the audit had been discussed at the board’s budget and finance committee in November.

Also approved was a one-year lease extension with Green Road Associates for storage of newspaper archives. The library has leased the Plymouth Park facility – an office park owned by First Martin Corp. on Green Road, north of Plymouth – since January 2010. That’s when AADL took possession of the Ann Arbor News archives, a few months after the owners of that publication decided to cease operations. The library is digitizing the Ann Arbor News archives, along with material from other local newspapers, as part of a project called Old News.

Much of the meeting focused on two staff presentations: A report on library statistics for November in five categories (collections, users, visits, usage and participation); and an update on the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled (WLBPD).

One person, Donald Salberg, addressed the board during public commentary. Part of his remarks focused on the board’s decision – at its Nov. 11, 2013 meeting – to approve a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street corridor improvement authority. He told trustees that they hadn’t identified any real benefit that the CIA would bring to the library.

At the end of the meeting, board president Prue Rosenthal read a statement that defended the board’s decision to participate in the CIA, outlining its benefits to the library and the broader community. She said that although the board vote had not been unanimous, she thought that all trustees were comfortable that the decision was made with a great deal of care.

2012-13 Audit

On the agenda was a resolution to accept an audit of the library’s financial statements for the fiscal year 2012-13, which ended on June 30, 2013. The audit, prepared by the accounting firm Rehmann, gives a clean opinion of AADL’s financial statements – the same as in recent prior years. [.pdf of AADL 2012-13 audit]

Dave Fisher of Rehmann gave a report to the board. He noted that he had reviewed the audit in detail at the board’s budget and finance committee meeting on Nov. 12. [Members of that committee are Nancy Kaplan, Barbara Murphy, and Jan Barney Newman.] He told the board that he planned to hit just the highlights.

From left: Prue Rosenthal, Jan Barney Newman, Eli Neiburger and Nancy Kaplan. Rosenthal is AADL board president. Newman and Kaplan serve on the board’s budget and finance committee. Neiburger is AADL’s associate director of IT and product development.

The audit reflects a clean report on AADL’s financial statements, Fisher said. That’s very good, he added, and it’s the same opinion that the library has received in recent years.

The audit covered AADL’s fiscal year from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Total general fund revenues for the year were $12.055 million – compared to $11.943 million the previous year. About 92% of those revenues ($11.105 million) came from real and personal property taxes that were levied in the AADL district. Total expenditures for the year were $11.967 million. That left a surplus of $87,446. Compared to the budgeted amounts of revenues and expenditures, AADL recorded a favorable variance of $97,446, he said.

Out of the library’s $8.191 million in combined fund balances, $7.7 million is unassigned and available for spending at the library’s discretion. That amount equates to about 64% of general fund expenditures – representing several months of operating expenses.

The library is on very solid financial ground, Fisher said. Unlike many libraries, AADL has no long-term debt, he noted, so the library doesn’t have to budget for principal and interest payments on loans.

The library has $4.637 million in investments. Bank deposits (checking, savings and certificates of deposit) totaled $3.696 million. AADL’s total net position is $30.445 million.

Fisher mentioned a couple of internal control enhancements that are recommended, including documentation for the review of AADL’s check register. The review is already being done, he noted, so it’s just a matter of documenting that process and indicating that it’s been done. The other recommendation is to periodically change the passwords for access to financial software, for security purposes.

There were no substantive questions for Fisher from the board. Margaret Leary asked director Josie Parker whether the audit would be posted on the AADL website. Parker replied that it would be.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to accept the 2012-13 audit.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the November 2013 financial statements. [.pdf of financial statements]

Through November, the library has received 96.2% of its budgeted tax receipts. The library had $14.338 million in unrestricted cash at the end of November, with a fund balance of $8.121 million.

Five expense items are currently over budget, Nieman reported, but all of those items are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year, which ends on June 30, 2014. The over-budget line items are: (1) purchased services; (2) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; (3) software; (4) copier/maintenance expense; and (5) supplies, due to a large purchase of computer supplies in November.

Other November highlights included receipt of a $40,000 donation from the Friends of the AADL. Other than that, there was nothing out of the ordinary during the month, he concluded.

Financial Report: Board Discussion

Prue Rosenthal thanked the Friends for their donation.

Barbara Murphy wondered about the impact of foreclosed properties that had been sold through a recent tax auction held by the Washtenaw County treasurer’s office. The total sale proceeds had been about $400,000 less than the treasurer had expected, Murphy said, and that shortfall would affect the local taxing authorities. She asked Nieman whether it would affect AADL.

Nieman replied that the impact depends on where the foreclosed properties are located. Only the properties that are located in the AADL district would impact the library. He did not have any additional information.

Ed Surovell noted that the likelihood that there would be a significant impact on AADL is “extremely small.” It’s more than likely that the bulk of those properties are outside of AADL’s district, he said. “Ypsilanti will be hit hard, and some of the rural areas.” Even if the entire $400,000 were divided proportionately among all the taxing entities, it would still be a small amount for AADL, he noted – “in the high two figures.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Lease for Newspaper Archives

The board was asked to approve a one-year lease extension with Green Road Associates for storage of newspaper archives. The annual rate of $38,500 is for a period beginning Jan. 1, 2014.

The library has leased the Plymouth Park facility – an office park owned by First Martin Corp. on Green Road, north of Plymouth – since January 2010. That’s when AADL took possession of the Ann Arbor News archives, a few months after the owners of that publication decided to cease operations. [The newspaper's owners, Advance Publications, subsequently opened a new business in mid-2009 called AnnArbor.com. Earlier this year, that publication changed its name to the Ann Arbor News.]

The library’s original lease was for a two-year period at $38,000 annually. In November 2011, the board approved a one-year extension, also at the $38,000 annual rate. No extension was brought to the board for approval in 2012.

The library is digitizing the Ann Arbor News archives, along with material from other local newspapers, as part of a project called Old News. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Library Set to Publish ‘Old News.’”

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to approve a one-year lease extension with Green Road Associates.

Library Stats

Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development – gave a presentation on library statistics, providing details in five categories for the month of November: collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available.

AADL November 2013 collections data.

AADL November 2013 data on library users.

AADL November 2013 data on visits.

AADL November 2013 usage data.

AADL November 2013 data on participation.

During his 30-minute presentation, Neiburger reviewed highlights from the November data, interspersed with queries from board members. In addition to statistics in the five categories that he’s been presenting over the past few months, Neiburger included information on AADL’s social media.

Neiburger noted that AADL sees most of its engagement on Twitter, compared to Facebook or other social media sites. He highlighted some of the Tweets that mentioned AADL in November, to show board members how people communicate about the library on Twitter. [.pdf of social media presentation]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker covered several items in her Dec. 16 report. She noted that the building’s lower-level exhibit cases were displaying an exhibit of children’s books with culinary themes. The exhibit was curated by JJ Jacobson, who was the curator for the culinary collection at the University of Michigan’s Clements Library. That culinary collection is now part of the UM Special Collections Library, she said. Before the board meeting, Parker said she’d been down at the exhibit with several UM librarians and curators, as well as Jan Longone, who donated her culinary collection to UM.

AADL director Josie Parker, right, talks with Donald Harrison and Onna Solomon before the start of the Dec. 16, 2013 library board meeting.

Parker said that the collaboration with UM started when she first became AADL director. She’d talked with Bill Gosling, who at the time was the UM librarian, about how to bring the university’s collection into the public library so that it could reach more people. She said that because of her own graduate work at UM as well as Gosling’s interest in children’s literature and pop-up books, she had suggested starting with the children’s literature collection. Every year there has been a curated exhibit of UM holdings at AADL, to mark children’s book week, which is in November.

Parker then told a story related to the weekly reading she does for kindergarten classes at Angell Elementary School, as part of an Ann Arbor Rotary program. Earlier in the day, a little girl from one of the classes had visited Parker at her office, brought by the girl’s father. At the most recent reading, the children had talked about elves. So when the girl visited her, Parker showed her the next book she planned to read to the class: “The Blueberry Pie Elf.” The girl’s father then revealed that it had been his favorite book when he was his daughter’s age. Parker said she’d told that story to the current exhibit’s curator, because it related to the exhibit’s focus on culinary-themed children’s literature. Parker said she thought the board would enjoy the anecdote, too.

Parker also highlighted an article that had been provided to the board, written by Ira Lax for the Music Education Association’s publication about the AADL’s Library Songsters program. Parker said she was proud of Lax for continuing to find teachers who are interested in having him and a musician come to a class, at the library’s expense, to write songs with students that teach about history. The students then come to the library to perform the song.

Parker’s report also included an update on collaboration with Washtenaw Literacy. The library currently hosts Washtenaw Literacy’s English as a Second Language (ESL) classes at its Pittsfield and Traverwood branches two days each week. Washtenaw Literacy asked for an additional day to hold classes at Traverwood, and AADL agreed, Parker reported.

In her final item, Parker updated the board on her work as a commissioner with the state Commission for Blind Persons. Parker and six others had been appointed in October 2012 by Gov. Rick Snyder, who had abolished the previous commission and reorganized the department that provides services to the blind. The current organization is the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, which is part of the state’s Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

The commission’s charge had been to visit all the offices of the bureau and talk with consumers and staff, and to make recommendations to the governor. Parker serves on the commission’s subcommittee on consumer services. She noted that a report will be submitted to the governor with a list of recommendations next year. It will be leading up to AADL’s fifth anniversary for administering the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, she noted, which will be marked by an exhibit on Helen Keller at the downtown library in May 2014.

In response to a query from a board member, Parker noted that four of the seven commissioners are legally blind, but all of the other commissioners wear glasses.

Washtenaw Library for the Blind & Physically Disabled

Terry Soave, AADL’s manager of outreach and neighborhood services, gave the board an update on the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled (WLBPD).

Terry Soave, AADL’s manager of outreach and neighborhood services, gave the board an update on the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled.

In introducing Soave’s presentation, AADL director Josie Parker told the board that earlier in the month, the AADL had hosted the directors of libraries from Manchester, Saline, Chelsea, Pinckney, Brighton, South Lyon and Ypsilanti. The focus was on the services that AADL provides through the WLBPD, and how other libraries can promote those services to their patrons. Parker asked Soave to give the same presentation to the board.

Soave began by giving the history of AADL’s involvement, noting that the library took over the administration of these services from Washtenaw County. [The library board had authorized that move at its Oct. 20, 2008 meeting, to take effect on Jan. 1, 2009.]

The WLBPD loans books, magazines and videos in various formats – including digital cartridge, digital download, large print, Braille, and descriptive video – to residents of Washtenaw County who are certified as unable to read or use standard printed materials as a result of temporary or permanent visual or physical limitations. A “talking book” machine and materials are mailed at no cost to individual patrons who qualify. The WLBPD also provides access to download over 50,000 books and dozens of magazines via the National Library Service’s Braille and Audio Reading Download (BARD) site.

Although WLBPD is located in the lower level of the downtown library, services are available at all branches, Soave said. Anyone who eligible for WLBPD services – along with anyone living in the same household – is also eligible for general AADL borrowing privileges, even if they live outside of AADL’s district.

Soave noted that WLBPD is a sub-regional library for the National Library Service (NLS), which is a department of the Library of Congress. The NLS controls the collection in terms of selecting acquisitions. It also provides equipment and oversees standards that all libraries in the network must meet.

In order to provide services at all branches, AADL staff were trained at every location, Soave said. The biggest challenge was training in the automation system. To help with that and other training, some of the AADL staff created a Wiki page with step-by-step instructions, Soave said.

The model of training all staff, rather than having a dedicated department to handle services for the blind and physically disabled, has been successful and unusual, she said. AADL is probably the only library in the country that’s doing it this way, Soave added. So in May of 2013, AADL staff also launched a national Wiki for the network of libraries for the blind and physically handicapped. Parker noted that because of this work, AADL has been officially recognized by other library organizations.

Soave reported that people who are interested in applying to WLBPD can download an application from the website, and submit it online or via fax, email or regular mail. Applications can also be picked up at any branch, or can be requested by phone at (734) 327-4224. Criteria include:

Blind: Visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with correcting glasses or the widest diameter of visual field subtending an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees.

Deaf-Blind: Severe auditory impairment in combination with legal blindness.

Visually Disabled: Lacks visual acuity to read standard printed materials without aids or devices other than regular glasses.

Physically Disabled: Unable to read or use standard printed materials as a result of physical limitations. Examples include: without arms of the use of arms; impaired or weakened muscle and nerve control; limitations resulting from strokes, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, polio, arthritis.

Reading Disabled: Organic dysfunction of sufficient severity to prevent reading printed materials in a normal manner (this disability requires the signature of a medical or osteopathic doctor as certifying authority).

Soave brought examples of digital machines and other equipment that WLBPD patrons receive. She noted that the national goal to get people signed up for the Braille and Audio Reading Download service, known as BARD, is 10% of eligible patrons. The WLBPD is currently at 29%.

AADL trustees Ed Surovell and Margaret Leary.

The AADL doesn’t house a collection of Braille material, but has access to the collection from the regional library in Lansing, or items can be ordered from the National Library Service. Other materials include “described” videos – movies in which visual elements, like scenes and costumes, are described with voiceovers.

For its large print books-by-mail service, Parker noted that AADL worked out a deal with the post office so that the books can be mailed as “free matter” – at no cost to the library or the patron.

In terms of outreach, Soave reported that WLBPD puts out a quarterly newsletter that’s produced by AADL’s community relations and marketing staff. The newsletters are posted online, and are available in audio and text-only versions.

The WLBPD is required by the NLS to do a patron satisfaction survey every three years. Its first one was in 2012, with a 37% response rate. Of respondents, over 95% indicated that they would recommend the WLBPD services to others, Soave said. The NLS also conducts a site review every two years. Results from the survey and site reviews are posted online.

Soave described a range of other outreach efforts to promote the WLBPD services. All libraries in Washtenaw County are eligible for “demonstration accounts” that include equipment and a sampling of materials, to help sign up patrons. All library systems have agreed to do that, she noted, and “it’s been a tremendous help.”

Originally the WLBPD had targeted eligible patrons, but last year the staff decided to take the additional step of reaching out to readers who wouldn’t be eligible but who would benefit from some of WLBPD services and materials, like the large print book collection. They developed stickers that are placed in every large print book in AADL’s collection. The stickers were also provided to other library systems within the county to put in their large print collection. Ypsilanti District Library, for example, has over 10,000 items in its large print collection.

The average age of a WLBPD patron is 80, Soave said, so natural attrition on the list of patrons is a big challenge. The director of the NLS has challenged all libraries for the blind and physically disabled to increase the number of patrons by 20%. In 2010, there were only seven libraries nationwide that showed any increase at all, Soave said. Since putting the stickers in books, WLBPD has shown a 12% increase.

Soave noted that WLBPD has been recognized twice by NLS for best practices in outreach.

WLBPD: Board Discussion

Margaret Leary, noting that she is a former librarian [she retired as director of the University of Michigan Law Library], pointed out that typically organizations will have specialists who are trained to provide services in one area. But when all staff members are trained, then patrons never have to wait for services if someone is on vacation or away from the desk. Leary praised Soave and the whole AADL staff for pushing this model of integrated training, saying that it hugely enhanced services to the blind and physically disabled. When the WLBPD was managed by the county, it was located in a small building that wasn’t open very often, Leary noted.

Leary said she appreciated Soave’s presentation, because it was about a service that she personally doesn’t need – so she had been unfamiliar with the details of WLBPD. “It’s an example of the iceberg that’s beneath the tip that we see so often in these meetings,” she said.

From left: Barbara Murphy and Rebecca Head.

Barbara Murphy asked how AADL can make people aware of WLBPD, even if they don’t need it, so that they can tell people they know. Soave noted that staff of the outreach department goes out into neighborhoods talking about AADL services, including WLBPD. Parker added that local ophthalmology offices are also aware of WLBPD, as is the University of Michigan’s Kellogg Eye Center. She said it’s like any of AADL’s programs and services – if you don’t need it or use it, it’s not on your radar.

In response to a query from Ed Surovell, Parker said there’s no other service that’s comparable to WLBPD locally, or to the network of the National Library Service. She noted that when Washtenaw County was having budget problems several years ago, county administrator Bob Guenzel asked if AADL would help. At the time, Washtenaw County’s program served several counties, but AADL agreed to serve just Washtenaw County, Parker said. However, no one goes unserved, she added. The other counties are served now by the state library, and the level of service is different.

Parker noted that the decision to incorporate WLBPD into the overall AADL services – and not to have a “library within a library” – had been controversial when they first took on the project. But five years later, they can show a positive outcome.

Rebecca Head praised Soave, saying that the AADL has shown what outreach and communication can do to promote what the library has to offer. That’s critical, she added, because people are so busy and don’t always have the time to find out about the AADL programs and services that are available.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Two brief committee reports were made during the Dec. 16 board meeting.

Committee Reports: Budget & Finance

Nancy Kaplan reported that the board’s budget and finance committee met with Dave Fischer of the accounting firm Rehmann to review the audit. Committee members were very pleased that it was an excellent report, she said.

Committee Reports: Policy

Barbara Murphy reported that the policy committee met and reviewed proposed staff updates to the AADL policies. She indicated that a resolution to update the policies likely will be brought to the full board at its January 2014 meeting. Murphy joked that the updated policies will “no longer refer to bookmen.”

Resolutions of Thanks

The board was asked to pass resolutions of thanks for two employees who are retiring at the end of 2013. Sharon Iverson has worked for AADL since mid-2004. Betsy Baier started working for AADL in February of 1975.

AADL director Josie Parker noted that Baier is a children’s librarian who was instrumental in developing the preschool storytime program. Within the last few years, she’s been responsible for the acquisition of children’s material in all formats. Parker invited board members to a reception held later that week for Baier.

Parker reported that Iverson is a teen librarian, who came to AADL after serving as a public school librarian. She primarily worked at the Malletts Creek branch.

Outcome: Both resolutions were passed unanimously.

Public Commentary

Donald Salberg began by wishing the board members a merry Christmas and happy new year. He hoped that when they next met in 2014, they’d have some new resolutions for dealing with library issues. He hoped they would revisit the accessibility and safety issues for disabled people at the downtown library. His understanding was that library officials met with people who were familiar with ADA standards prior to the November 2012 referendum on bonding for a new downtown library. He said he understood why any changes to be made would have been postponed until after that vote, since a new building would have made renovation unnecessary.

However, the referendum did not pass, he noted, and there are recommendations for improvements – especially for the front entrance, where there are certain risks along the ramp leading up to the front door, he said. Also, bathrooms could be improved and there are other minor changes that would help the disabled move around with more ease.

Salberg also noted that the Saline District Library and the Washtenaw Community College have opted out of Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority. He said that officials from both entities had indicated that taxpayers had not voted for a millage to be spent on street construction, and they preferred to have the tax revenues spent for the originally-intended purposes. There’s hope, he said, that if enough taxing authorities don’t join the CIA, then the project won’t be initiated, he said, and that the AADL then wouldn’t lose the tax revenues that it will lose if the CIA moves ahead.

He said the AADL board hadn’t identified any real benefit that the CIA would bring for the library. “It appears that the biggest benefit will be to the real estate industry,” Salberg added, because purportedly 40% of properties along the State Street development area are undeveloped. Property will appreciate because of the road improvements, Salberg said, so the real benefit will be to the people who sell, develop or manage those properties. In the future, he concluded, it would be helpful for the AADL board to get input from the community before making a decision on how to spend the community’s money.

Public Commentary: Board President Response

At the end of the meeting, board president Prue Rosenthal read a statement regarding the CIA. She noted that the board voted at its last meeting, on Nov. 11, 2013, to approve a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the CIA. The board had discussed it since they first heard about it in August, she said, and there were differing opinions. The vote on Nov. 11 wasn’t unanimous, she pointed out. [Nancy Kaplan cast the lone dissenting vote on the seven-member board.]

The board’s fiduciary responsibility requires that they make decisions that serve the public the best, Rosenthal said. Sometimes, those decisions affect tax revenues – as is the case with the CIA, she noted. State law gives the board the power to opt-out of a corridor improvement authority, but the board’s duty is to consider all relevant elements and make the best decision for the library. The amount of money was relatively small, she pointed out, and the project would improve access to AADL’s Pittsfield branch. If the CIA goes forward, it would increase the library’s tax base, she added. And if the project doesn’t move forward, AADL will be held harmless.

A publicly funded road is more equitable than requiring property owners to do it themselves, Rosenthal said. “We believe in being a good neighbor to Pittsfield,” she said, which has helped AADL considerably when the library branch was built in the township. She noted that only 50% of the tax increment increase will be captured by the CIA, and that the township worked with AADL to negotiate terms of the agreement.

Rosenthal said the AADL cares about the environment and sustainability, and this project will improve pedestrian and non-motorized transportation between Pittsfield Township and Ann Arbor, and will enable better public transportation to reduce the use of cars and improve air quality. It will provide better stormwater management to protect the watershed, she said.

Although the board vote was not unanimous, Rosenthal concluded, she thought that all trustees were comfortable that the decision was made with a great deal of care.

Ed Surovell responded directly to Salberg’s commentary. He noted that if the value of the land adjacent to the road improvement is increased, then any of that land that’s within the AADL district will provide increased tax revenues to the library. That’s a direct benefit to AADL, Surovell said.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Jan. 20, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). (Photos by the writer.)

Following about three hours of debate and some minor amendments, commissioners gave initial approval to the proposed four-year general fund budget, for the years 2014-2017. The 7-2 vote came over the dissent of Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), who cited concerns over a budget cycle extending for four years rather than two.

Much of the budget discussion focused on the sheriff’s operations. No layoffs are proposed, but 8.47 FTE positions would be kept unfilled. Most of those are in the sheriff’s office, which has a targeted budget reduction of $1.34 million. Sheriff Jerry Clayton, an elected official, attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services. “For me not to tell you what I believe the impact on public safety is, if you make those cuts, would be negligent in my responsibility as the county sheriff.”

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) countered that every department head could make arguments against budget cuts. Noting that more revenues are needed, Rabhi said he hoped commissioners would support putting a countywide public safety millage on the ballot.

During public commentary after the budget debate, county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie told commissioners that they had a difficult job, but that they were making it harder than it needed to be. He suggested looking for guidance in the state constitution, and relying on the experience of county administrator Verna McDaniel. Mackie also questioned whether commissioners were truly committed to public safety as a priority. He praised Clayton, noting that the sheriff is a respected figure with a national reputation. “He might know more about safety and criminal justice than you do,” Mackie said.

The budget must be given final approval by the end of the year, and only two more board meetings scheduled: On Nov. 20 and Dec. 4. The board will also hold a second public hearing on the budget on Nov. 20.

Several other agenda items related directly or indirectly to the county’s budget. On a 7-1 vote, the board gave final approval to an increase in the levy of the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting by the time the vote occurred, just after midnight. Smith questioned the constitutionality of the county levying this tax, as well as the legality of how the revenues are spent.

During public commentary, the board also heard from two people who objected to the tax levy, including Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United. McMaster, who helped lead the statewide campaign that resulted in passage of the Headlee Amendment in 1978, noted during public commentary that there’s a provision in the law allowing for legal action if taxes are raised without voter approval. It’s an action “which we will pursue,” he said.

The board also unanimously approved a tax-sharing agreement to allow a portion of county taxes to be captured by Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA). Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal addressed commissioners during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. One opponent to the CIA – former township official Christina Lirones – spoke during two opportunities for public commentary, urging the board to opt out of the CIA.

Other items handled during the Nov. 6 meeting included (1) final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to authorize some changes in that funding model; (2) appointment of an advisory committee to propose options for county property on Platt Road; (3) final approval of a brownfield plan for Chelsea Milling Co. (Jiffy Mix); and (4) appointment of Ellen Rabinowitz as temporary health officer to replace Dick Fleece, who’s retiring at the end of 2013.

Communications during the meeting included public commentary from supporters of the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor, and concerns about state standards for permissible levels of 1,4-dioxane.

2014-2017 County Budget

The proposed four-year general fund budget, for the years 2014-2017, was on the agenda for initial approval.

County administrator Verna McDaniel had presented the budget to the board on Oct. 2, 2013. The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

Most of the 8.47 FTEs that are proposed to be kept unfilled are in the sheriff’s office. Sheriff Jerry Clayton attended the Nov. 6 meeting and addressed the board, telling commissioners that his office can’t continue to absorb budget cuts without affecting services.

Aside from discussing the sheriff’s concerns, much of the board’s discussion focused on the issue of a four-year budget, which is being proposed for the first time as a way to improve long-term planning and stability. Ronnie Peterson in particular objected strongly to that approach, and prefers to maintain the current two-year budget process.

A public hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2013 but it was held after midnight and no one spoke. In a separate resolution on Nov. 6, the board set a second budget hearing for Nov. 20.

2014-2017 County Budget: Initial Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary, Doug Smith told commissioners that he’d asked them about a month ago to pass a resolution stating that no vacant county position would be filled until Jan. 1, 2014 unless approved by the board. Commissioners haven’t passed such a resolution, he noted. His suggestion was made so that the county would save money in the already-underfunded retirement accounts, Smith said. Every employee added to the current defined benefit pension plan will cost the county money for about 30 years, he noted.

In January 2014, Smith said, he plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how many employees have been hired in the last quarter of 2013. He then plans to calculate the money that’s been wasted, and post that information on the Washtenaw Watchdogs website, for all constituents to see. The website has had more than 100,000 visits in its first four months, he said, and some of the most popular posts are ones about the county board wasting taxpayers’ money. He again urged commissioners to reconsider hiring anyone until the county’s defined contribution plan takes effect on Jan. 1.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Four-Year Budget

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by saying he’s been getting a “full-court press” from the board leadership about the four-year budget, and he’s had some really intriguing conversations about it. He said he’s not been supportive of a four-year budget because the board hadn’t developed community impacts and outcomes to guide their budget decisions. The transition from an investment in activities to an investment in outcomes is the right direction, he said, and it needs to be clearly articulated with an achievable set of metrics.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The board doesn’t have a process by tradition or policy for continual engagement in the budget, he noted, so without having that process in place, he said, a four-year budget compromises future boards and doesn’t help achieve the community outcomes. So Smith wanted to see language about that community outcomes process in the budget document, to ensure that future boards will have clearly articulated ways for engaging in the county’s investment strategy.

Smith noted that it’s a long process to engage the county’s staff in implementing the board’s desired outcomes. He indicated he’s been criticized for wanting everything to happen right away, “which is absolutely true.” But he acknowledged that it might not be possible or healthy for the organization to implement this process quickly. A longer-term budget process would offer stability and predictability, and working on these other issues in a more incremental way might be less threatening and more palatable to staff who provide services to residents and who need to be engaged in the strategic planning process, which takes a lot of emotional and intellectual energy, he said.

In that context, C. Smith said he was being persuaded about the value of a longer-term budget.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that setting the budget is the most important job of the board, and he apologized to people who were attending the meeting for other reasons if he took more time talking about it. He agreed with C. Smith about concerns over the four-year budget, saying that he thought Washtenaw County would be the only one in the country to have such a long-term budget. The board had been surprised about the cost of the pension and retiree health care liabilities earlier this year, he said. He wondered what would happen to the four-year budget if they discovered there was additional debt that they don’t know about yet. [For background on the retiree liability issue, see Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Peterson noted that the county’s equalization office had reported that it’s not possible to know what the revenues are until several months into each year. So the county is spending money before it knows how much there is to spend, he said. The board has made some major changes over the years during the economic downturn, he noted, and they’ve asked employees to take unpaid furlough days to help cut costs. That was unprecedented, he said. He was concerned that potential furlough days were part of the proposed budget.

County administrator Verna McDaniel clarified that the furlough days remain in the previously approved labor contracts, but the proposed budget does not assume that those furlough days will be used.

Peterson also noted that revenues from Act 88 and the veterans relief millage are included in each of the four years of the budget. Those millages have to be approved by the board each year, he said, so he didn’t know how it was possible to base the budget on that. If any new board decides not to support those millages, it would impact the budget. He indicated that programs and services that are supported by those millages should be funded through general fund revenues.

Regarding the sheriff’s budget, Peterson asked for clarification about the labor contracts that are currently being negotiated. He also wondered about the contracts with local municipalities that pay the sheriff’s office for deputy services, and how the four-year budget would be affected by that.

McDaniel reported that the contracts with townships for sheriff deputies are part of the budget, under the revenue line item for fees. Those contracts bring in about $12 million in revenue annually, she said.

For the labor agreements, McDaniel said the current contracts for the Police Officers Association of Michigan union (POAM) expire at the end of 2014. The contracts for the Command Officers Association of Michigan union (COAM) expire at the end of 2015. Peterson wondered how the budget can account for the labor costs in the county’s contracts with the townships, if the labor agreements for POAM and COAM haven’t been settled. McDaniel said the labor costs have been projected, based on salary estimates and trends for fringe benefits. There’s been a 1% annual increase through 2016 calculated into the agreements with local municipalities who contract for sheriff deputy services.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson wondered what would happen if those labor costs increase by more than 1%. McDaniel said that a police services steering committee, which includes representatives from the contracting municipalities, discusses this issue. The committee’s projections are aligned with the county’s budget projections, she said. Peterson was concerned that the amount could increase, and he cautioned that local communities might not have the budget flexibility to absorb the increases. There’s a lot of uncertainty over what the costs will be, he said, but he’s sure the increases would be higher than 1%.

Peterson then asked about what the county’s potential loss would be if voters don’t approve a replacement to the personal property tax next year. McDaniel acknowledged some uncertainty from the state on this issue, so that’s something to monitor. Budget projections include personal property tax revenue of $5.5 million in 2014, although there’s some uncertainty beyond that, because the tax will be phased out through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for August 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources. It’s unclear what will happen if that voter referendum fails.

McDaniel also said the budget assumes that the state will maintain the incentive program that replaced state-revenue sharing, for $5.5 million annually. This approach requires the county to meet certain state requirements. Under the previous state revenue-sharing approach, the county received about $6.8 million annually.

Peterson argued that there was too much uncertainty in a four-year budget, because it was too difficult to project how much revenue the county would receive. He was concerned about the amount of unfunded retiree liabilities. Commissioners are only elected to two-year terms – and that’s another factor, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he took Peterson’s concerns seriously, saying that Peterson has a track record of fighting for his constituents and all residents of the county. LaBarre also agreed with C. Smith’s call to make the budget focused on outcomes – that’s critical. Being pro-active is one of the reasons why he ran for office, LaBarre said.

For the last six years, the county was forced to steer from iceberg to iceberg, LaBarre said, “and we hit each one.” He worries that the two-year budget process doesn’t provide enough time to plan for things that come up, anything from large economic forces to changes in state policy. He said he was excited to try something new, to set a four-year course. Each year, the board would meet its constitutional requirement to approve the next year’s budget and make adjustments – that provides a safety valve for the four-year budget framework. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, he said. The four-year budget helps focus on outcomes, not just spending money.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded to some of the previous comments. He was excited about changes that will allow for fiscal stability and staff security, resulting in programs and services that residents can count on. “It’s an opportunity to revolutionize the way county government is done,” he said. He wants the board to be engaged in the budget every year, calling it a “living document.” It’s important that commissioners develop a calendar of events for each year of the four-year budget, he said, focusing on board priorities and community outcomes. He offered to work with administration to build that into the budget resolution.

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Rabhi also pointed out that commissioners are part-time, and they need additional support staff to help them focus on these community outcomes. They can’t do it alone.

Already, the board has to adjust the budget every year based on the outcome of the equalization report, Rabhi noted. Why not have a process in place so that the board is better engaged in that process? He believed a four-year budget can be transformative. Washtenaw County government and residents believe in innovation and in being cutting edge. “That’s what this four-year budget is all about,” he said. Rabhi alluded to an interview he’d recently heard with California governor Jerry Brown, who said that society is like an organism with a certain kind of DNA. Washtenaw County needs to build the DNA for change to happen – that’s the potential that a four-year budget represents, he said.

Conan Smith referred to Peterson’s remarks about the uncertainty of Act 88 and veterans relief millages, and advocated to see whether the staff who are currently supported by those millage revenues could be funded through other sources instead. He wasn’t sure it was possible, but he wanted to look into it. The current approach puts undue stress on staff, he said.

C. Smith added that he hadn’t anticipated voting on the budget that night, but he had some issues he wanted to bring forward for discussion.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) also expressed concerns about a four-year budget. His preference is to adopt a two-year budget, then call the next two years a proposal or projection. He was interested in hearing C. Smith’s ideas for being more actively engaged in the budget process, although he didn’t support making dramatic changes to the budget after it’s adopted. If the budget is not relatively stable, he noted, there’s no point in doing longer-term budgets.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Employees Per Capita)

The budget document, in a section on financial trends, included an indicator of employees per capita. C. Smith noted that the document indicates that the trend is positive if there are fewer employees per capita. “I don’t believe that that’s necessarily the case,” he said. In delivering services to residents, having fewer people to do that doesn’t make sense, he said. This data has been in the budget document for years, he noted, but it doesn’t relate to the way the county does business. The administration has indicated that this indicator not used to determine staffing levels. He wanted to see it removed from the budget book, and he made a motion to do that.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s one of many trends that’s recommended by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), but only if an organization finds it useful. She said that C. Smith was correct – the administration doesn’t use it to determine staffing levels.

C. Smith said that including it sends the wrong message to the community.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to remove the employees-per-capita section from the budget document.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Organizational Survey)

C. Smith noted that the county previously used an organizational capabilities survey to gauge employee attitudes. The survey was perviously done every two years, but for budgetary reasons it hasn’t been done since 2008. He called it a fantastic tool that wasn’t too expensive to implement – between $10,000 and $50,000 each year.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, indicated the cost had been about $50,000 for the first year, and about $35,000 each time after that. She wasn’t sure how much work it would take to restart the survey, or what the current costs would be.

C. Smith thought it was a manageable amount, and he wanted to add a line in the budget document that stated the county would do these surveys again. After some additional back-and-forth with administration, he suggested waiting until the Nov. 20 meeting to figure out how this might be incorporated into the budget.

Outcome: No formal action was taken on this proposal.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Affordable Care Act)

Yousef Rabhi said he still wasn’t comfortable with an item added to the budget policy regarding the Affordable Care Act. He was referring to this item, which had also been discussed at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting:

16. To be in compliance with federal health care reform and the Affordable Care Act effective 1-1-14, the Board of Commissioners reaffirms Resolution #13-TBD that part time employees are not permitted to work more than 25 hours per week. Any part time employee hired, shall not work more than 25 hours per week.

Rabhi didn’t feel this approach was in the spirit of the federal legislation, nor was it the right thing to do for county employees. Conan Smith agreed, noting that the board has discussed issues like a living wage and having health insurance as a right. Health care is important, he said, and the county shouldn’t be trying to figure out how not to give people health insurance.

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the intent is to alert departments about this potential issue as a liability that could affect their budgets, if employees work more than 30 hours per week. Starting in 2015, the Affordable Care Act will require the county to offer health insurance to anyone who works 30 hours or more per week during a specified period. It doesn’t mean that the employee has to buy the health insurance, Heidt explained, but the county must offer it. This will affect primarily the parks & recreation staff, sheriff’s office, the water resources commissioner, and the community support & treatment services (CSTS) unit – units that use more part-time employees.

After additional discussion, C. Smith moved to delete this item from the budget document, noting that it wouldn’t be an issue until 2015. That will give the county more time to figure out how to address it, he said.

Rabhi said he wanted to have a broader conversation about the county’s part-time employees, not just focusing on health care.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to eliminate the policy item regarding the Affordable Care Act.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Fund Balance Reserves

Conan Smith alerted commissioners that he plans to bring an amendment forward at the Nov. 20 meeting regarding the fund balance reserves. He referred to this item in the budget document:

12. The Board of Commissioners commits to long-term budget flexibility and sustainability, and an adequate level of cash flow with its attention to fund balance. A healthy fund balance is an essential ingredient and the following was considered to determine an appropriate level as a target: an appropriate level to fund at least 60 days of operations, to help offset negative cash flow (primarily from the seven month delay in property tax collections after incurred expenses), and to assist buffering any unexpected downturns. Therefore, the Board shall plan future budgets to meet the goal of a Reserve for Subsequent Years representing at least 20.0% of General Fund expenditures, net of indirect costs. To accomplish this any excess property tax revenue above projected budget (assumptions), but excluding the fiscal years that have structural salary increases tied to property tax revenue growth per labor agreements, as well as any year-end surplus of which 70% will be contributed to fund balance until the reserve goal is met and 30% to be determined by Board of Commissioner authorization.

He said he’s talked with the administration about this, and has come to agree with them about the 20% target. [The existing target is 8%.] One strategy for dealing with the county’s annual cash flow challenge is to increase fund reserves, he noted. Another strategy is to borrow internally from other county funds, and a third strategy is to issue tax anticipation notes, which results in an additional borrowing cost.

The easiest approach by far is to increase the fund reserves, he said. However, he’s reluctant to lock in a formula of allocating funds to that. He thought the allocation of surplus revenue should happen through a process with a thorough board debate.

C. Smith said he planned to work with administration to bring forward a proposal on Nov. 20.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Revenue Increase)

Dan Smith proposed adjusting the revenue line item for general fund taxes and penalties to increase the projected revenues by $449,813 over the four-year period from 2014-2017.

Chart by Dan Smith showing his budget amendment to increase projected revenues.

He further proposed allocating the increased revenues in this way: (1) $100,000 each year to the sheriff’s office; (2) change the “Other Services & Charges for the Board of Commissioners” to add $26,230 for dues to the Michigan Association of Counties (MAC) and to cut the convention and conferences line item by half – to $12,275.

D. Smith explained that he had tried to come up with a way to address concerns about the public safety budget, as well as some interest by other commissioners in restoring the county’s membership in MAC. The projected increases in revenues are tweaked slightly to achieve the extra revenues that can then be allocated toward the sheriff’s budget and MAC.

From left: Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Conan Smith called the proposed increase in projected revenues “negligible,” saying that it isn’t any more or less accurate than what’s currently projected. That’s not the issue. But he worried about the precedent of the board making this kind of change, rather than the professional finance staff. C. Smith also said he didn’t support joining MAC, saying he didn’t think the county got $26,230 worth of good service out of that organization. He didn’t think MAC was an effective advocate or an articulate representative for the values of Washtenaw County.

In response to a question from C. Smith, D. Smith said he’s previously mentioned concerns about a reduction to the sheriff’s department budget. That reduction makes it difficult for pro-active policing to be done, he said. The sheriff’s office has already been cut in previous budget cycles, he noted, and the proposed cuts will have a very adverse effect on public safety across the county.

D. Smith indicated that he’d be receptive if C. Smith wanted to propose an amendment to his amendment, eliminating the proposed restoration of MAC dues.

C. Smith said he was intrigued by D. Smith’s proposal, but wanted to postpone it until Nov. 20 in order to have time to talk with the sheriff.

Outcome: On a voice vote, the board voted to postpone action on D. Smith’s proposed amendment until the Nov. 20 meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) voted against postponement.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Coordinated Funding)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment to decrease funding to the line item for coordinated funding from $1.015 million annually to $915,000. The $100,000 cut would be allocated to the sheriff’s office. Coordinated funding supports local nonprofits that provide human services, through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw Urban County, United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The program is administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

In introducing this amendment, D. Smith said he hears from people that public safety is one of the top concerns, and the board has also stated that public safety is a priority. He has great concerns about the proposed reductions to the sheriff’s department.

Outcome: D. Smith’s motion did not receive a second, so it died for lack of support.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Sheriff’s Office

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked county administrator Verna McDaniel if it was true that the sheriff’s department has a $500,000 automatic budget reduction each year. McDaniel said that during the first year that sheriff Jerry Clayton was in office (2009), his budget was cut by $500,000. But she contended it hasn’t been reduced by that amount in subsequent years.

Sizemore noted that the initial $500,000 cut occurred under the previous county administrator (Bob Guenzel). He wondered if that same amount was cut each year. McDaniel described that initial $500,000 as a structural cut. She noted that since 2008, the county has needed to cut budgets and the sheriff has cooperated. Because the $500,000 was structural, it carries through to subsequent years, she said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and board chair Yousef Rabhi.

McDaniel confirmed that the administration is asking for a reduction in eight positions from the sheriff’s department, but she stated that those positions are currently vacant. Sizemore said he wouldn’t support that reduction.

Ronnie Peterson wondered what the effect would be on cutting those positions, and the impact it would have on public safety. He said he’d be interested in hearing from the sheriff.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that a couple of things about the budget deeply concerned him. He said he understands the broader budget context, and the role that his office plays. They’ve stepped up in finding reductions and increasing revenue. But at this point, continued cuts will greatly impact the ability of his office to provide services and to manage the police services contracts with other municipalities.

The administration’s assertion that the proposed cut of eight positions won’t have an impact is not true, Clayton said. It’s true that the positions are currently vacant, for a variety of reasons – including retirements and people quitting – but there are plans to fill those spots. He noted that a previous board of commissioners had approved a jail expansion. His office had been asked to conduct a staffing study, which determined that it would take 36 correction officers to staff the facility. The county board had approved that, and a hiring process has been ongoing. The sheriff’s office has over 420 employees, Clayton said, including full-time, part-time and seasonal workers. Given that number, there will always be a certain amount of turnover. There will always be vacant positions, he said. When the office is fully staffed, they can realize the level of services that are needed, Clayton said.

Clayton also addressed the question of the $500,000 annual reduction. He said when he came into office, he had agreed to it with the prior county administrator. But there was no agreement that it would be in perpetuity, Clayton said, “at least not in my mind. My mistake was in not getting it in writing.” At this point, his office can’t meet the proposed expenditure target, he said, so that puts them in a position of being over budget or reducing the services they provide.

Clayton referred to a letter he’d written to McDaniel, and cc-ed to the board leadership, in response to the budget proposal. The proposed budget reduction of $1.34 million for the sheriff’s office would significantly compromise public safety, he said. Although he could “grudgingly” agree to putting the eight positions on hold vacant status, he said, in exchange he wanted the administration to start eliminating the $500,000 automatic lump sum reduction that’s built into the sheriff’s office budget. He also hoped to be able to fill those vacant positions, if the county’s economic circumstances improve.

Clayton noted that some parts of the county government have been “held harmless” or have even seen increases. It’s not for him to judge whether that’s appropriate, he said, but it is his role to ask how the board can agree to reductions that will impact public safety, while stating that public safety is a priority.

Even local governments that have their own public safety departments still rely on the sheriff’s office as an additional public safety net, he said. As an example, he cited the recent murder of an Eastern Michigan University student. The sheriff’s office is involved in providing increased security in that area, and in helping coordinate other public safety entities. He gave another example of assisting a recent Ann Arbor investigation. “Because we’re a countywide jurisdiction, we’re able to connect the dots.” Criminals and crime don’t have jurisdictional boundaries, so public safety in Washtenaw County affects everyone, Clayton said. The county has a well-deserved reputation as a great place to live, in part because it’s a very safe and secure community. “That does not happen by accident,” he said. It requires a commitment to public safety.

Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County sheriff.

As a countywide elected official, Clayton said it’s his responsibility to inform the board – which makes budget decisions – that if they continue along this path, they won’t be able to sustain public safety in a manner that residents are used to, and Washtenaw County might become a community that’s considered unsafe. There might be some areas that are insulated, “but we all know if there’s a part of Washtenaw County that’s considered unsafe, it affects us all.”

Yousef Rabhi thanked Clayton, but said he wanted to push back a little. He said he prioritized public safety and thinks it’s important. But he thinks a lot of things that the county does are important. The county doesn’t have the funding to do everything it used to do, he said, and there are tough decisions to make. If every department head had the chance to come forward, they’d give the same impassioned plea that the sheriff gave, Rabhi said, and the board needs to understand that fully.

The only way to sustain services in all areas is to get more revenue, Rabhi said. If the county prioritizes public safety, as it should, then residents should support a public safety millage to support the sheriff’s operations, he said. The county government has its hands tied by the state, Rabhi noted, and revenue streams are declining. There are few options, so he hoped commissioners would support putting a new millage on the ballot. Meanwhile, the board needs to make responsible budget cuts to balance its budget.

Clayton responded, saying it’s the board’s prerogative whether to invite every department head to talk with them. As for his own remarks, “it’s not an impassioned plea – I’m just stating the facts,” he said. Oftentimes the board doesn’t hear from people who are affected by budget cuts. It’s not possible to gauge the impact of budget cuts and outcomes if the board doesn’t have all the information from people who are affected, Clayton said. Nonprofit leaders come to the board and make those impassioned pleas, he added, “and you make decisions based on that. So don’t single me out. You asked me. I’m telling you what the impact is. For me not to tell you what I believe the impact on public safety is, if you make those cuts, would be negligent in my responsibility as the county sheriff.”

Sizemore thanked Clayton for coming, and said he’d like to be included in any future communication about the sheriff’s office budget.

Conan Smith said he was glad they were having this conversation, but was sorry that it’s happening in November. The board couldn’t have a better partner than the sheriff’s office in thinking through how to invest strategically. Clayton had actually inspired a lot of the processes that the board is now going through, Smith said, and Clayton’s team has played a leadership role. But Rabhi is right, Smith added, in that any department head could make a case for why their activities are important, and the county doesn’t have a rubric for evaluating why one activity is more important than another. “We’re trying to get there,” he said.

Clayton replied that he didn’t say public safety was more important than anything else – as he wasn’t making comparisons. His point was that it’s a priority to the county, but it’s still up to the board to decide how to prioritize the value of public safety, in terms of budgeting. If the board ends up cutting the sheriff’s budget, “we’ll live with it,” Clayton said. But he wanted the board and the public to know what’s likely to happen if cuts are made.

Clayton then gave some examples of how the sheriff’s office has collaborated to reduce expenses. Four SWAT teams supported by different governmental units were combined into one team, which reduced costs. Partnering with the city of Ann Arbor on dispatch operations saved the city almost $500,000, he said. He noted that previous discussions have connected economic development to the community’s sense of safety.

Conan Smith asked whether Clayton had talked to the administration about how the county can reduce expenses by decreasing the demand for the sheriff’s office services. Has the discussion occurred about where the county should be strategically investing to make that happen? Clayton said they’re working on that, but it’s a long-term approach that requires resources to achieve. Part of the office’s community engagement strategy is getting into the neighborhoods and working with residents to address root cause problems that change the dynamics of the community. That includes partnering with schools and human service agencies of all kinds, he said. Short of not getting re-elected, Clayton joked, he said he’d love to work himself out of a job.

Conan Smith then shifted to the issue of labor contract negotiations with POAM and COAM. The last contract with the sheriff’s deputies was “more lucrative” than what was implemented with other labor units, C. Smith said. Does this budget anticipate parity with other labor unions? he asked.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Clayton reminded the board that the POAM and COAM agreements were negotiated first, before other units. He assumed that the administration had an overall target of concessions for all units. The POAM came to the table seeing what they could get, and they reached an agreement that was ratified by the board. As subsequent negotiations took place, it’s not fair to tell POAM that they didn’t step up, Clayton said. “They stepped up to what you asked. If you’d asked for more, then they could have had those negotiations.”

That said, Clayton reported that POAM and COAM are aware that all of these things are connected, including the impact on police services contracts with other municipalities. They understand that there’s a balance, he said.

Regarding the police services contracts, C. Smith wondered if the county has optimized that delivery of service, in terms of reducing the impact of those contracts on general fund allocations to public safety. The price point to municipalities can’t be so high that it’s unaffordable, he said, but he indicated there’s more that could be done – like multi-jurisdictional contracting, and innovative policing approaches.

Clayton said that multi-jurisdictional contracting is not something that the sheriff’s office can decide – that’s up to the different local governments. In terms of optimizing staffing, he noted that there’s been a lot of consolidation already. He addressed a complaint he’s heard about the sheriff’s office being top-heavy with management. When he took office, he was asked whether the sheriff’s office could assume responsibility for community corrections. It made sense so that happened, but a manager came with it. The same thing happened with emergency services, and a director came with that transition.

Clayton also said he’s had some conversations with local government officials who pay for police services, and he’d told them that the contract language might have to be revisited. That’s because if staffing is reduced, he’s not sure his office can meet the staffing levels that are laid out in the police services contracts. He didn’t want to set expectations at a level that he couldn’t meet.

Conan Smith said he was very supportive of a public safety millage. It would address the financial challenge as well as the policy tension that exists. Speaking as an Ann Arbor resident, C. Smith said he knows the sheriff’s office works with the city, but it’s much more palatable to invest in other communities’ public safety using the county’s general fund if there’s been a vote by residents to do that.

C. Smith noted that Dan Smith had raised the possibility of allocating an additional $100,000 to the sheriff’s department. How would Clayton use those funds, if available? Clayton replied that he’d restore the lost FTEs to put boots on the ground and staff in the jail. When staffing levels are lowered, his office becomes a reactive organization, he said.

Andy LaBarre asked Clayton how the board can deal with the disparity of views regarding the $500,000 budget cut that began in 2009. LaBarre didn’t think it was good to have a countywide elected sheriff and the county administrator on different pages regarding that issue. Clayton reiterated that it was an agreement made with the previous administrator, and that his assumption had been that it was just for a single two-year budget cycle – saying that’s how it had been presented to him. It was never his understanding that the cut was structural, so his question is whether the office can sustain that ongoing cut as well as additional reductions that are being requested.

The options are to reduce services, Clayton said, or to work with the administration over the next four years and restore that $500,000 to the budget – $125,000 each year. He realized that it couldn’t happen immediately.

LaBarre agreed with C. Smith about the importance of social services and human services, and he acknowledged that the sheriff’s office has worked on these issues – in particular, Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s office, has been integral for that, LaBarre noted. He hoped a solution could be worked out as quickly as possible regarding the structural budget question.

Clayton replied that his office will always remain a partner in this process, even if they don’t agree on the outcome.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Amendment (Legal Fees)

Dan Smith pointed to an appropriation in the budget document of $100,000 to cover “litigation matters involving the County as Plaintiff, to be overseen by the County Administrator.” He said he’s not a fan of lawsuits, noting the only people who really come out ahead are lawyers on both sides.

Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel.

He didn’t want to see a recurrence of a recent situation when taxpayer dollars were spent on outside counsel. [This was likely an allusion to the county engaging outside legal counsel after being sued over the board's resolution opposing the state's Stand Your Ground law.]

D. Smith thought the county board meets regularly enough to appropriate funds when necessary, and the corporation counsel is competent to deal with matters until the board can act. He moved for that item to be stricken from the budget document.

Responding to a question from Conan Smith, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said the need to use these funds doesn’t occur frequently. The item gives the administration some flexibility.

C. Smith thought that if the county is the plaintiff, that it ought to be a board discussion about whether to sue, or it should at least be a discussion for the board leadership.

Hedger said if something came up during the summer months when the board meets less frequently, this item would allow the administration to address it. Generally the cases are enforcement-related, tied to building code or soil erosion violations, for example. The intent is to give the administration some flexibility, Hedger said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked why enforcement couldn’t be handled through civil infractions. Hedger reminded the board that they just recently passed an ordinance allowing for civil infractions, but the ability to issue civil infractions for specific violations isn’t yet in place. In the future, having the ability to issue civil infractions will likely allow the county to avoid suing, he said.

Responding to a query from C. Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel noted that she is authorized to make expenditures up to $100,000 for contracts without board approval.

In that case, C. Smith felt this item was already taken care of in the county’s existing policies.

Yousef Rabhi didn’t understand why they would remove the item, if it doesn’t matter one way or another. Why not just leave it in? He asked Hedger about the policy and process for litigating. Hedger replied that the county sues so infrequently that there isn’t a policy. Usually, the county is the defendant.

Rabhi then said he felt it was important to keep the item in place, to show that the board approves spending up to that amount on litigation. He thought that removing the language would hamstring the county’s ability to be legally nimble. He didn’t think the amendment was productive or made sense.

Rabhi noted that being a plaintiff doesn’t just mean the county is suing. It could also mean that the county joins in with other entities to take legal action, for public health and environmental protection – for example, seeking reparations for an oil spill on the Huron River. The board could still allocate money to fight it, he acknowledged, but it’s harder to stomach doing that if there isn’t a line item for it. “Things come up, folks, and we need to have the dollars budgeted to help to bring justice to people of Washtenaw County,” Rabhi said.

C. Smith said he looked at it as an encumbrance that gets baked into the budget. It’s money that’s not being allocated somewhere else. He noted that the office of corporation counsel has a $2.4 million budget. Was the $100,000 part of that amount? Financial analyst Tina Gavalier clarified that there actually is no line item encumbering these funds. If used, the amount would be taken from the general fund reserves. “In which case, I’m agnostic,” C. Smith said.

From left: Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Andy LaBarre wondered why it couldn’t be made a smaller amount, like $10,000. Hedger replied that it’s just been part of the budget document for a long time at that amount. Hedger wanted to make sure there’s enough to cover any potential litigation, because it varies from year to year.

D. Smith said this amendment wasn’t trying to undermine public health and safety. Rather, it’s a way to ensure that if the county is going to engage in significant litigation as a plaintiff, that it’s a board decision. It’s already been established that smaller amounts can be handled at the administrator’s discretion.

After further discussion, Hedger indicated he’d be willing to develop a policy on this issue for the board to review. If the item is removed from the budget document, it wouldn’t necessarily hamper his ability to initiate litigation, he said. If something happens that’s a true public safety issue, he’d move ahead anyway and “I’ll worry about where the money’s coming from later.”

Outcome: The amendment failed on a 4-5 vote. Supporting the amendment were Dan Smith, Alicia Ping, Ronnie Peterson, and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the amendment were Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec, and Andy LaBarre.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Motion to Postpone

Dan Smith moved to postpone an initial vote on the budget until the board’s Nov. 20 meeting. There are several things that commissioners have said they’d like to work out, he noted, and one amendment had been postponed already.

Outcome on postponement: The motion failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson.

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Final Deliberations

Discussion continued. Alicia Ping identified an item in the budget document that was unclear:

13. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Administrator to continue the necessary match. The summary shall separately specify any proposed match in excess of the minimum required.

Verna McDaniel indicated that it was inadvertently included, and should be removed. No amendment was necessary to do that.

Ronnie Peterson said he wanted to support his colleagues, but he wouldn’t follow them over a cliff. He spoke at length, restating his concerns about a four-year budget. He noted that the board’s main responsibility is to set the budget, so if they do a four-year budget now, what are they being paid to do in the coming years? Anyone who votes for a four-year budget should cut their salaries in half, he said, because they’re delegating away their responsibility. He was upset that they were getting ready to vote, even though he said his concerns hadn’t been addressed.

Andy LaBarre responded to some of the concerns raised by Peterson. He noted that the budget assumes the status quo in terms of state and federal funding. Rather than paying off its pension liabilities at one time through bonding, the county has decided to handle those obligations on a year-by-year basis “in a somewhat blind manner,” he said, because the annual actuarial payment can’t be determined in advance. LaBarre said the scariest thing for him in not doing a four-year budget is to see the kinds of deeper cuts they’d have to make if they didn’t take this approach.

At the request of LaBarre, county finance director Kelly Belknap reviewed that approach. She noted that with the two-year budget approach, the county would have needed to make cuts of $2.6 million in 2014 and another $3.9 million in 2015. But if structural reductions are front-loaded in 2014, over the four-year budget period the overall amount of cuts will be reduced, she said. [The budget presented to the board on Oct. 2, 2013 identified $4.13 million in operating cost reductions. Those include: (1) $2.89 million in proposed departmental reductions; (2) $688,000 in estimated increased revenues from fees and services; (3) $450,000 in reductions to county infrastructure allocations; and (4) $100,000 in cuts to “outside agency” allocations.]

LaBarre said that’s the reason he’ll be supporting the four-year budget.

Felicia Brabec thanked commissioners for their input, and supported the four-year approach, saying it allows for strategic, long-term decisions. She felt it would be transformative and was the prudent thing to do. It’s a big change, and will entail a lot more work. In contrast to Peterson’s belief that salaries should be cut, she thought it made more sense for salaries to be doubled, because of the extra work.

Dan Smith called the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. The vote on calling the question was unanimous.

Outcome on 2014-2017 budget as amended: Initial approval of the 2014-2017 budget was given on a 7-2 vote, over the dissent of Dan Smith and Ronnie Peterson.

2014-2017 County Budget: Final Public Commentary

Brian Mackie introduced himself by giving his Ann Arbor address, saying that makes him a resident of Washtenaw County. He noted that he’s also an elected official, and “I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from speaking.” [Mackie is the county's prosecuting attorney.] The board has been talking about the budget since January, he observed, and now it seems the discussions are getting more pointed and serious. It’s a difficult job, he said, “but I would suggest to you that you are making this much harder than it needs to be.”

There are a couple of places to look for guidance, he said. One is the state constitution. Mackie recalled how earlier this year at a budget retreat, one commissioner had said he didn’t give a crap about what the state says about mandates. [That commissioner was Conan Smith (D-District 9), who made this statement at a March 7, 2013 budget retreat: “I don’t give a crap about what the state tells me to do anymore; they clearly don’t have the prosperity of my community in mind.” He was referring to state mandates, arguing that state-mandated service levels should be interpreted at the “absolute possible minimum.”] Mackie pointed out that county government is a unit of state government. It’s how services are delivered to citizens, and it’s essential in our scheme of government, he said.

Mackie also said that the board should rely on the county’s “excellent administrator,” Verna McDaniel. She’s been working in county government for a long time, he noted, and knows what she’s doing. He didn’t believe there was tension between the sheriff and administrator. There’s a difference of opinion, he added, and he thought McDaniel was trying to carry out the wishes of the board. “Because frankly, I don’t believe public [safety], in spite what is said, is really backed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Some of you certainly do. Some of you do not.” He also urged the board to listen to the sheriff. He indicated that the sheriff hadn’t been treated as well as others who’ve come before the board. Sheriff Jerry Clayton has a national reputation, Mackie noted. “He’s not only a good sheriff for Washtenaw County, he’s not only better than his predecessor in many ways, but he’s a national figure,” Mackie said. Clayton is called upon to train sheriffs nationwide. “He might know more about safety and criminal justice than you do,” Mackie told the board.

Mackie also talked about public safety in terms of working with the mentally ill, which he said was near and dear to the hearts of many commissioners. He encouraged them to listen to 911 calls. In a given hour, the sheriff’s dispatchers get calls from Ann Arbor three times an hour about a suicidal subject, he said. People call 911 because they’re desperate and they need help keeping someone alive. “So think about that, please,” he concluded.

Third-Quarter Budget Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel and the finance staff delivered a third-quarter 2013 budget update during the Nov. 6 meeting. The administration is projecting a budget surplus of $1,079,748.

The expected surplus is higher than the one projected earlier this year. During a second-quarter 2013 budget update that the county’s financial staff delivered on Aug. 7, 2013, a $245,814 general fund surplus was projected for the year.

The surplus is attributed in part to higher-than-expected general fund revenues of $103,805,884 – compared to $99,722,141 in the 2013 budget that county commissioners approved late last year. Total expenditures are expected to reach $102,726,136.

The surplus means that the county will not need to tap its fund balance in 2013 in order to balance the budget, as it had originally planned to do. By the end of 2013, the general fund’s fund balance is projected to stand at $17,867,835 or 17.3% of general fund expenditures and transfers out.

There are three areas that staff will be monitoring, which could affect the budget: (1) fringe benefit projections; (2) personal property tax reform; and (3) the impact of federal sequestration. [.pdf of third-quarter budget update presentation]

Third-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about a projected $65,000 over-expenditure in the 14A District Court. She wondered how that happened. Finance analyst Tina Gavalier replied that it’s primarily caused by overtime costs due staff shortages and staff medical leave. She noted that earlier this year, a $100,000 over-expenditure had been expected – so the $65,000 is actually an improvement, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Gavalier said the District Court has a budgeted lump sum reduction of $109,000 for 2013. One could argue, she said, that the court is meeting part of its lump sum reduction by having lower-than-projected over-expenditures. Ping wondered how overspending can result in a credit to the court’s lump sum reduction. Gavalier replied that the lump sum reduction was budgeted as an over-expenditure.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said the administration is working with the court to help identify ways to reduce expenditures. This has been ongoing over the last two years, she said. The court administration has been cooperative, she added.

Ping said she thought the courts had agreed to a $200,000 lump sum reduction. McDaniel clarified that Ping was referring to the Washtenaw Trial Court, not the District Court.

Ping asked whether the county would need to notify both courts, if the board wanted to give notice of an intent to eliminate the lump sum budgeting approach. McDaniel pointed out that there will be a new chief judge as of January 2014. [David S. Swartz was recently named chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court, effective Jan. 1, 2014. The appointment was made by the Michigan Supreme Court. Swartz will replace current chief judge Donald Shelton, who has served in that position for four years.]

McDaniel said there might be some “different ways” to work things out with the new court leadership, and indicated that she’d like some time to give that a chance. [For more background on the lump sum agreement, see Chronicle coverage: "County to Keep Trial Court Budget Agreement."]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the projection for the end-of-year fund balance. Gavalier replied that assuming their projections are correct, the fund balance would be $17,867,835 as of Dec. 31, or 17.3% of general fund expenditures and transfers out.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy

Two items related to a tax to support economic development and agriculture were on the Nov. 6 agenda.

The board was asked to give final approval to an increase in the levy of the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills.

The millage will be levied in December 2013 and raise an estimated $972,635. Initial approval to the increase had been given by the board on Oct. 16, 2013. The funds will be allocated to the following groups:

• $408,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development (OCED)
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show
• $15,000: MSU Extension for food systems-related economic development activities

The initial approval had allocated $423,135 to OCED. Based on a recommendation from OCED, an amendment approved unanimously on Nov. 6 shifted $15,000 from that allocation to fund food systems-related economic development. A second amendment, also passed unanimously, corrected the original resolution, which had stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. The amendment clarified that the millage will be assessed against all taxable property located in the county.

The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment.

Also on Nov. 6, the board was asked to give final approval to a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9) and given initial approval on Oct. 16. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy includes creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board.

The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy: Public Commentary

Doug Smith pointed out that Act 88 only authorizes three activities. Two activities are advertisement, and the third is support of exhibitions of county products. He thought there was some confusion about the phrase that talks about increasing trade for county products. If you look at the structure of the sentence, that phrase refers to the purpose of supporting exhibitions of products, he said. “It’s not a standalone phrase.” The act doesn’t say anything about economic development, or giving money to startups or support of new companies, or subsidizing training programs. These economic development uses aren’t authorized by Act 88, he said.

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United.

Regarding the board’s Act 88 policy, Smith noted that it uses the language of the law. The problem is that the contract that the county has with Ann Arbor SPARK doesn’t use the same language – it uses language of economic development. In addition, there’s no requirement for any kind of reporting for what the money will be spent on by SPARK. It all goes into one pot, he said, so the county can’t tell whether the spending complies with the law. The same is true for the $50,000 membership to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis, Smith said. What is that money being spent on? He asked commissioners not to use the Act 88 millage to support economic development.

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United told commissioners that he’d helped Dick Headlee with the statewide campaigns in 1976, 1977 and 1978 that ultimately resulted in what’s known as the Headlee Amendment. The first year they tried, in 1976, the proposal only got 40% of the vote. In 1978, it received 58% of the vote statewide.

The people who voted were looking for tax limitation, he said. One of the real surprises that’s emerged since then is the “innovative use” of past legislation in an attempt to get around the Headlee Amendment, he said. The state constitution reigns supreme, McMaster said. When you refer to a 100-year-old bill, it’s “much subservient” to the constitution, he noted, because it’s a piece of legislation and in no way equates to the power of the constitution. He called the county’s attempt to levy a $1 million tax on Washtenaw County residents – without a vote of the people – an “ambush.” He urged the board not to pass the Act 88 levy or the policy. It’s not constitutional without a vote of the people, he said.

McMaster concluded by saying that part of the Headlee Amendment has a provision for a lawsuit, starting in the court of appeals “which we will pursue.”

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Move to Table

Dan Smith said he might have a lot to say about this item, but he first wanted to “consider something else I have in mind,” so he moved to table the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to table failed on a voice vote.

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Constitutional?

As he has on previous occasions, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional, because it would exceed constitutional limits on the amount of property tax that can be levied without voter approval. He also questioned whether the language of the Act 88 statute allows the kind of general interpretation the county is using to define eligible uses of funds generated by the levy. Those eligible uses are laid out in a long run-on sentence that’s difficult to parse, he noted, but if you read it very carefully, the use of the funds is quite limited.

The law states:

AN ACT empowering the board of supervisors of any of the several counties of the state of Michigan to levy a special tax, or by appropriating from the general fund for the purpose of advertising the agricultural advantages of the state or for displaying the products and industries of any county in the state at domestic or foreign expositions, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing trade in the products of the state, and advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters, and to permit the boards of supervisors out of any sum so raised, or out of the general fund, to contribute all or any portion of the same to any development board or bureau to be by said board or bureau expended for the purposes herein named.

“So not only are we quite likely levying these funds unconstitutionally,” Smith said, “once we levy them unconstitutionally, we then go and spend them illegally.”

Smith has been advocating for written clarification from the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that would explicitly state the county’s position on the legality of this levy. That hasn’t happened, Smith said.

Hedger maintains that he can provide that kind of written legal opinion only under direction from the entire board. Smith questioned whether it takes a vote of the board to request a legal opinion. Another Michigan county has a policy that interprets MCL 49.155 in such a way that a commissioner could apply on behalf of the entire board for a legal opinion, Smith reported.

MCL 49.155 states:

The prosecuting attorney, or county corporation counsel in a county which has employed an attorney in lieu of the prosecuting attorney to represent the county in civil matters, shall give opinions, in cases where this state, a county, or a county officer may be a party or interested, when required by a civil officer in the discharge of the officer’s respective official duties relating to an interest of the state or county.

Smith said he’s not even really looking for a legal opinion. He just wants additional clarification regarding the Act 88 levy specifically, similar to what’s provided in other cover memos. It’s certainly unclear whether this levy is 100% legal, he said. He noted that on the issue of the State Street corridor improvement authority, he didn’t have concerns about its legality. His concerns with the CIA were policy-related, he noted.

But for Act 88, he can’t get past the legal concerns in order to discuss the policy. The board is essentially saying “Sue us and we’ll let the court sort this out,” Smith said. That’s not the right approach. Taxpayers are forced to pay this tax under threat of foreclosure – if they don’t pay their taxes, the county can foreclose on their property. “That is a very very heavy threat from government to tax somebody,” he said, so the board should be very sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s legal.

He concluded by saying he can’t support the way the county is levying this tax, and he can’t support the way the money is spent after it’s collected.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Conan Smith said he appreciated D. Smith’s passion on this issue. He noted that last year, the state legislature took up a proposal to eliminate Act 88. There was a robust discussion and public hearings, but the legislature ultimately took no action and left it in place. He said he’s comfortable that if the state legislature is satisfied that Act 88 comports with the constitution, then that’s the case “until a court determines otherwise.” He agreed that the bar is high in taking the government to court, but his priority isn’t in determining the constitutionality of this law. His priority is in investing in the economic outcomes that these dollars can provide for county residents.

C. Smith called the language of the Act 88 law “one of the worst run-on sentences” and that makes it tough to determine what exactly the funds can be used for. It’s reasonably arguable that increasing trade in the county is a central tenet of the act, he said, and that affords some leeway in interpreting how those funds are used, including making the kinds of investments that the county is considering.

C. Smith agreed with Doug Smith’s point during public commentary that there aren’t controls in place to see exactly how some organizations are spending the Act 88 funds that the county provides. However, in looking at each organization’s strategic plan, you can make a “reasonable inference” that the funds are being invested in a way that comports with Act 88. He said he appreciates the complexity of this issue, and that as a pre-Headlee statute its applicability is “somewhat convoluted.” However, he’s comfortable that the board has the authority to do this and he’d support the resolution, even though he would prefer to levy an even higher rate.

Andy LaBarre asked Hedger what it would entail, in terms of time and effort, to produce a legal opinion. Hedger replied that it would take some time to write up an opinion, but that he’d already done the research. One challenge is that there’s not much guidance as far as case law, because it hasn’t been challenged in court. There’s a lot of statutory interpretation that would be required, and that would take some time to figure out how to make it as clear as possible, Hedger said.

Hedger noted that any opinion wouldn’t apply just to Act 88. It would also apply to the veterans relief millage that the county levies, as well as some other levies.

Ronnie Peterson cautioned that getting a legal opinion “opens up a big door.” He noted that Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United might get a legal opinion, “but it won’t be from us.” The ramifications would be very challenging, Peterson said, and the board needs to consider that as they deliberate on a four-year budget.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, the board gave final approval to an increase in the Act 88 levy. Dan Smith (R-District 2) dissented and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting by the time the vote occurred, just after midnight.

Act 88 Policy: Board Discussion

Regarding the Act 88 policy, Dan Smith said he had several concerns about it. As an example, he highlighted the policy that would allow the advisory committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. He noted that Act 88 authorizes only the board to direct how revenues are spent: The wording in the statute is very specific, he said.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger responded that by approving this policy, the board would be providing that direction – in essence, delegating it to the advisory committee. It’s one step removed, Hedger said, but it’s “not just coming out of the blue.”

Alicia Ping wondered why the amount of 10% was designated. Conan Smith replied that there are “leveraging opportunities that rise up with relative immediacy,” like matching grants or event sponsorship. Some of these things don’t warrant board approval, he said. Small amounts are spent regularly through the county administrator’s discretion, he noted. The committee could also give money directly to an organization, if it sees fit to do that and if the organization provides programs or services that fit with the Act 88 allowed uses.

Ping wondered if the full board would get a report on how that 10% would be allocated. C. Smith pointed out that the policy includes a requirement for an annual report about how all Act 88 expenditures were made, and assessing whether those investments were effective.

Yousef Rabhi said every agency that’s funded with public dollars should be accountable for how those dollars are spent. There’s been some citizen feedback that some of the agencies funded by the county don’t have enough accountability, he said. “We need to make sure that they are accountable for public dollars that we allocate to them.” This policy helps accomplish that, Rabhi concluded.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy was unanimously approved. Rolland Sizemore Jr. had left the meeting and did not vote.

Act 88 Policy: Request for Legal Opinion

In introducing this item, Dan Smith said he believed the Act 88 statute is constitutional, but that the county isn’t using it constitutionally because the county is already at its maximum allowable levy. One reason why the state legislature didn’t repeal Act 88 is that the law is constitutional for counties that haven’t reached their maximum allowable levy amount, he said.

It’s critical to sort this out, he added, because if these levies are legal, then about three-quarters of a billion dollars could be raised across the state to fix roads – raised locally and controlled locally. Everyone who drives on roads knows that this needs to be done, he said. “If this is a solution that can be used across the state, we need to make people aware of it.” If it’s not, “we need to know that too.”

He brought forward a resolution directing corporation counsel to provide an opinion on taxes levied in excess of constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA

On the Nov. 6 agenda was a resolution for final approval of a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA), which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] An initial vote had been taken on Oct. 16, 2013, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

The resolution authorizes the county administrator to sign the tax-sharing agreement, which would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor roughly between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted to support participation in the CIA at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library board voted to approve its own tax-sharing agreement at a meeting on Nov. 11, 2013. At its Nov. 12 meeting, the Saline library board voted to opt out of the CIA. The metroparks board also decided to opt out, with a vote at its Nov. 14 meeting. No action has been taken by the WCC board of trustees, which next meets on Nov. 26.

On Oct. 16, Dan Smith had moved a substitute resolution. It stated that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point.

The Oct. 16 vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Public Commentary

Mandy Grewal addressed the board during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. She introduced several other township officials who attended the meeting but who did not formally address commissioners, including treasurer Patricia Scribner; CIA board member Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America; Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services; and consultant Dick Carlisle. She indicated that county commissioner Felicia Brabec would soon be appointed to the CIA board. She hoped that the county commissioners would support the CIA.

County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal.

Christina Lirones introduced herself as a Pittsfield Township resident and former township clerk, treasurer and chair of the planning commission. She’s very opposed to the CIA proposal and she hoped the board would opt out. The township held a public hearing on Oct. 9, and she noted that she’d emailed commissioners a copy of the statement she’d made at that meeting. [.pdf of Lirones' statement at Oct. 9 township public hearing] There are other ways that road improvements could be funded, she said, and past township administrations avoided these kinds of TIF funding arrangements. As someone who supports county services and who voted for the county parks millage, Lirones said she’s deeply concerned that tax dollars that should support residents and parks will be diverted in part for road expansion. In most sections, the road already has three lanes or more, she noted, and it’s in much better shape than many other county roads. That part of the township would increase in value, regardless of the road expansion.

The CIA TIF is being rushed through, Lirones contended, in order to get it on the tax rolls this year. There’s no benefit to the county, she argued, only the loss of tax revenue. Businesses that move to the corridor already receive tax abatements from the current township board, she said, and a TIF would cut revenues further. In the past, developers have funded road improvements based on projected traffic counts, but the CIA TIF would reverse this policy and shift the expense onto taxpayers. It’s unfair to responsible developers who’ve paid for this in the past, she argued, and it’s unfair to residents and taxpayers. It’s also unfair to taxing entities that are giving up their tax revenues. She said the residents who live on State Street were not invited to serve on the CIA board and they don’t support this project. She said she and her husband were the only members of the public who attended all the meetings related to the CIA, which she characterized as poorly noticed and held during the day.

Lirones spoke again at the second opportunity for public commentary later in the evening, after the board’s budget discussion. She noted that the CIA tax-sharing agreement limits the amount of tax capture to $3.8 million from Washtenaw County tax revenues. At first, she said, she thought perhaps it’s a small amount of money for the county. But it turns out that based on their budget discussion, the county is in some dire financial straits, she said, so the $3.8 million is a significant amount that would be lost to the county operating budget. It’s money that the sheriff’s department and human services could use, she said. Lirones hoped the board would decide to opt out. She restated many of the reasons she’d previously mentioned for opposing the CIA, including the fact that the corridor is already being developed even without the road improvements. It’s important for tax dollars to be used for their original intent. “I’m afraid it’s only the first in a series of tax increment finance and capture districts,” she concluded.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Board Discussion

There was minimal discussion before the final vote on Nov. 6. Dan Smith pointed out that the board was voting on the tax-sharing agreement. It states that the amount of tax capture will be 50%, not the full 100% that would be allowed by law. Procedurally, it was not an “opt-in” vote, he noted.

Conan Smith said he was glad that the board leadership and administration will be developing a policy regarding tax increment financing districts.

Outcome: The tax-sharing agreement for the State Street CIA was unanimously approved.

Coordinated Funding

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to authorize some changes in that funding model. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 16, 2013, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

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.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion – Community Outcomes

On Nov. 6, Callan reviewed the process and provided additional details about how allocations are made. She also provided a handout with information about community outcomes for coordinated funding. [.pdf of outcomes handout]

Callan explained that the approach of looking at community-level outcomes is new, but it has been discussed for some time. It aligns with the board’s own initiative to look at outcomes when determining budget allocations for the general fund, she noted. The level of investment in the coordinated funding approach is up to the board, she said. But one of the points of five different funding sources – working together – is to eliminate the need for a nonprofit to apply five different places in order to get funded. County dollars go into the six areas that have been identified as priorities, Callan said.

From left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel. Both serve on the coordinated funding leadership team.

During the last funding round, there were about three times as many applications as there were entities that ultimately received funding, she noted. The application review and scoring process is very transparent, she added.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) wondered how the board can become engaged in that process. Callan reported that Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) serves on a coordinated funding leadership team, as does county administrator Verna McDaniel. Weight is given to organizations serving those residents who are most at risk and impoverished, Callan said.

Callan said she hoped the board wasn’t interested in becoming involved in the operation details of how scoring rubrics are created for request for proposals. But the board’s priorities for funding anti-poverty efforts and root causes are very clear, she said, and are reflected in all of the coordinated funding work. Every single community outcome is about preventing, reducing or eliminating poverty, Callan said.

Conan Smith said he felt the scoring rubric really needs to be shared with the board before it’s adopted, because that’s how dollars get allocated.

C. Smith also raised the issue that smaller, innovative nonprofits often don’t compete well in the coordinated funding allocation. He asked Callan to address that issue. That’s been an enduring concern, she replied, and in general the larger, more established agencies do tend to get funded. In this upcoming cycle, a couple of things have changed, she said. A new funder, RNR Foundation, has joined the coordinated funding initiative. That family foundation wants to provide capacity-building dollars to smaller nonprofits so they can compete in this funding process.

Additionally, requiring a third-party independent audit is very onerous and costly for smaller nonprofits. So the coordinated funders have changed the threshold for requiring an audit – to agencies with budgets of $500,000 or more. For agencies with budgets between $250,000 and $500,000, an independent financial review is now acceptable. Nonprofits with budgets under $250,000 can provide the 990 forms that are filed with the IRS, as well as the most recent financial statements that are submitted to that nonprofit’s board. All of this is an attempt to lessen the burden on smaller organizations, she said.

C. Smith asked when the coordinated funding reviewers are appointed. In about a month, Callan replied. A request for information (RFI) has already been issued for nonprofits that hope to get funding. The RFP to solicit applications for funding will be released in January or early February of 2014, she reported. It’s up to each funding organization to appoint their reviewers, she said, but in the past those appointments have been recommended by OCED. It’s important for the group of reviewers in aggregate to have a diverse skill set, she said. C. Smith noted that having diverse perspectives is also important.

C. Smith said when funding recommendations are brought to the board, it feels like a rubber stamp at that point. In reality, Callan said, the board can decide how to invest the funds. The vote they’d be taking that night was about whether they want to stay at the table. Other input includes making clear the board’s funding priorities and appointing reviewers. She said she understands that the board feels its hands are tied sometimes, because of the complexity of the process.

C. Smith said the board’s input at the end of the process – in approving the funding allocation – isn’t meaningful. He’d rather see the board be more involved in the front end. He wanted commissioners to really talk about the funding priorities and the reviewers as a board, so that they can make more of an impact. He noted that the board has never changed a single allocation for coordinated funding.

In response to another question from C. Smith, Callan noted that OCED staffs seven community advisory boards, including the Ann Arbor housing and human services advisory board and the county community action board. Input from those boards is integrated into the coordinated funding process, too.

C. Smith concluded by saying his comments were meant to improve the process, which he thought had taken a step forward during this cycle. Callan replied that she welcomes suggestions for improvement. “I would encourage you and the board to use the same rigor with all of your investments,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson spoke at length about the importance of ending poverty, and the county’s role in making that happen.

Outcome: The board gave final approval to extend the coordinated funding approach. The vote was unanimous, but Rolland Sizemore Jr. had left the meeting when this vote was taken at nearly midnight.

Platt Road Advisory Committee

Commissioners were asked to appoint members of a 13-member advisory committee to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Members are: county commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre, who both represent districts in Ann Arbor; Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor; three county senior managers – Bob Tetens, Mary Jo Callan and Greg Dill; Jennifer Hall, director of the Ann Arbor housing commission; and six residents – Jeannine Palms, Vickie Wellman, Amy Freundl, Ron Emaus, Peter Vincent and Robb Burroughs.

The board had voted to create the committee at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting. The idea of an advisory committee to help with the dispensation of this property – at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – was first discussed at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting. It was included in an overall strategic space plan for county facilities, which proposed demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee would be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, was an item to be worked out for a board vote at a later date.

On Sept. 4, a debate on the advisory committee proposal lasted about an hour, with concerns raised about the resolution’s focus on affordable housing. A staff memo listed several elements that would be explored, including: (1) affordable rental housing by the Ann Arbor housing commission; (2) an affordable housing green demonstration pilot project; (3) connection to the adjacent County Farm Park; (4) ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue design principles; and (5) other identified community priorities, such as geothermal, solar panels or community gardens.

According to that staff memo, this visioning work will be funded by $100,000 in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, with funds to support the development of affordable housing. The money was part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

On Sept. 4, several commissioners expressed interest in exploring a broader set of options, beyond affordable housing – including the possible sale of the property. Ultimately, the item was postponed at that meeting. Board chair Yousef Rabhi had directed Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

However, when the Sept. 18 agenda was posted online, the resolution remained unchanged, aside from the amendment made on Sept. 4.

A couple of hours prior to the start of the Sept. 18 meeting, LaBarre emailed commissioners and The Chronicle with a substitute resolution that he brought forward during the meeting. It was much more general in its direction, stripping out most of the details related to the affordable housing focus. In addition to the composition of the community advisory committee (CAC), the new resolution’s main directive was stated this way:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners directs the CAC to provide recommendations to the Board of Commissioners relative to disposition, including an alternatives analysis; and preferred methods of community engagement for the Board of Commissioners to undertake during the disposition process;

The Sept. 18 resolution also set a deadline of Dec. 31, 2013 for the committee to deliver its analysis and recommendations to the board. [.pdf of substitute resolution] That resolution passed unanimously on Sept. 18, with three commissioners absent.

There was no discussion on this item during the Nov. 6 meeting.

Outcome: Appointments of the Platt Road advisory committee passed unanimously.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield Status

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. Initial approval had been given on Oct. 16, 2013. [.pdf of brownfield plan]

The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned 77,700-square-foot warehouse at 140 Buchanan in the city of Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project, according to a staff memo that accompanied the Oct. 16 resolution.

Brownfield status allows the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

A public hearing took place at the board’s Oct. 16 meeting. It occurred after midnight and only one person – Lara Treemore Spears of ASTI Environmental, a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m.

There was no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to give final approval to the brownfield plan.

Interim Public Health Officer

Ellen Rabinowitz was nominated to serve as interim health officer for Washtenaw County. She currently serves as executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, a job she’ll continue to hold. [.pdf of Rabinowitz resumé]

Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan and new interim public health officer.

The appointment is spurred by the retirement of current health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28. 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.

According to a memo that accompanied the appointment resolution, the interim status will allow for time to make a decision about the permanent appointment. Both the interim and permanent appointments require approval by the state Dept. of Community Health. The staff memo also states that any savings received during the interim appointment will go toward reducing the use of fund balance projected in the 2013/2014 public health budget.

Before the Nov. 6 vote, Rabinowitz and Fleece both addressed the board. Rabinowitz told commissioners that Fleece’s retirement will leave a big hole, as he’s done some amazing work over the last five years. She said he’s leaving the department in great shape. It’s clearly a dynamic time in the field of health care, with the Affordable Care Act changing the nature of health care service delivery, she said. It opens up a lot of opportunities for the field of public health.

Commissioners praised both Rabinowitz and Fleece for their service. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) recalled that former county administrator Bob Guenzel often used Fleece as a model for those in public service. Fleece never failed to respond to a citizen’s request, Peterson said, and he’ll be deeply missed.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Rabinowitz that he really wants to see a public health board created. He asked her to report back to the board about what a public health board would mean to the department, and the process required to set it up. Rabinowitz replied that it’s an important issue to explore. The possibility of pulling together a board of experts is something she’s interested in exploring. Peterson said it should be a goal to establish such a board by the end of 2013, because public health advocates who might serve on the board should be involved in selecting a permanent director.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked county administrator Verna McDaniel for an update on possible restructuring of the public health department at the board’s Nov. 20 meeting.

Fleece told commissioners that he gave his full support to Rabinowitz, calling her the perfect person at the perfect time to take on this role, citing her connections to the health care field and her managerial abilities.

Regarding a public health board, Fleece said he’s heard varying opinions. Some people say that such boards require a lot of care and feeding to the extent that the board becomes a burden on staff. In other cases, the board can be an advocate and serve as a good source of information. There will be decisions to make regarding how much authority to give a public health board, he noted.

Fleece also pointed out that the county’s public health department already seeks advice from many sources, including the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He said he’d do everything he can to help with this process.

Commissioners gave Fleece a round of applause.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Ellen Rabinowitz as interim health officer.

Public Hearings Set

The board was ask to set two public hearings: (1) on Nov. 20 to get input on the 2014-2017 budget for Washtenaw County; and (2) on Jan. 8, 2014 to get feedback on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog.

Hearings on both of these items were already held on Oct. 16, 2013. However, no one spoke at those hearings, which were held after midnight as part of a meeting that lasted over six hours.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013. Earlier on Nov. 6 the board gave initial approval to the budget, with some amendments, on a 7-2 vote over the dissent of Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

The proposed ordinance to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: Without discussion, the board set both public hearings for Nov. 20.

Tax for Indigent Veterans Services

Commissioners were asked to approve an amendment to a resolution that authorized the levy of a millage for services to indigent veterans. Commissioners had passed the original resolution on Oct. 16, 2013.

That original resolution stated that the millage would only be assessed against real property in Washtenaw County. In fact, the intent is to assess the millage against all property located in the county. The resolution approved on Nov. 6 clarifies that intent.

The county will levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill will be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The previous rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

Outcome: The amendment passed unanimously, without discussion.

Proposal to Rescind “Stand Your Ground” Resolution

At the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, commissioners had passed a resolution – on a 5-4 vote – urging the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. They heard extensive public commentary on the issue at that meeting as well as at earlier meetings this fall, much of it from supporters of Stand Your Ground.

On Nov. 6, Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that corporation counsel Curtis Hedger had informed the board that a lawsuit had been filed against the county and that Hedger needed to retain outside counsel to defend the county. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Board Sued Over Stand Your Ground."]

The lawsuit was a direct result non-binding action that the board took that passed by one vote, Smith noted. If the lawsuit defense was handled internally, it wouldn’t be a concern, he said. But it’s being handled by an outside attorney who’s billing the county by the hour, he noted.

Because of that, he said, he was presenting a resolution to rescind the anti-Stand Your Ground resolution.

Outcome: No one seconded Smith’s motion, so the motion died for lack of support.

Stormwater/Asset Management Grant

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to applying for and accepting a state grant through the Stormwater/Asset Management program for $1.1 million over three years – from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017.

From left: Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt, and Harry Sheehan, the office’s environmental manager.

The grant is available through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and would be used by the county office of the water resources commissioner to develop a combined stormwater/asset management plan for Washtenaw County drains.

The funds are part of a broader SAW program – stormwater, asset management and wastewater – that Gov. Rick Snyder authorized in January 2013 to provide $420 million in grants and loans for water quality improvements.

According to a staff memo, the grant would “fund staffing, consulting, software and hardware to implement an asset management system, including inventory, condition assessment, criticality of assets, operation and maintenance planning, and capital improvements.” The intent of the plan is to “strengthen local units of government to make informed decisions with regard to stormwater collection, treatment, master planning, zoning and site plan review.”

Water resources commissioner Evan Pratt and Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the county office of the water resources commissioner, both attended the Nov. 6 board meeting but did not formally address the board.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to this grant application. A final vote is expected on Nov. 20.

Emergency Management Performance Grant

The board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance of pass-through funds from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security to support county emergency management operations. The funding of up to $86,677 would be used for the salary and fringe benefits for the county’s emergency management director. That position, part of the sheriff’s office, is held by Marc Breckenridge.

Breckenridge attended the Nov. 6 board meeting but did not formally address the board. Nor did commissioners raise any questions on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the emergency management performance grant. A final vote is expected on Nov. 20.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening 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: Delonis Center, Barrier Busters

Four people spoke about social services during the first opportunity for public commentary, including three people who represented the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor.

Martin Delonis addressed the county board on Nov. 6, thanking the county for its financial support of the Robert J. Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in Ann Arbor that’s named after his father. Martin Delonis serves on the board of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the center.

Ellen Schulmeister, the association’s CEO, read a thank-you letter from a former client of the Delonis Center – a former teacher and legal secretary in her mid-50s, who attempted suicide twice because of reoccurring homelessness. This woman also struggled with health issues, but during her stay at the Delonis Center she got the help she needed and is now living in her own apartment. Schulmeister told the board that this woman had specifically asked that her story be shared with the entities that support the center, which includes the county.

Martin Delonis told commissioners that the Robert J. Delonis Center is named after his father. Delonis said he recently followed in his father’s footsteps by joining the shelter association’s board. He thanked the board on behalf of his family, the Delonis Center, and the people that the center serves. He paraphrased a prayer that he said was important to his family: “We should not hope for tasks that are equal to our powers, but instead, powers equal to our tasks.” The county supports the shelter and helps its task of ending homelessness one person at a time, he said. He thanked commissioners for their continued commitment.

Debbie Beuche introduced herself as president of the shelter association’s board. She thanked commissioners for their support, saying that it means a lot for the community. She hoped they would continue that support.

Harriet Bakalar told commissioners that she’d been a social worker in this area since 1971, and wanted to speak about the importance of funding Barrier Busters. She’d heard there was some consideration about reducing funding for that program. For the last 13 years she’s worked for the Housing Bureau for Seniors, and has helped seniors as they make transitions. Many people in the county are extremely vulnerable to homelessness, she said. Many people work here but can’t afford to live here. Barrier Busters is a lifeline to many of the seniors that she works with, and the program has helped stabilize people’s housing situations. She didn’t think anyone would want to see seniors on the streets, so she encouraged commissioners to continue support of the Barrier Busters fund.

Communications & Commentary: 1,4 Dioxane

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) brought up the ongoing cleanup of the 1,4 dioxane plume. The environmental contamination is related to past activities of the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing operations in Scio Township. Gelman was later bought by Pall Corp. Martinez-Kratz serves on the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD), which is calling for better cleanup standards.

Martinez-Kratz said he was frustrated that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) hasn’t yet updated the toxicity levels for 1,4 dioxane. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb. The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and set a new deadline for December 2013. The MDEQ is now proposing to leave the standards unchanged.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Martinez-Kratz noted that this affects residents in his district, but it’s difficult to inform them of the danger because of the different standards being used by the EPA and MDEQ. He’d been hoping the MDEQ would update its standards.

By way of background, a public hearing was held this month in Lansing on this issue, drawing several local residents and elected officials, including state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) of Ann Arbor.

The county board of commissioners has also previously taken a stance on this issue. At their Sept. 18, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to direct staff to explore options – including possible legal action – to help set cleanup criteria in Michigan for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane. In part, the item relates to a 1,4 dioxane plume stemming from contaminants at the former Gelman Sciences plant.

On Nov. 6, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Martinez-Kratz for his leadership on CARD. Rabhi had served on CARD during his first two years in office, he noted, and he knew he was passing it off to someone who’s passionate about this issue.

Later in the meeting, outgoing public health officer Dick Fleece noted that he’d been working on the issue of 1,4 dioxane for decades. “Good luck with that,” he quipped. It’s something where there’s a lot of work but not a lot of results. He said he’d make sure the board’s Sept. 18 resolution on this issue gets into the public record as part of the public hearings that were taking place in Lansing.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Tom Partridge spoke during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He told commissioners he was advocating for the county’s most vulnerable residents, who need affordable housing, shelter for the homeless, health care, and public transportation. It’s dishonorable for commissioners to come to these meetings and disregard the needs of people who are virtually on the steps of the county administration building, he said.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 20, 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!

Ann Arbor District Library trustee Nancy Kaplan cast the only vote against approving a tax-sharing agreement between AADL, Pittsfield Township and the State Street corridor improvement authority. (Photos by the writer.)

For taxing entities that participate, a portion of revenues from local taxes would be used to provide matching dollars to help secure federal funding for road improvements and other features along the State Street corridor. The CIA covers a stretch roughly between Ellsworth and Michigan Avenue.

Although other trustees indicated that they shared Kaplan’s concerns, they were persuaded to support the CIA for several different reasons. Margaret Leary said she appreciated the transparency and openness of township officials during this process. She noted that in contrast to some other TIF arrangements, the tax-sharing agreement with the CIA is clear, comprehensive and was developed in a collaborative way. [Her reference to other TIF arrangements was likely an allusion to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. See Chronicle coverage: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged"]

Leary also pointed out that the CIA will create a situation that could benefit the AADL, which operates a branch in Pittsfield Township. If the overall tax base increases because of improvements to the State Street corridor, she said, then tax revenues for AADL will increase too. Barbara Murphy added that the amount of AADL tax revenue that will be diverted to the CIA is relatively small – about $120,000 over 20 years – compared to some other taxing entities.

Two people addressed the board during public commentary about the CIA. Prior to the vote, Christina Lirones – a former Pittsfield Township official – urged the board to opt out. At the end of the meeting, Don Salberg said he was disappointed in the board’s decision. He had expected AADL to opt out.

In addition to Pittsfield Township and AADL, other taxing entities within the CIA are Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metroparks), Washtenaw Community College, and Saline District Library. At its Nov. 12 meeting, the Saline library board voted to opt out of the CIA. The metroparks board also decided to opt out, with a vote at its Nov. 14 morning meeting. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners and the county’s parks & recreation commission both voted in support of the CIA. WCC trustees have not yet made a decision.

Also during the Nov. 11 meeting, AADL director Josie Parker highlighted the fact that AADL had been awarded a five-star ranking by the Library Journal – the highest ranking awarded by the journal for library use in a community. AADL is the only library system in Michigan that achieved that level, and has been awarded this designation for five consecutive years. AADL is the only library in Michigan to ever achieve five stars.

And during committee reports, Nancy Kaplan noted that the communications committee has reviewed a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report] Some of the recommendations in the report include expanding the use of social media, publishing a quarterly newsletter to keep library patrons informed, and conducting a satisfaction survey to determine the priorities and public perception of the library, and to learn more about who is using the library, and why. The administration will now determine whether and how to implement the report’s recommendations.

During public commentary, Kathy Griswold urged the board to be more open and transparent, specifically by recording its meetings for broadcast.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA

The AADL board had discussed Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA) at two previous meetings – on Oct. 21, 2013 and Sept. 16, 2013. It was originally on the Nov. 11 agenda for discussion only. But at the start of the meeting, the board revised the agenda to make it an action item.

Prue Rosenthal.

Pittsfield Township created the new authority in July 2013 to help fund roughly $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value within the CIA boundaries would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. [.pdf of TIF plan]

Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries. Over the 20 years, it’s estimated that $120,436 in AADL tax revenue would be diverted to the CIA. Details of the arrangement are laid out in a tax-sharing agreement between the AADL, Pittsfield Township and the CIA. [.pdf of AADL tax-sharing agreement]

The local tax revenues collected via the CIA will be used as matching funds to secure federal funding, which is expected to pay for 80% of costs.

Taxing entities have the option to opt out of the CIA, and have a 60-day period in which to make that decision. If the governing bodies don’t formally request that their taxes be exempt from TIF capture, then they will automatically participate in the CIA. That opt-out period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December.

In addition to AADL, other jurisdictions that levy taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metroparks), Washtenaw Community College, and Saline District Library.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted on Nov. 6, 2013 to approve a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, outlining details of the county’s participation. About $3.8 million in county tax dollars is estimated to be captured during the 20-year period. The county parks & recreation commission also voted to support the CIA, which will capture about $600,000 in taxes from county parks millages.

The Washtenaw Community College board of trustees held a special meeting on Nov. 12, with a presentation on the CIA. Another board meeting is scheduled for Nov. 26, and would be an opportunity for trustees to make a formal decision on this issue. If WCC participates, about $3 million of its taxes would be captured over the 20-year period.

Also on Nov. 12, the Saline District Library board held a special meeting where it voted 6-1 to opt out of the CIA. According to Leslee Niethamer, director of the Saline District Library, the board had already voted in August to opt out. However, because the process requires that notification be given during the 60-day period that began Oct. 9, the board scheduled a special meeting to vote again on this issue. The CIA had hoped to capture about $900,000 of the library’s tax revenue over 20 years.

The director of the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, John McCulloch, sent an opt-out letter earlier this month to township supervisor Mandy Grewal. [.pdf of McCulloch letter] However, the board had not yet taken a vote following the Oct. 9 public hearing. At its morning meeting on Nov. 14, the board unanimously approved a formal opt-out resolution. The taxes at stake were roughly $181,000. [.pdf of opt-out resolution]

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the AADL’s Nov. 11 meeting, Christina Lirones introduced herself as a resident of Pittsfield Township, who lives in the Saline District Library’s district but who owns property in the AADL district. She passed out photographs to show improvements that have already been made on State Road, without the TIF funding from a CIA.

Christina Lirones passed out a written statement to the Ann Arbor District Library board.

The road is frequently portrayed as just being a two-lane unimproved road, she said, but developers have made substantial improvements over the years. In most areas, State Street is three lanes, she noted, and those improvements have been paid for by developers. There are traffic signals at the intersections with Morgan and Avis Drive. And at the intersection with Textile, there were major improvements paid for through a special assessment, she said. Another major road improvement was done around the Walmart complex near Michigan Avenue. “It’s not as if it’s an unimproved road,” she said.

Lirones encouraged the board to opt out of the CIA, calling the project ill-advised. It was rushed through with a lack of transparency by township officials, she contended. She noted that she had served as the township clerk from 2000 to 2004, and as treasurer from 2004-2008. She also had served for eight years on the township’s planning commission, and had held the position of chair.

Through strong planning and political will at that time, she said, the township was able to negotiate with every development to secure road improvements. “I do not want to see library millage dollars diverted into road improvements in Pittsfield Township,” she said. It’s inappropriate and unfair to developers who have already paid for improvements, she argued, and will make it difficult to get developers to pay for additional improvements in the future. She wanted to see her tax dollars collected by AADL to be used for books and other activities of the library.

Lirones also provided a written statement to the board, and her statement at the Pittsfield Township board’s Oct. 9 public hearing was included in the AADL board packet. [.pdf of Lirones' statement to AADL] [.pdf of Lirones' statement at Oct. 9 township public hearing]

Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, attended the AADL board meeting but did not formally address the board.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Board Discussion

Margaret Leary began the discussion by making a motion to approve the tax-sharing agreement between AADL, Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA.

Margaret Leary.

Leary said she planned to support the agreement, saying it took a long time for her to reach that decision. She appreciated the openness and transparency that the township has used in this process. “In contrast to some other TIF arrangements, what we have here is clear – there’s no ambiguity about the agreement.” [Her reference to other TIF arrangements was likely an allusion to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. See Chronicle coverage: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged"]

It’s also a comprehensive agreement, she noted, and describes all the possible contingencies and what would happen in each case. The township was very collaborative, with representatives attending AADL meetings and answering questions. The township provided information in advance, and was willing to negotiate terms of the agreement, Leary said.

Another positive aspect was the fact that the TIF capture is 50%, not 100%, Leary said. The township is creating a situation in which the library stands to gain, she added, because the library’s tax base will increase as a result of improvements to the road and non-motorized features. It’s a project that will make the overall community better, she said.

“I think it’s good when governmental organizations can treat each other respectfully and collaboratively to make the community better for everybody,” Leary said.

Leary pointed out that each organization affected by this CIA proposal will do a different analysis – as there are different amounts of money at stake, and different benefits that might be gained. “I’m only speaking about my opinion of what I think is best for AADL,” she concluded.

Barbara Murphy agreed with Leary, and added that it was very clear what the limits are in this CIA. The library won’t be committing unknown amounts of money, she said. “That’s another reason I’m comfortable with it.”

Jan Barney Newman pointed to the terms of the agreement, which outlined what would happen if the CIA doesn’t secure sufficient funding to move ahead with the project. In that case, the AADL could get out of the agreement, she noted, “so we’re not just throwing money into a bottomless pit.”

Nancy Kaplan said it looked like she’d be the only dissenting vote. She agreed with many of the points made by Leary, and she had given it a lot of thought. She did appreciate the openness and clarity of the agreement and the TIF plan. She said it’s her understanding that Pittsfield Township was also quite cooperative and helpful during the process of building AADL’s Pittsfield branch library. However, that building is not near State Street, she noted – it’s on Oak Valley Drive.

Ed Surovell.

About $120,000 would be diverted from the library over 20 years, Kaplan said. The public voted to fund the library, she added, “and we should keep the benefit of the tax dollars with the library, and not divert them to a road project to which they did not say the funds should be diverted.” It was her view that AADL should opt out of the proposed CIA, and not set a precedent.

Ed Surovell said he’d support the CIA. He noted that he’s not the only person on this board who has served on a planning commission. [Leary also is a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner.] He was going to support Pittsfield Township’s decision to do the project “through a democratic process.” When he was a planning commissioner, he said, he would have been cranky if someone from Pittsfield had told him that an Ann Arbor project wasn’t a good idea.

Responding to Kaplan’s comments, Leary said Kaplan had identified the crux of the issue that has bothered all trustees – taking revenues from the library millage and using them for a different purpose. If that was all there was to it, Leary said she’d probably be on Kaplan’s side. But that’s not all there is to it, she added.

There’s a state statute [Public Act 280 of 2005] that makes this funding mechanism possible, Leary noted, and the township used a democratic process to set up the CIA. It’s very difficult for municipalities to get money for projects like this, she said, and the state legislature set up this CIA structure in order to address that.

The whole concept of a TIF is to take tax revenues from one source and use it for a different purpose – it’s not just this CIA that’s doing it, Leary noted. If that’s not acceptable, then the way to fix it is to tell the state legislature and have them change the statute. This CIA approach is relatively new, and provides the ability for taxing entities to opt out. Leary pointed out that the opt-out option didn’t exist when the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was created. She said she doesn’t necessarily like that the state legislature has set things up like this, “but I don’t know what the options are when communities need to fix things.” Roads need to be repaired, and sometimes the way to do that is “just flat-out uncomfortable,” she said.

Prue Rosenthal said the proposal also had given her pause, and she had been concerned. But sometimes “you have to spend money to make money,” she said. The road improvements will probably be to AADL’s advantage in the long-run, she added. She also expressed a strong belief in the “good neighbor policy” – even though it’s somewhat awkward, she acknowledged.

Barbara Murphy.

Murphy didn’t want to lose track of how much money was involved. If the TIF would take $500,000 or so a year from AADL revenues, that would be different, she said. But it’s only about $6,000 a year, and for that amount, the library should certainly participate, Murphy said. If it were a different amount, the library might not be able to afford it, she added.

Kaplan pointed out that Pittsfield Township has previously developed that area without TIF funding. To her, it’s the principle. She thinks the tax-sharing agreement is a “model agreement,” but taking taxpayer money away from the purpose for which it was intended is something she can’t support. She also didn’t think that removing the AADL’s $120,000 “would be the death knell” for the project, if the library opted out.

Surovell argued that Pittsfield Township took money that its taxpayers had approved for something else, and instead spent it on making municipal improvements that AADL hadn’t budgeted for at the library branch site. The township did it “without so much as asking for a nickel,” he said, and they had been wonderful partners. That amount hadn’t been spread over 20 years – it had been spread over 60 days, he said. He restated his support for the CIA.

Rosenthal concluded the discussion by thanking Christina Lirones for the information she provided.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, the board approved the tax-sharing agreement for Pittsfield Township’s CIA, over dissent from Nancy Kaplan.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Final Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Don Salberg told trustees that he was very disappointed by the board’s decision not to opt out. When the proposal was first presented to the board earlier this year, “I sensed a lot of skepticism on everyone’s part,” he said. He said he’d communicated in writing to some of the board members, and none of the responses he’d received from trustees had indicated that they were supportive of the CIA. So he had expected that they would opt out.

The board is being unfair to the voters who approved the library millage, as he had done. “I did not hope to have any of this money given to other authorities,” he said, saying he’s saddened by the amount that the Ann Arbor DDA takes away from the library. It might be a relatively small amount now, Salberg noted, but as property values in Pittsfield Township increase, it will become a more sizable amount. He said that if the library needs to go to taxpayers to ask for more money, AADL will need to ask for more than they’d otherwise need, because some of it will be taken by the CIA. He also wasn’t sure what the library would be getting out of this road improvement project. People who want to get to the library now don’t need to take State Street to get there. It’s a lose-lose situation, he said.

Christina Lirones wanted to speak again, but AADL’s rules for public commentary prevent someone from speaking twice on the same topic during the same meeting.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker elaborated on items in her written report. [.pdf of November 2013 director's report]

Josie Parker, AADL director.

Highlights included a report on Halloween activities at the library, and a notice that Sherlonya Turner, AADL manager of youth and adult services and collections, would be participating in a panel discussion later this month on how the library is helping educating the public about the Affordable Care Act. It’s hosted by the Metropolitan Detroit Medical Library Group.

Parker also reported that Raphaela Muller – a librarian with a public library in Munich, Germany – arrived earlier that day and will be staying a week to learn more about AADL. Her visit coincides with International Games Day, to be held at AADL’s downtown building on Nov. 16.

Noting that it was Veterans Day, Parker reported that the library remains open on that day at the request of the local veterans administration. The library also organizes a card-writing event, with children writing cards that are taken to the VA Hospital. Over 150 cards were taken this year, she said.

Also, Parker noted that AADL regularly participates in storytimes at Mott Children’s Hospital, and she had taken part in that this month. Usually the children who attend are siblings and other family members of the children who are hospitalized, she said, and “it’s a bright spot during a difficult time for people.” In addition, Mott holds an event called the Skyline Cafe dinner, where local businesses sponsor dinner for the children and their families. AADL is part of the storytime during those dinners.

In her final item, Parker reported that the previous day she had attended a show by Bill Harley, a storyteller and musician. The library sponsors the free Sunday afternoon show, and The Ark provides a deep discount to rent its space. This year, about 175 people attended, she said.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the October 2013 financial statements. [.pdf of financial statements]

Through October, the library has received 95.5% of its budgeted tax receipts. It’s the high point in the library’s cash balance for the year, with $15.29 million in unrestricted cash. [The library's fiscal year starts July 1. Summer property taxes are collected in July.] The fund balance at the end of October was $8.027 million.

Six items are currently over budget, Nieman reported, but all of those items are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year. The over-budget line items are: (1) purchased services; (2) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; (3) software; (4) copier/maintenance expense; (5) library programming; and (6) circulation supplies.

There was nothing out of the ordinary during the month, he concluded.

The board had no questions.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Two brief committee reports were made during the Nov. 11 board meeting.

Committee Reports: Communications

Nancy Kaplan reported that the communications committee had met on Oct. 30 and received a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review. Copies of the report were available to the public at the meeting. [.pdf of Allerton-Hill report]

She highlighted some of the recommendations in that report:

• Expand the use of social media.
• Publish a quarterly newsletter to keep library patrons informed.
• Conduct a satisfaction survey to determine the priorities and public perception of the library, and to learn more about who is using the library, and why.

Kaplan pointed out that the recommendations dovetail with the goals that are part of AADL’s strategic plan for 2010-2015. The committee plans to meet again in two months, she said.

Rebecca Head.

Rebecca Head said she was struck by the point that Allerton-Hill made about connecting with the citizens and key constituents, and about how important that is. As someone who worked in government a long time, she said, she agreed with the perspective of connecting with the people that AADL serves – not just once, but periodically.

Kaplan noted that Allerton-Hill suggests conducting a survey every two years. It’s also important to know who is not using the library, she said, so that the library can work to reach a broader audience.

Barbara Murphy wondered what the next steps would be for these recommendations. “It’s really in Josie’s court,” Kaplan replied. The communications committee had the opportunity to respond to the report, and could have rejected the recommendations – but committee members didn’t do that, she said.

Prue Rosenthal said the library “has its work cut out for us.” All the ideas in the report are great, she said, and are all about reaching out to the public. It’ll be an interesting time for everyone to learn new ways of reaching people who haven’t been reached and to do a better job of informing people, Rosenthal said.

Head referred to “a very thoughtful article” that AADL director Josie Parker had written. [It was a column written for the Journal of Library Administration, which is available only for subscribers.] One point in the article was that libraries have “overbranded” themselves in terms of books, Head said. And while it’s nice to be branded, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Head thought a survey like the one suggested by Allerton-Hill could be helpful in doing outreach and helping people understand what the library does. The library’s future includes books but is not limited to books, she said. Head praised Parker and the AADL staff for their forward-thinking approach.

Committee Reports: Budget & Finance

Nancy Kaplan also gave the report on the board’s budget and finance committee, which met on Oct. 29. The committee got a presentation from Charles Waterhouse of United Bank & Trust. He reported that the economic outlook remains positive, she said. The library has a laddered fixed-income portfolio of government bonds and taxable municipal bonds. It’s been AADL’s practice to hold the bonds until they come due, she said. So when trustees see reports showing a loss, it’s just a paper loss, Kaplan said. “If you hold [the bonds] until they come due, you get what you signed on for,” she said, and won’t lose money. She also pointed out that the library can’t invest tax revenue in the stock market or corporate bonds. That’s prevented by Public Act 20, she said, and AADL’s investments are governed by that.

At the committee’s Nov. 12 meeting, they planned to review the 2012-13 audit.

AADL director Josie Parker noted that the full board will receive an audit report at their December meeting.

Library Stats

Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development – gave a presentation on library statistics, providing details in five categories for the month of October: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available. He began by noting that October is traditionally a somewhat slower month, and “having a wet Halloween affects numbers in a big way.”

AADL collections data: October 2013.

AADL users data: October 2013.

AADL visits data: October 2013.

AADL usage data: October 2013.

AADL participation data: October 2013.

In addition to reviewing the standard data, Neiburger highlighted data regarding visits to AADL’s website. By far, the majority of visits come from users in the United States – 154,437 during October. The second most common country was France, with 4,632 visits. When asked why, Neiburger replied: “We’re not quite sure yet.” In September, there were about 22,000 visits from France, he reported.

Regarding the origin of users within the U.S., Neiburger said it was difficult to track, calling the analysis a “dark art” because IP addresses change frequently.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Five-Star Library Status

At the end of Eli Neiburger’s presentation on library statistics, AADL director Josie Parker highlighted the fact that AADL had been awarded a five-star ranking by the Library Journal – the highest ranking awarded by the journal for library use in a community. AADL is the only library system in Michigan that achieved that level, and has been awarded this designation for five consecutive years. AADL is the only library in Michigan to ever achieve five stars.

Eli Neiburger, AADL’s associate director of IT and product development.

In its category – libraries with budgets between $10 million to $29.99 million – AADL ranked fifth nationwide. AADL’s annual budget is on the lower end of that category, at around $12 million. In this category, there are only 11 public libraries that achieved the five-star ranking nationwide.

Two other Michigan libraries also achieved star rankings: the Capital Area District Library (four stars), and West Bloomfield Township Library (three stars).

These rankings aren’t about how much money is spent or how many people the library employs, Parker said – it’s about how well the libraries are utilized in the community. Per-capita metrics include circulation, visits, program attendance, and public Internet terminal use.

In its category, AADL had the highest circulation per capita – at 53.7. Parker said she was pleased to note that a library that has always outranked AADL in terms of circulation per capita is in Flomaton, Alabama – “and I know where that is,” she joked. [Parker is from Mississippi, and attended college at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama.]

Parker said AADL is proud of libraries all across the country that are serving the public so well. She’s proud that the Ann Arbor community uses the library year after year, and she thought it was appropriate to talk about it in the context of Neiburger’s presentation regarding data about how the library is used.

Board president Prue Rosenthal thanked Neiburger and Parker for their remarks, and started to move on with the next agenda item when Ed Surovell spoke up. “Hold on a second here,” he said. “You’ve just been told you’ve hit a home run, won the World Series, ranked No. 1 in the polls, walked on water – think about that. It’s an astonishing event.”

Parker reported that next year, the rankings will include wifi usage, “and I know for us, that will be hot.” It’s notable that AADL can maintain its ranking, she said, despite all the changes that the staff has to assimilate into its practices due to changes that technology brings. When AADL achieved its first five-star ranking, the news was posted on its website and there were a lot of comments almost immediately, she recalled. This time, it was 30 hours before the first comment was posted. However, when the news went out over social media this year, it spread quickly. “So the world has changed,” she said. “This library stays aware of the changes, adjusts to the changes, and adapts to the changes.”

Rebecca Head said she was struck by the number of people who come from other communities and who now live in Ann Arbor. They’ll talk to her about how amazing AADL is, compared to libraries in other communities, she said.

Surovell noted that he’s made his living selling into the community [through his real estate firm], and people want to live in places with good libraries and good schools. To be at the pinnacle reflects AADL’s remarkable staff and the remarkable patronage who use the library. “I’m making a lot of noise because it’s worth making a lot of noise about,” he said.

Head suggested having some kind of sign at each of the AADL buildings, noting the accomplishment. Jan Barney Newman joked that she was thinking about getting a skywriter to share the news.

Science Programs for Kids

At the Nov. 11 meeting, Sherlonya Turner, AADL manager of youth and adult services and collections, gave a presentation about AADL’s programming for kids in science, technology, engineering and math – known as STEM. Sometimes art is included in this mix, she noted, creating the acronym STEAM.

Sherlonya Turner, AADL manager of youth and adult services and collections.

The library’s role is to provide fun, hands-on activities for children in grades K-5 to engage in these topics, Turner said. Her presentation focused on hands-on programs at the library, although AADL also partners with other organizations on STEM activities.

Examples of programs include a battery lab, balloon-powered hovercrafts, rubber band cars, and kitchen science. Of all the programs that AADL offers for this age group, about 10% are STEM-related.

One of the most popular programs is called Eggcellent Engineering, Turner said. Children are given raw materials and are asked to build a contraption that will protect a raw egg from a 10-foot drop. “We have tarps on the floor for these,” she noted.

Since starting this STEM focus 18 months ago, more than 2,000 children have attended these programs, Turner said, as have over 1,100 adults who have accompanied them.

Turner shared some feedback from parents, including one woman who enhanced home-schooling science curriculum with these events.

Turner received a round of applause from board members at the end of her presentation.

Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kathy Griswold began by thanking the board for having its meeting on a night when the city council wasn’t meeting.

She also reported that at the Traverwood branch, there’s a step that juts out onto the sidewalk, which she said looked like it was installed as an afterthought. It’s poor quality, she said, and water or ice collects there frequently. She recently witnessed a man who was walking his dog past the library. The dog pooped, and the man used a scooper to pick up the feces. The man then used the pooled water on the step to rinse off his scooper. “So now you’ve got dog feces getting walked on into the library, so I really wish you would take care of that step,” she said.

Kathy Griswold.

Griswold also addressed the issue of transparency. It’s been a year since the library bond proposal was defeated, and while there might not be a lot of interest in what the library does, she said, it would be helpful for the public to know what’s happening. Griswold pointed out that the boardroom where the library board holds its meetings is set up for recording, and the library does podcasts there, too. [The meetings of the Ann Arbor Public Schools and Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority boards are held there, and are recorded for broadcast.]

She said she’d heard that Celeste Choate had given a presentation about collaborating with AAPS. Although Choate has agreed to meet with her, Griswold said her first thought was that she could look at the videotape of that presentation. “But I can’t because it doesn’t exist,” she said. She encouraged the board to be as open and transparent as possible.

Near the end of the meeting, AADL director Josie Parker said she wanted to respond to the comments about the board meeting time. The library board did not change its meeting date this month, she said. “It’s on Monday night, the way it always is.” She said other municipal governments altered their meeting dates, because they don’t do business on Veterans Day. “I just wanted to make it clear that we did not change our meeting date around someone else’s.”

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council did not change its meeting dates this month because of Veterans Day. The city council typically holds its meetings on the first and third Mondays of each month. The library board typically holds its meetings on the third Monday of each month, and some people have asked for the board to consider moving its meeting dates to eliminate the conflict with the city council schedule. However, this month the library board’s meeting was scheduled for the second Monday of the month, when the city council does not meet. The 2013 AADL meeting schedule was adopted at the board’s Jan. 21, 2013 meeting, and unspecified scheduling conflicts were cited as the reason why the May and November 2013 meeting dates were not held on the regular third Monday of the month. [.pdf of 2013 board meeting schedule]

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: Monday, Dec. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

Unless the governing body of a taxing jurisdiction opts out, the CIA will capture a percentage of taxes from each public entity that collects taxes within the CIA boundaries. The new authority is expected to help fund about $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. [.pdf of TIF plan]

Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries. Over the 20 years, it’s estimated that $120,436 in AADL tax revenue would be diverted to the CIA.

The AADL board has discussed this issue at two previous meetings – on Oct. 21, 2013 and Sept. 16, 2013. Taxing entities have a 60-day period in which to make an opt-out decision. That period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December.

Although other trustees indicated that they shared Kaplan’s concerns, they were persuaded to support the CIA for several different reasons. Margaret Leary said she appreciated the transparency and openness of township officials during this process. She noted that in contrast to some other TIF arrangements, the tax-sharing agreement with the CIA is clear, comprehensive and was developed in a collaborative way. [Her reference to other TIF arrangements was likely an allusion to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. See Chronicle coverage: "Library View on DDA TIF Capture: Unchanged"]

Leary also pointed out that the CIA will create a situation that could benefit the AADL, which operates a branch in Pittsfield Township. If the overall tax base increases because of improvements to the State Street corridor, she said, then tax revenues for AADL will increase too. Barbara Murphy added that the amount of AADL tax revenue that will be diverted to the CIA is relatively small, compared to some other taxing entities.

Two people addressed the board during public commentary about the CIA. Prior to the vote, Christina Lirones – a former Pittsfield Township official – urged the board to opt out. At the end of the meeting, Don Salberg said he was disappointed in the board’s decision. He had expected AADL to opt out.

In addition to AADL, other jurisdictions that levy taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metro parks), Washtenaw Community College, and Saline District Library.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted on Nov. 6, 2013 to approve a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, outlining details of the county’s participation. The county parks & recreation commission also voted to support the CIA. About $3.8 million in county tax dollars is estimated to be captured during the 20-year period.

The Washtenaw Community College board of trustees is holding a special meeting on Nov. 12, with one of its agenda items listed as the CIA. If WCC participates, about $3 million of its taxes would be captured over the 20-year period.

Also on Nov. 12, the Saline District Library board is holding a special meeting where it’s expected to vote to opt out of the CIA. According to Leslee Niethamer, director of the Saline District Library, the board voted in August to opt out of the CIA. However, because the process requires that notification be given during the 60-day period that began Oct. 9, the board plans to vote again on this issue at its Nov. 12 special meeting. The same outcome is expected. If the Saline District Library remained in the CIA, about $900,000 of the library’s tax revenue would be diverted to the CIA over 20 years.

The next meeting of the Huron Clinton Metro Authority board is Nov. 14. The full agenda for that meeting has not yet been posted.

This brief was filed from the fourth floor conference room of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The resolution authorizes the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted to support participation in the CIA at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries.

On Oct. 16, Dan Smith had moved a substitute resolution. It stated that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

The Oct. 16 vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

On Nov. 6, Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal addressed the board during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. Several other township officials attended the meeting but did not formally address commissioners. One opponent to the CIA – former township official Christina Lirones – spoke during two opportunities for public commentary, urging the board to opt out of the CIA.

There was minimal discussion before the final vote on Nov. 6. Dan Smith pointed out that the board was voting on the tax-sharing agreement. Procedurally, it was not an “opt-in” vote, he noted.

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]

A supporter of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law brought his gun to the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

About three dozen people spoke to the board about the Stand Your Ground resolution, which urged the state legislature to repeal that law. Although there were speakers on both sides of the issue, more than 20 voiced opposition to the resolution, including several who attended the meeting wearing sidearms.

It was after midnight when the board took a 5-to-4 vote to pass the resolution, over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). In support of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The following week, David Raaflaub of Ypsilanti – a former candidate for county commissioner – filed a complaint against the board in the 22nd Circuit Court. The complaint asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law. Dan Smith has indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s Oct. 16 action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Another major debate on Oct. 16 related to an increase in the Act 88 tax levy, which funds economic development and agriculture – including activities of Ann Arbor SPARK. The board ultimately gave initial approval to increase the tax from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills, following a long discussion and a failed attempt by Conan Smith to increase the tax even more, to 0.09 mills. His proposal for a draft policy to guide the allocation of Act 88 funds did win support from the majority of commissioners, however.

The county’s position is that it’s authorized to collect the Act 88 millage – as well as a levy for veterans relief services – without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy these taxes predates Michigan’s Headlee Amendment. During deliberations, Dan Smith raised questions about whether levying this kind of tax is constitutional. He also questions whether the language of the Act 88 statute allows the kind of general interpretation the county is using to define eligible uses of funds generated by the levy.

Dan Smith also proposed amendments for both the Act 88 and veterans relief millages in the future exempt them from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county. Those exemptions, which were approved by the board, would apply to tax capture from a proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA) in Pittsfield Township. After about 90 minutes of debate, the board gave initial approval to participate in that project, with Dan Smith casting the only dissenting vote. He had unsuccessfully proposed postponement, then floated an opt-out resolution that did not secure enough votes to pass. The board is expected to take a final vote on participating in the CIA at its Nov. 6 meeting.

In other action, the board (1) gave initial approval to a proposed brownfield redevelopment plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix; (2) appointed Barb Fuller to the county road commission; (3) took an initial vote to extend the coordinated funding approach, which supports local nonprofits; and (4) authorized the annual apportionment report, with details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county.

And in a vote taken after midnight, the board rejected a proposal that would have given notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. That vote was 3-6, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Stand Your Ground

The Oct. 16 agenda included a resolution asking state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of the Stand Your Ground law. [.pdf of resolution]

This is the fourth meeting that has included public commentary on the Stand Your Ground law – Public Act 309, the Michigan Self Defense Act, which was passed in 2006. In early September, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) had announced his intent to bring forward a resolution urging the state legislature to repeal the law, similar to resolutions passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013 and by the Ypsilanti city council on Aug. 20, 2013. The resolution had originally appeared on the county board’s Sept. 18 agenda, but was pulled from the agenda before the meeting when it became uncertain that it would win sufficient support to pass, given the anticipated absence of some commissioners.

Supporters of the law spoke at the Sept. 18 and Oct. 2 board meetings, and showed up again on Oct. 16. Some were affiliated with Michigan Open Carry Inc., an advocacy group based in Lansing that has been urging people to attend the Washtenaw County board meetings to protest the proposed resolution. The resolution also attracted the attention of the National Rifle Association. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action issued an alert on Oct. 11 calling the resolution “misguided” and providing contact information for the nine county commissioners.

Stand Your Ground: Public Commentary

Thirty-two people spoke about this issue during public commentary at the start of the meeting – 20 people supporting Stand Your Ground, and 12 people opposing the state law. Many others attended the meeting, filling the boardroom to capacity with overflow into the adjacent lobby. The county had brought in two sheriff’s deputy for extra security.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Doug Smith at the Oct. 16 county board meeting. Galimore opposes Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law, which Smith supports.

Unlike speakers at the Oct. 2 meeting who were primarily from outside of Washtenaw County, most of the 20 people who supported Stand Your Ground on Oct. 16 – and who opposed the resolution urging its repeal – said they lived in Washtenaw County, including residents of Ann Arbor, Saline, Ypsilanti and several of the townships.

Many argued that law-abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves, and that Stand Your Ground prevented victims from being prosecuted as killers. Some stated that repealing Stand Your Ground would embolden predators and threaten the safety of residents. Others argued that this was a state issue that the county board was not in a position to address.

A couple of speakers – including Dennis Moore of the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus – pointed out that this resolution is energizing supporters of Stand Your Ground and creating common ground for people of different political parties.

Most of the 12 opponents of Stand Your Ground were from Ann Arbor, including Lefiest Galimore, who has advocated for this kind of resolution at previous Ann Arbor city council and county board meetings. He said he didn’t oppose gun ownership, but he supported the repeal of Act 309. It’s not an anti-gun movement, but it’s about protecting every citizen in the community, he said. Others who spoke in support of the resolution included two pastors, at least two members of the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice, and two physicians – Jerry Walden and Andrew Zweifler, representing Physicians for the Prevention of Gun Violence. The majority of those speakers stated they supported non-violence, criticized the increasing prevalence of guns and America’s high murder rate compared to other countries, and argued that the law is applied in discriminatory ways against minorities.

During a second opportunity for public commentary – which occurred around midnight – six people spoke in support of the Stand Your Ground law, including some who had addressed the board earlier in the meeting.

Stand Your Ground: Initial Board Discussion

After about 90 minutes of the initial public commentary at the start of the meeting, several commissioners responded. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked everyone for coming. It was heartening to see such engagement and active democracy, he said, adding that he’d like it to extend to other issues as well.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he appreciated that people had shown up and he noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary later in the evening. He said there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the resolution will do. “It does absolutely nothing,” D. Smith said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked people for coming out and sharing their thoughts. It’s gratifying that people have spent time to understand the issue deeply. Regarding whether this resolution is within the purview of the county board, C. Smith stated that the county funds the sheriff’s department, as well as the criminal justice system – including the prosecuting attorney’s office. “So state laws that impact the operations of those functions within the county are of concern to this board,” he said. The board might not have control over the legislation, but informing state legislators “about what motivates the folks here in Washtenaw County” is important, C. Smith said, and the way that the board does that is through resolutions. The resolutions don’t have the force of law, he added, but they do communicate the board’s interests.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) agreed with Dan Smith that the resolution does nothing, and she reminded other commissioners that “we are not a lobbying organization. We are a legislative body.” This isn’t an issue in Lansing now, she said. Residents are welcome to lobby state legislators directly, she added. “We are not an intermediary.” Her statement resulted in applause from residents in the boardroom.

Stand Your Ground: Final Board Action

The agenda item for the Stand Your Ground resolution was taken up at about 12:30 a.m. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d spent time reading and reflecting on the law, but her main concern is that the application of the law doesn’t meet its intent.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the board’s ways & means committee.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that there are six state legislators representing the residents of Washtenaw County – including one who had attended the meeting earlier in the evening. [He was referring to state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.] “We even have the First Constituent in Lansing, so we have a bonus in this county,” he joked. [The reference was to Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who lives in the Ann Arbor area.] This is not county business, D. Smith said. The process is to take concerns to Lansing, and not bring them to the county board.

D. Smith noted that the county board has a lot of local business to conduct, and he observed that the board postponed discussion of the proposed budget that evening. “We need to stick to Washtenaw County business, and let Lansing do Lansing’s business.”

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) thanked residents for attending and for their patience, saying it was the longest meeting he could recall in all his years on the board. [It adjourned at about 12:45 a.m.] “It shows that government is working,” he said. The Stand Your Ground resolution is not an easy vote for him, Peterson said, and he’s talked with a lot of constituents about it. He thought the discussion had been healthy.

Everyone knows what brought this issue to the forefront, Petersen said, adding that he didn’t want to politicize it. [The reference was to the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida.] Peterson said that he hadn’t been contacted by any national organization, as some people had implied.

Peterson stated that he believes in the right to own guns, and most gun owners are decent, law-abiding citizens. He said he knows what it means to be a victim of crime. But America needs a more peaceful environment. The country is far too violent, he said, and that topic deserves more discussion.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 5-4 vote. The five commissioners who voted in favor of the resolution were Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Voting against it were Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Stand Your Ground: Legal Action

The following week, David Raaflaub filed a lawsuit against the Washtenaw County board of commissioners over its Stand Your Ground resolution. [.pdf of board resolution] [.pdf of Raaflaub complaint]

Ian Reed Twiss, an Ann Arbor resident, talks with commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Twiss is pastor at Holy Faith Church in Saline, which is located in Ping’s district. He spoke during public commentary on Oct. 16 to support the board’s resolution about repealing Michigan’s Stand Your Ground law. Ping voted against that resolution.

The complaint, filed on Oct. 21 in the 22nd Circuit Court of Washtenaw County, asks the court to determine two issues: (1) what authority the board has that enables it to “draw conclusions of law,” and (2) what authority the board has to represent the county in seeking changes to state law.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, stated in an Oct. 24 email to The Chronicle that the county is in the process of retaining counsel who will respond to the lawsuit on the board’s behalf.

Reached via email on Oct. 24, Dan Smith indicated that he would bring forward a resolution to rescind the board’s previous action, if it’s determined that the county will incur additional costs – such as fees for outside legal counsel – to defend the lawsuit.

Raaflaub is a member of the Washtenaw County Republican executive committee. He was the Republican candidate for county commissioner in District 6 in the November 2012 election, running against incumbent Democrat Ronnie Peterson, who won that election.

Raaflaub’s filing indicates that the filing is “pro se” – that is, he’s representing himself. He is currently suspended by the state bar from the practice of law.

Veterans Relief, Act 88 Tax Hikes

Increases to two taxes for the upcoming 2014 budget – one for veterans relief services, and another for agricultural and economic development – were on the Oct. 16 agenda.

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to levy a 0.0333 mill tax for indigent veterans services, following an initial vote on Oct. 2. The new rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It generated $390,340 this year.

According to a staff memo, the additional revenue is needed to address rising claims, the anticipated release of current active duty soldiers, the increased cost of living reflected in claims, continued increases to demand, and an increased workload due to the Washtenaw County Veterans Treatment Court.

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. The county had held a public hearing on this tax proposal at its Sept. 18 meeting, but no one spoke.

A public hearing and initial vote were held on Oct. 16 for the economic development and agricultural tax, known as Act 88 of 1913. The proposed increase to the Act 88 millage is from 0.06 mills to 0.07 mills. The millage would be levied in December 2013 and would raise an estimated $972,635.

According to a staff memo, the funds would be allocated to the following groups:

• $423,135: Washtenaw County office of community & economic development
• $200,000: Ann Arbor SPARK
• $100,000: Eastern Leaders Group
• $52,000: Promotion of Heritage Tourism in Washtenaw County
• $50,000: SPARK East
• $50,000: Detroit Region Aerotropolis
• $82,500: Washtenaw County 4-H
• $15,000: Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show

The enabling legislation for this tax is also pre-Headlee, and the county board levies the tax without voter approval.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

Two executives from Ann Arbor SPARK – Donna Doleman, vice president of marketing and communications, and Luke Bonner, vice president of business development – spoke in support of the Act 88 funding during public commentary at the start of the Oct. 16 meeting. Doleman thanked commissioners for partnering to create jobs for this region through investment in economic development.

Donna Doleman, Ann Arbor Spark vice president of marketing and communications.

Doleman highlighted SPARK’s work in business retention, expansion and attraction, saying it’s become a model for the country. She listed several accomplishments that the agency has achieved. Some of those items were included in handouts provided to the board. SPARK’s national and international prestige gives it an edge in marketing this region, Doleman said. Thirty percent of the views on a business attraction video have been international, she noted. [.pdf of SPARK handout 1] [.pdf of SPARK handout 2] [.pdf of SPARK handout 3]

Bonner echoed Doleman’s comments, saying that without the county’s support, SPARK wouldn’t be able to accomplish what it has. This year alone, he said, SPARK has helped secured $100 million in new investment and 1,200 jobs. He highlighted two examples: American Broach & Machine in Ypsilanti, and Universal Marketing Group, which is expanding its call center operation from Toledo. Bonner also described SPARK’s help in marketing the former GM property in Ypsilanti Township.

Leigh Greden introduced himself as vice president of government and community relations at Eastern Michigan University, and a resident of the district in Ann Arbor that’s represented by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. He urged the board to approve the increase in the Act 88 millage. The low cost of just 73 cents per month for the average homeowner allows the county to support a variety of tangible projects, he said, including Ann Arbor SPARK’s initiatives, heritage tourism, and the Eastern Leaders Group. Greden noted that he serves as co-chair of the ELG along with Bob Tetens, director of the county’s parks and recreation commission. He described the ELG’s efforts, including the Live Ypsi program that encourages EMU staff and faculty to buy homes in the city, which results in more people paying taxes there. Act 88 funding also helped Michigan Ladder Co. in Ypsilanti, he said. “None of these programs would have been possible without the Act 88 millage,” Greden said. When something works, he concluded, “keep doing it.”

Doug Smith began by saying he wouldn’t give his address, contending that requiring someone to give their address violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The two tax increases that the board will be voting on will push the county above the constitutional limit of 18 mills, he said. He asked the board to refrain from voting until the county has made public its legal justification for exceeding the limit. Until 2008, activities that are now funded through the veterans relief and Act 88 millages were paid for out of the county’s general fund. He read a section from the Headlee Amendment, which the state enacted in 1978:

Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon.

It seems the county’s corporation counsel is saying that since the veterans relief and Act 88 laws allowed the levying of millages prior to 1978, that these can be levied in excess of the 18-mill cap without a vote by the county’s citizens, Smith said. He called the levies “legally dubious” and said he’s trying to do legal research to verify that. He hasn’t been able to find anything published by the county that gives a legal justification for these millages. Are any other counties using these levies above the 18-mill cap? Have the levies ever been tested in court, and is there published case law? Does it matter that the veterans relief law states “shall” and the Act 88 law states “may” levy a tax?

Doug Smith pointed out that the Headlee Amendment states that any taxpayer in Michigan shall have standing for a lawsuit in Michigan’s Court of Appeals to enforce it, so all it would take is one taxpayer willing to challenge this tax, and the county would find itself in court. He again asked that the board hold off on voting until the corporation counsel has published an opinion on the taxes for all citizens to see.

Smith also spoke during the Act 88 public hearing later in the meeting, which occurred around midnight. He pointed out that Act 88 allows for the spending of proceeds for specific purposes. From Act 88:

… for the purpose of advertising the agricultural advantages of the state or for displaying the products and industries of any county in the state at domestic or foreign expositions, for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing trade in the products of the state, and advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists and resorters, and to permit the boards of supervisors out of any sum so raised, or out of the general fund, to contribute all or any portion of the same to any development board or bureau to be by said board or bureau expended for the purposes herein named.

Smith wondered whether anyone checks with Ann Arbor SPARK to ensure that those requirements are met. Referring to the example that SPARK vice president Luke Bonner had given about American Broach, Smith described it as a wholly-owned Chinese company that does all of its manufacturing in China. The local operation is for research and development, he noted. “So what exactly is the Washtenaw County product that is being advertised and promoted?” He also objected to holding public hearings after midnight, saying that it doesn’t promote participation by the public.

In response to the public commentary, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed his support for Act 88, especially for the funding it provides to the Detroit Aerotropolis, Ann Arbor SPARK, and the Eastern Leaders Group.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase to 0.09 mills)

When commissioners reached the Act 88 agenda item, Conan Smith (D-District 9) began by proposing a policy and process for allocating Act 88 funds. However, he was told by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, that it would need to be considered later in the agenda, as an item for current or future discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith then referred to a handout that had been provided at the Oct. 3 working session, which outlined Act 88 investment options. The handout listed items that could be funded if the millage remained at the current 0.06 mills ($819,714), or if it were increased to 0.07 mills, 0.08 mills or 0.09 mills. [.pdf of Act 88 options]

C. Smith noted that each of the options was backed by a strategic or business plan, and was built off of work that the county has been doing for several years. For example, a levy of 0.07 mills would allow for $50,000 to fund a commercial kitchen incubator for youth skills development. However, he said, that program doesn’t really thrive unless there’s also funding for a local food manufacturing project – which would require more funding and a higher millage rate.

He also expressed support for a “community capital acceleration” program, which at 0.07 mills would be funded for $10,000. But if it’s not launched with sufficient funding, he said, “we’re sort of undermining our own efforts.”

At that, C. Smith made a motion to amend the proposed 0.07 mills and raise the allocation to 0.09 mills.

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations + Millage Rate)

C. Smith then moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund an increase for the community capital acceleration program  – from $10,000 to $35,000. Dan Smith (R-District 2) supported the motion, noting that his support was in order to move the item forward for debate. It didn’t necessarily mean that he supported the amendment itself.

But C. Smith decided to withdraw that motion. He indicated that there were actually three items that he felt needed an increase in funding – beyond the amounts that would be funded with an 0.07 mill tax. So he moved to increase the millage rate in order to fund increases for those specific items: the community capital acceleration program (from $10,000 to $35,000); a local business employment cooperative (from $15,000 to $50,000); and market analysis for a local food manufacturing, processing and distribution system ($50,000 – this was not funded at 0.07 mills).

He estimated these programs could be funded at his proposed level – a total of $110,000 – by increasing the millage rate to 0.0725 mills.

Outcome: That motion also died for lack of a second.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Increase Allocations Only)

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked Mary Jo Callan – director of the office of community and economic development, which administers several Act 88-funded programs – to come forward and explain the itemized funding list that C. Smith was referencing. She explained that the list was intended to indicate various funding levels for several programs, based on potential increases to the millage rate.

Callan pointed out that the resolution on the board’s agenda that night did not increase the earmarks for specific projects or organizations, compared to the current funding levels. Rather, the resolution would increase the millage rate from 0.06 mills this year to 0.07 mills in 2014. The extra funding would be allocated to the office of community and economic development as a placeholder, to be subsequently allocated to specific programs in the future. She hoped that the board would eventually allocate the extra funds using the process and policy that C. Smith had drafted and shared at the Oct. 3 working session. That’s up to the board, she said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) then proposed an amendment that would increase funding in the three line items that C. Smith had mentioned, but without increasing the overall millage rate beyond 0.07 mills.

Rabhi said he couldn’t support Ping’s amendment. The Act 88 resolution needed to move forward, he said, but the board should use C. Smith’s policy to determine priorities for allocating the excess revenues, rather than allocating some of those revenues now. There needs to be more discussion about that, he said.

C. Smith said he appreciated Ping’s effort, but he wouldn’t support it because it would shift funding away from other projects, rather than increase the overall funds. If the overall millage rate isn’t being increased beyond 0.07 mills, then he wanted to go through the process of prioritizing all the possible additional projects.

Outcome: Ping’s amendment was defeated on a 3-6 vote, with support only from Ping, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Act 88: Board Discussion – Partnerships

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern that some of the programs supported by Act 88 funds were duplicating efforts that other entities in the county are already pursuing. He noted that Washtenaw Community College, for example, already has a food service program, which might duplicate the proposed commercial kitchen incubator. He also wondered why hotels aren’t helping to pay for it.

Mary Jo Callan replied that OCED can explore more partnerships, in addition to those that are already in place. She said the county did an analysis of what’s available, because they don’t want to duplicate programs. Tony VanDerworp of OCED described the work that’s been done to develop the kitchen incubator proposal, including discussions with local schools. The county doesn’t want to operate it, he said, but would help facilitate the program.

Sizemore also objected to allocating $10,000 for developing the community capital acceleration program, saying there are educational institutions that have expertise that the county might be able to tap without spending money.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Amendment (Exemptions from TIF)

Dan Smith put forward an amendment calling for the Act 88 levy to be exempt from capture by tax increment financing (TIF) districts or authorities in the county to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he’d support the amendment, but he wondered why it was appropriate for this millage more than any other one.

D. Smith explained that this is a millage that the board votes on every year. He planned to offer a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. These millages are levied for very specific purposes, and he thought that the millages should be exempt from as much tax capture as possible so that the revenues will be used solely for the purpose that was intended.

Outcome: The amendment was passed 8-1 over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Later in the meeting, D. Smith made a similar amendment for the veterans relief millage. It was also passed on an 8-1 vote over dissent from Kent Martinez-Kratz. The board also gave final approval to the increase in the veterans relief millage.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Legal Opinion

Referring to issues raised during public commentary, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) indicated that he’d like to see a legal opinion by the board’s next meeting about whether the veterans relief and Act 88 millages are overstepping the county’s constitutional authority.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the staff memo accompanying the Act 88 resolution provides some detail about the history of the Act 88 legislation, in that it predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. [.pdf of Act 88 staff memo]

But he said that despite his repeated requests to the county administrator and corporation counsel, there’s no mention in the staff memo about how the millage is allowed under Article 9, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, or the 18-mill levy limit, or the 5.5 mill county operating millage.

D. Smith expressed concern that the Act 88 levy might be unconstitutional. Very few counties are levying Act 88, and Washtenaw County might be the only county that’s levying the veterans relief millage, he said.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that he and D. Smith had discussed this issue, and that Hedger had provided the legal rationale. However, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he said – and he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction. If the board directs him to write a legal opinion, he’d do that and provide it to commissioners, Hedger said. Once they receive it, he added, they can do with it whatever they want. But he felt uncomfortable putting that kind of detailed legal analysis in a cover memo.

D. Smith noted that the memo points to another state statute as justification for the levy. “I’ve told corporate counsel repeatedly: ‘Convince me that this is indeed a legal levy,’” D. Smith said. If it’s legal, then there would be opportunities to consider a levy under Act 283, and it would give townships the opportunity to consider levies under Act 51. [Act 283 of 1909 and Act 51 of 1951 both address tax levies for road construction and repair.] If those are legal statewide, he added, then there would be over three-quarters of a billion dollars available for roads that could be levied and managed locally. “So I am more than willing to be convinced about these levies and how we are allowed to exceed the very clear constitutional limits,” D. Smith said.

However, he added, Hedger seems to be taking bits and pieces from different statutes “to suit the outcome that’s desired, and I completely disagree with it.” He said he wasn’t asking for a formal legal opinion, but rather for “casual discussion” similar to what’s already in the staff memo, which mentions the Headlee Amendment. There are already specific references to state legislation in the memo, he noted, and he was asking for additional commentary of that nature.

Act 88: Board Discussion – Policy

Later in the meeting, C. Smith put forward a draft policy and process for allocating Act 88 revenues. [.pdf of Act 88 policy] [.pdf of Act 88 process]

Ronnie Peterson supported it, saying he’d like to see something similar for the coordinated funding program, which allocates dollars for human services. He said the Act 88 policy is essential to move forward along with the resolution on setting the Act 88 millage.

Yousef Rabhi said it was up to the board to decide whether to adopt the policy, but he supported it. Andy LaBarre didn’t think the board could come up with a better process than the one C. Smith put forward. He thanked C. Smith for developing it.

Outcome: The Act 88 policy and process was given initial approval with little discussion, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). A final vote on that policy will likely occur on Nov. 6.

Veterans Relief, Act 88: Board Votes

Outcome on Act 88: An initial vote on levying Act 88 at 0.07 mills passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from D. Smith. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Outcome on Veterans Relief: A final vote on levying 0.0333 mills for indigent veterans services passed unanimously.

Pittsfield State Street CIA

On the agenda was a resolution to approve participation in Pittsfield Township’s State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA).

David Sarns, a member of the State Street corridor improvement authority board in Pittsfield Township, attended the Oct. 16 county board meeting. He did not formally address the board.

The resolution would authorize the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor roughly between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting to participate . Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library board discussed the issue at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

In total over the CIA’s 20-year period, the plan anticipates capturing about $14 million in local tax dollars. That amount would provide about a local match to be used to secure federal funding for the bulk of the estimated $30 million project.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Postponement

Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that in 2011 and 2012, the board spent considerable time discussing the county’s involvement in an authority “that wasn’t going to cost us anything.” [He was referring to a countywide transit initiative, spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, that ultimately failed to garner support throughout the county. It attempted to create a new transit authority under Act 196, but did not involve TIF financing.]

D. Smith recalled that the first public discussion of the transit authority was in April 2011, with the first vote on it over a year later – on July 17, 2012.

In contrast, the county’s participation in the State Street CIA will cost about $3.85 million over 20 years, he noted. The board was first presented with this proposal at a working session 13 days prior to the Oct. 16 meeting, D. Smith said, and commissioners need more time to sort through concerns.

D. Smith then moved to postpone the item until Nov. 20.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said this is an issue where time is of the essence, and the board should discuss it that night.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why D. Smith hadn’t tried to get his questions answered before proposing to postpone. Sizemore also pointed out that there will be two weeks before the board takes its final vote, on Nov. 6. There will be plenty of time to get questions answered. Sizemore noted that several Pittsfield Township officials were attending the meeting and could answer questions.

Outcome: The motion to postpone failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Substitute Resolution

D. Smith then moved a substitute resolution stating that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money – which is allowed by Act 119 of 2011.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

He also pointed out that if the county participates in the CIA, the county board would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. For example, if certain aspects of the project turn out to be more expensive than anticipated, the CIA board might decide to cut back on items in the plan, such as non-motorized pathways.

The CIA mechanism also only addresses a specific problem in Pittsfield Township, D. Smith noted. There are many parts of the county that can’t use a CIA. For example, North Territorial Road in his district needs improvement, but there’s not enough development along that road to make a CIA viable, he said.

D. Smith also pointed out that the board has not developed any policies or procedures regarding TIFs, to help guide the board’s decisions. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) stated that he supported developing such a policy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that the board has been working to align its general fund investments with its strategic priorities. One way to make those strategic investments is through direct appropriations. Another way is through tax expenditures of DDAs, TIFAs and CIAs that capture dollars that would otherwise go to the general fund, but that are redirected to specific projects. In this particular case, there’s nothing wrong with the proposed State Street project, C. Smith said. But the board hasn’t been investing in road projects as a priority – as those are handled by the road commission. The CIA will capture dollars that won’t be used for investments that the board has set as priorities. Right now, C. Smith said, he’s not comfortable taking money that he thinks should go toward human services, and instead putting those funds into a road project.

C. Smith advocated for developing a rubric to help the board decide whether to invest in road projects, and if so, what specific road projects should be prioritized.

Another concern is that a lot of anticipated revenue for the State Street CIA is rooted in potential future development, C. Smith noted. Some projects would be built regardless of whether improvements are made to the corridor, he said, and those new tax dollars should be going toward priorities like human services. It’s also unclear how much future development will materialize.

These are complicated issues, and that’s why he supported postponement, C. Smith said. Short of that, he thought the county should not participate at this time.

D. Smith pointed out that the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) wondered if the county board could specify how its portion of the TIF capture is allocated within the CIA. That is, could the county earmark its TIF capture for non-motorized transportation elements? Dick Carlisle, the planning consultant who’s been hired by Pittsfield Township to work on this project, replied that in a sense the money is already earmarked. That’s because the non-motorized paths and bike paths are already in the CIA plan. The project wouldn’t be able to proceed without these elements being included, Carlisle said. Mandy Grewal, the township’s supervisor, pointed out that the township zoning requires that new roads be built using Complete Street principles.

Rabhi noted that the county board wouldn’t be adopting the CIA plan, but would be voting on the agreement with Pittsfield Township regarding the CIA, which doesn’t specifically address elements of the plan. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, confirmed that the CIA will decide how the money is spent. Rabhi floated the idea of amending the agreement to include more details about how the county’s money should be spent.

Commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Saying that her patience was wearing thin because of the length of the meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said there’s nothing that irritates her more than when Lansing tries to tell the county what to do. Now that’s what the county is trying to do to Pittsfield Township, she said. “I think that’s completely out of line.”

Anyone who’s driven through Pittsfield Township will know that it’s radically different now, she said, with better roads and non-motorized paths. These are competent people running the township, she said.

Ping said that the CIA is the best model for this project, because if there’s no growth, the county won’t lose any revenue. “I think we’d be foolish not to support this,” she said. Ping hoped the board would look at the bigger picture.

C. Smith replied, saying it was wrong of Ping to insinuate that his perspective on this is foolish or poorly thought out, or that he didn’t care about people in this community, or that it’s not worth it to talk about more than $3 million in county dollars. This isn’t similar to Lansing telling the locals what to do, he said. This is about what to do with county-generated revenue, he said – whether the board will put it toward priorities that commissioners have articulated over the years, like helping poor people, or whether it will fund a road. “That is an important conversation for us – that’s not foolish,” C. Smith said. “This is about our priorities. So I’m frustrated that it would be just dismissed.” To get brushed off like that is wrong – it’s rude, he said.

Later in the meeting, Ping indicated that she thought she’d said that Pittsfield Township wouldn’t bring a foolish plan to the board. If she’d said something differently, she hadn’t intended to. C. Smith replied by saying that he loved her.

D. Smith noted that this issue isn’t about trust or distrust of Pittsfield Township officials. It’s about a 20-year plan. It’s unlikely that county commissioners will be around in 20 years, and the same is true for members of the Pittsfield Township and CIA boards, he said. The issue is that the county board should properly look out for the $3.8 million in county revenues for the best interest of everyone in the county. “We only have one chance to get out of the CIA and out of TIF capture,” he said. The board would have the chance to join the CIA later, if that’s what commissioners decide after sorting out all these other issues. But once they join the CIA, the control is out of the county’s hands, he said.

Outcome: The vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Original Resolution

Discussion continued.

D. Smith pointed out that municipalities around the county have found other ways to pay for roads. Ypsilanti Township is using bonds. Scio Township is in the process of levying $85 per parcel in a township-wide special assessment district to fund road repair. The city of Ann Arbor has a 2 mill tax for streets. Superior Township dedicates a significant portion of its general fund budget for roads. Salem Township took money out of its general fund reserves to invest in road repairs on North Territorial. His point was that municipalities have found ways to pay for roads without coming to the county for TIF funding, he said.

The Pittsfield Township board seems to be set on using this mechanism and no other, D. Smith said. He understood their rationale: If the township can get $3.8 million from the county, why should they levy an additional tax on Pittsfield Township residents or use a special assessment? He said that at the Oct. 9 public hearing of the Pittsfield Township board, supervisor Mandy Grewal had claimed that the CIA was the only tool that was available for State Street repair. However, there are other tools available, D. Smith noted.

Pittsfield Township clerk Alan Israel and treasurer Patricia Scribner were among the township officials who attended the Oct. 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

D. Smith again stated that he had no problem with this project, but objected to the funding mechanism. There are other ways that the county can participate, which would allow the board to have more control. If the county joins the CIA, then dollars that the taxpayers approved for natural areas preservation would be used for roads. He wasn’t sure how many people would be willing to renew that millage when they find out that the dollars are being used for a different purpose. The same is true for the parks millage, he said.

D. Smith reported that the people who spoke against the CIA at the Oct. 9 public hearing outnumbered supporters. He said Grewal had later characterized opponents of the CIA as her political opponents. He pointed out that in the 2012 election, the entire township board had been unopposed. He said he had serious concerns about the proposal, though he’d like to support the project with a different funding mechanism.

Several other commissioners expressed support for the project, calling State Street an important transportation artery. Yousef Rabhi said that all the concerns he raised at the board’s Oct. 3 working session had been addressed in the agreement that Pittsfield Township brought forward.

Rabhi said it would have been good if commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) had been appointed to the CIA board, because her district covers Pittsfield Township. Jim Fink, an attorney representing the township, noted that the CIA board is appointed by the township supervisor and the state statute doesn’t prohibit appointing a county commissioner. Rabhi said he wouldn’t push the issue of a board appointment, but he hoped it would be considered in the future.

D. Smith clarified with consultant Dick Carlisle that the county’s EECS tax (enhanced emergency communication system) would be exempt from capture, based on the agreement that the county board would be voting on that night. Carlisle also confirmed for Smith that the tax capture would apply to increases due to inflation as well as increases resulting from new development.

In total, the board debated the issue and asked questions of Pittsfield Township representatives for about 90 minutes. Questions were fielded by supervisor Mandy Grewal, consultant Dick Carlisle, attorney Jim Fink, and Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to participate in the CIA, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: TIF Policy

Near the end of the meeting, Yousef Rabhi brought forward a resolution directing county administrator Verna McDaniel to develop a policy for evaluating future tax increment financing (TIF) proposals. The resolution stated that the policy would be developed with input from staff of the office of community and economic development, the equalization department, and the brownfield redevelopment authority.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) indicated she would not support this, because each TIF proposal is unique.

Outcome: The item passed on a 7-2 vote with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Washtenaw County Court Budget

On the Oct. 16 agenda was an item giving final notice to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw Trial Court.

The issue had arisen this summer, when commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had brought forward a resolution to give notice to the courts. She did that at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting in a move that caught some commissioners by surprise, although for several weeks during earlier budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal initially were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Then at the county board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, when the item was on the agenda for final approval, the board had voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16. The rationale was that it should be coordinated with approval of the 2014 budget.

Ping had stated that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement would have given the board the option to end it.

The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach, rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government. The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047.

On July 10, Ping reported that chief judge Donald Shelton had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget, and that he had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund. County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff presented a four-year budget proposal for 2014-2017 at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting.

Washtenaw County Court Budget: Board Discussion

The board reached this item on the agenda after midnight. Dan Smith (R-District 2) began deliberations by noting that on Oct. 15, a state Senate committee had voted on HB 4704, which would change the law about who can bring lawsuits against the county. The bill has already passed the House and will be taken up soon by the Senate. Given that, he moved to postpone the county board resolution until Dec. 4.

The legislation was described in an email sent to the board from the Michigan Association of Counties:

The bill will encourage countywide elected officials to work budget issues out with the county board of commissioners, rather than threaten or file a lawsuit. In addition to requiring the parties to talk, there are three main changes to current law. The bill provides an assumption that the appropriated amount is at a “serviceable level,” so the burden of proof is on the countywide elected official who chooses to sue. In addition, the bill requires the court to take into account the county board’s “ability to pay” in deciding the lawsuit. Finally, the bill requires that the countywide elected NOT spend over the budgeted amount prior to a decision in the case. These changes will help make sure that when a case occurs it is warranted, and it will help cut down on threats and frivolous filings.

Previous discussions about the court system’s budget have been tempered by the fear that the court might sue the county, if the board of commissioners didn’t provide adequate funding.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) noted that chief judge Donald Shelton and court administrator Dan Dwyer had been waiting all night. He wanted to show them respect, he said. He noted that the bill would still require further action in the state legislature – noting that it may or may not be signed into law.

Shelton spoke briefly to commissioners, saying he welcomed an opportunity to continue the collegial relationship between the board and the courts, and he didn’t think a postponement would help with that relationship.

Outcome on postponement: It was defeated on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on main item: The final vote to eliminate lump-sum budgeting failed on a 3-6 vote, with support from only Dan Smith (R-District 2), Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to an extension of the coordinated funding approach for human services, as well as to some changes in that funding model.

No dollar amounts were allocated, but the resolution authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. It authorized 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 would 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. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Tom Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council. He called for the county to go beyond the coordinated funding proposal and provide more extensive affordable housing, public transportation, and health care, and to end homelessness. He objected to the coordinated funding approach of giving money to multiple nonprofits, each with an executive director. He urged commissioners to put a countywide millage on the ballot for human services.

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked how needs are being determined, and when applications for funding would be coming to the board for approval.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, reminded commissioners that this vote would authorize continuation of the coordinated funding process. This wasn’t a vote to allocate specific dollars. She reviewed the history and approach that’s being used, as well as the review that was funded by the RNR Foundation.

Peterson said he was concerned about the direction that the county was taking, in terms of delivering services to those most in need. The board needed to make sure that its issues are addressed, and other entities should do the same, he said.

Callan explained that the request for proposals (RFP) is released in January, and the staff will bring back recommendations in April or May. Peterson said he hoped the board would have a discussion about priorities before the RFP is issued.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he agreed with Peterson, in that the board needs to set clear priorities for funding. What are the outcomes that the board expects from its funding? He thought the board should vote on metrics that the staff recommends – but that’s not happening, he said.

Callan disagreed, though she acknowledged that there seems to be a feeling that the board wasn’t consulted. She noted that during the last funding cycle, the staff brought to the board specific priorities and funding amounts for approval, before any dollars were distributed.

Callan said this next cycle will include further developing of community outcomes, much like the county board is doing for its budget priorities. It’s important to know whether investments are making a difference in the community, she noted. So there will be specific community outcomes developed for each of the six priority areas in the coordinated funding model. The outcomes will be developed using data and best practices, working with people who are out in the community doing this work.

C. Smith confirmed with Callan that she’ll be bringing back these outcomes and metrics to the board before the RFP is issued.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 8-1 to give initial approval to the coordinated funding program. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

2014-2017 Budget

No one spoke at a public hearing on the proposed 2014-2017 Washtenaw County general fund budget, which took place after midnight.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013.

The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

McDaniel had previously indicated that the county would need to find $3.9 million in structural savings in 2014. On Oct. 2, she reported that $4.13 million in operating cost reductions had been identified.

An item on the Oct. 16 agenda called for continued discussion of the 2014-2017 budget. However, by the time the board reached that point in the agenda, it was about 11:30 p.m. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to postpone discussion until Nov. 6.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone discussion of the 2014-2017 budget until Nov. 6.

Apportionment Report

On the Oct. 16 agenda was a resolution to approve the 2013 apportionment report – giving details of the 2013 taxable valuations for property in the county, broken down by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills will be mailed out to property owners based on these calculations. [.pdf of 2013 apportionment report]

In April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report is part of a state-mandated equalization process, and gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Equalization: Washtenaw Property Values Rise."]

From left: Equalization director Raman Patel and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Later in the year – in October or November – the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report, which gives details of the taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adopting the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total an estimated $629.608 million in property taxes – an increase from $621.687 million in 2012. It’s also an increase from $622 million in 2011, but has not yet regained ground to the level of $639 million in 2010.

The county alone will levy an estimated $80.669 million, including millages for the general fund, parks & recreation, and Huron Clinton Metroparks.

Apportionment Report: Board Discussion

Raman Patel – who retired from his position as the county’s equalization director in late 2011 but remains in that job on a contract basis – presented the report and fielded questions from commissioners. He noted that an outstanding item needed to complete the report was the board’s decision to set the rate for the veterans relief and Act 88 millages. He also suggested that the board indicate whether those millages are subject to capture by local tax increment financing (TIF) districts, like downtown development authorities.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked whether Patel could forecast the tax revenue out three or four years. Patel replied that it’s much more difficult to predict tax revenues now, recalling how several years ago the property values tanked within a six-month period. “So you don’t know what the market is going to do,” Patel said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that Patel’s cover memo indicated that the equalization staff had reviewed all the millages levied in the county to make sure that they’ve complied with Article 9, Section 31 of the state constitution. Smith wondered if a similar evaluation was done with Article 9, Section 6 regarding the millage limits that are specified. That section states, in part:

Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the total amount of general ad valorem taxes imposed upon real and tangible personal property for all purposes in any one year shall not exceed 15 mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized. Under procedures provided by law, which shall guarantee the right of initiative, separate tax limitations for any county and for the townships and for school districts therein, the aggregate of which shall not exceed 18 mills on each dollar of such valuation, may be adopted and thereafter altered by the vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting thereon, in lieu of the limitation hereinbefore established. These limitations may be increased to an aggregate of not to exceed 50 mills on each dollar of valuation, for a period of not to exceed 20 years at any one time, if approved by a majority of the electors, qualified under Section 6 of Article II of this constitution, voting on the question.

Yes, Patel said – that’s the responsibility of his department too. There are about 75-80 different millages levied in Washtenaw County, he explained, and his staff has to make sure that each millage complies with the state law. “It’s not a small task,” he noted. Patel reviewed some of the history related to this issue. Of all the municipalities in Washtenaw County, only three cities don’t levy at the maximum rate allowed without voter approval: Saline, Milan and Chelsea.

In response to another query from D. Smith, Patel said he didn’t think any municipality would reach the 50 mill aggregate limit in his lifetime. He noted that after Proposal A, school millages are no longer calculated as part of that total.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the 2013 apportionment report.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a proposed brownfield plan by the Chelsea Milling Co., makers of Jiffy Mix. [.pdf of brownfield plan] A public hearing was also scheduled for the Oct. 16 meeting.

The plan relates to a renovation of an abandoned 77,700-square-foot warehouse at 140 Buchanan in the city of Chelsea. The company plans to invest more than $4 million in the project, according to a staff memo that accompanied the Oct. 16 resolution.

If the project is given brownfield status, it would allow the company to be reimbursed for up to $376,805 in eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). The total amount to be captured through TIF over 16 years is $580,677, which includes fees paid to the county brownfield program administration and the county’s local site revolving remediation fund.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Public Hearing

The public hearing took place after midnight and only one person – Lara Treemore Spears of ASTI Environmental, a representative from the project – spoke briefly. She indicated that two company officials had been at the meeting but left around 11:30 p.m. She thanked the board for considering the plan, and briefly described the investment planned by the company.

Chelsea Milling Brownfield: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that the plan lists several previous owners, including the city of Chelsea. None of those entities are responsible for cleanup, so he wanted to know how Washtenaw County got “stuck with the bill.”

Nathan Voght, the county’s brownfield program coordinator, explained that in general, the state’s previous approach of going after the original polluters to get them to pay for cleanup didn’t work. So in 1996 the state enacted Act 381 – the brownfield redevelopment financing act. The act provides a funding mechanism to help new entities redevelop a contaminated site. Voght said the idea is that since society allowed this to happen, communities should pitch in to help clean it up.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Responding to another question from D. Smith, Voght noted that environmental laws are stronger now than decades ago, and that will help prevent similar contamination in the future.

D. Smith then pointed to a table in the brownfield report that listed eligible activities totaling $376,805. Most of those activities relate clearly to cleanup, he noted. But it also includes demolition – at $221,550. That seems to be in a different category, D. Smith said, and he asked Voght to explain why it was also eligible for funding. Voght said a brownfield site doesn’t just include contaminated ground. It includes everything that’s an impediment to development, and oftentimes that includes old buildings or factories, which might include asbestos.

D. Smith then highlighted a table that listed out the amount of taxes that would be captured from each taxing entity, as part of the brownfield plan. [.pdf of tax capture table] He noted that another item on the agenda – a proposal from Pittsfield Township for a State Street corridor improvement authority – would exempt some taxes from capture. He asked if similar exceptions were possible for the brownfield project. Voght replied that there are no exemptions for brownfield projects, nor are there opt-out provisions, as there are for the CIA.

Responding to a question from Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Voght reported that in general, tax capture in Washtenaw County comes from about 24 mills in state taxes, and from local millages ranging from 25 to 35 mills. Depending on where a project is located, about 40% of the tax capture is from state taxes, and 60% from local taxes.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the brownfield plan. A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

Road Commission Appointment

The appointment of Barb Fuller to the Washtenaw County road commission was on the Oct. 16 agenda. She was nominated by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016.

The appointment had originally been on Oct. 2 agenda, but Dan Smith (R-District 2) raised the question of whether Schwartz had officially resigned. So on Oct. 2 the board voted 6-3 to postpone her appointment, over dissent from Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

This item was considered after midnight at the Oct. 16 meeting. There was minimal discussion. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the process for soliciting applications. Rabhi and Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office both described ways in which the vacancy had been publicized, including ads in print publications and in media reports. Rabhi indicated that another person who had applied had missed the deadline.

Fuller, who lives in Manchester, previously served as deputy supervisor in Pittsfield Township from 2008-2012. She provides organizational management and consulting services, and has served in a variety of leadership roles for groups including the Washtenaw Community College Foundation Women’s Council and the Montessori School Board. She is the first woman to serve on the road commission since Pam Byrnes was appointed in 2000. Byrnes had been the first woman ever to serve on the road commission, but resigned before the end of her six-year term, when she was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2004.

Other current road commissioners are Doug Fuller (no relation to Barb Fuller) and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

Barb Fuller takes the position as the county board explores possible changes to the road commission. At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board created a new seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members include four county commissioners – Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Conan Smith (D-District 9), Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) – and three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township.

Outcome: Barb Fuller’s nomination was confirmed on an 8-1 vote. Dan Smith (R-District 2) cast the only dissenting vote.

Dog License Civil Infraction

Commissioners held a public hearing at their Oct. 16 meeting on a proposed ordinance that would allow the county to issue municipal civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. The proposal would also establish that the county treasurer’s office would be the bureau for administering these infractions, and would set new licensing fees.

No one spoke on the hearing, which was held after midnight.

About a year ago, at the county board’s Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a civil infractions ordinance that gave the county more flexibility to designate violations of other county ordinances as a civil infraction, rather than a criminal misdemeanor. For example, enforcement of the county’s dog licensing ordinance is low because the current penalty – a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine – is relatively harsh. The idea is that enforcement would improve if a lesser civil infraction could be used. The civil infraction fines are $50 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or any subsequent offense.

An increase in the enforcement is expected to result in an increase in the number of dog licenses, which would provide additional revenue to be used for animal control services.

However, the county board hasn’t yet taken the additional step of authorizing the issuance of a civil infractions for owning an unlicensed dog. There was no agenda item put forward for a vote on this issue at the Oct. 16 meeting, nor was there any resolution on the agenda regarding a new fee structure for dog licenses.

The county treasurer’s office is proposing to lower the current dog licensing fee from $12 to $6 per year for spayed or neutered dogs and from $24 to $12 per year for dogs that aren’t spayed or neutered. There would continue to be a discount for a three-year license. More information about current dog licenses are on the county website.

After the Oct. 16 meeting, county staff emailed a copy of the draft ordinance to The Chronicle. [.pdf of dog license ordinance] [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 6, 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!

View looking north toward the city-owned Library Lot, taken from the fourth floor of the Ann Arbor District Library building. (Photos by the writer.)

The idea for a new park was among several recommendations approved by the commission at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, to be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The AADL was specifically mentioned in the Library Lot recommendation: “In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.”

AADL director Josie Parker stressed that neither she nor board president Prue Rosenthal had indicated that the library is in any way capable of advising the city regarding security and safety of a park. They had attended a meeting of the downtown park subcommittee, she said, and had related the library’s experiences regarding a range of security issues at the downtown building. Parker reported that so far in 2013, the library has made police requests to its downtown building on average every 3.5 days.

Trustees generally expressed caution and noted that many questions remained about whether a downtown park at that location would be viable, without adequate oversight and additional development. Parker planned to relay the board’s concerns to the park advisory commission.

Another major item of discussion at the Oct. 21 meeting related to Pittsfield Township’s proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA). Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates were on hand to answer questions, as was CIA board member Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America. Trustees asked a range of questions, covering other financing options, the process for receiving federal funds, and the procedure for opting out of this new tax increment financing (TIF) authority.

If the board decides that AADL will opt out, a resolution would need to be passed. Taxing entities have a 60-day period in which to make an opt-out decision. That period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December. The only AADL board meeting currently scheduled before then is on Nov. 11.

In its one main action item on Oct. 21, the board authorized a $40,000 adjustment to AADL’s 2013-14 budget to cover costs of repairs and testing of the downtown library roof. The adjustment transfers $40,000 from the library’s fund balance to the repair and maintenance line item. According to the most recent financial report, the library had a fund balance of $8.03 million as of Sept. 30, 2013.

During her director’s report, Parker highlighted some of the niche services that the library provides – such as hosting a Minecraft server and a recent Oculus Rift Hackathon. She said she wanted the board to think about the things that go beyond just lending books – services that are important to some but completely irrelevant to others. “The combination of it all is what makes the Ann Arbor District Library the amazing library system that we all know it is,” Parker said. “It’s the sum of all these parts, not one aspect or service.”

During committee reports, Nancy Kaplan noted that the communications committee hopes to receive a report later this month from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review. The consultants were hired earlier this year to conduct a communications audit for the library – a move that’s been criticized by some residents who believe the work is positioning AADL for another bond proposal to build a new downtown library.

For the first time in several months, no one spoke during public commentary at the board meeting.

Library Lot Park

Added to the agenda at the start of the Oct. 21 meeting was an item to discuss recent recommendations made by the city’s park advisory commission.

From left: AADL board president Prue Rosenthal and director Josie Parker.

By way of background, a subcommittee of the commission has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. They delivered a set of recommendations to the full commission at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting. After minor amendments, the commission approved those recommendations, which will be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of full subcommittee report]

The eight recommendations of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

Specifically, that recommendation states:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

At the AADL board’s Oct. 21 meeting, director Josie Parker told trustees that she had asked for this agenda item to be added, because she thought that the park advisory commission report warranted a statement from the library. Earlier this year, Parker and board president Prue Rosenthal had been invited to attend a subcommittee meeting. They had shared that the downtown library employs four full-time security staff to deal with issues related to security, drug use, alcohol use, loitering and aggressive behavior between patrons, Parker said. No one has been aggressive to the staff to date, she added.

Parker and Rosenthal had told the subcommittee that they had concerns about adding a large open space adjacent to the downtown library. They also said that in concept, it sounds like a park would complement the library, but without continuous security, a high level of maintenance, and continuous programming, they were concerned that the space would “create a venue for behavioral issues we currently experience on a daily basis at the library,” Parker told the board. “We stand by that statement today.”

Parker reported that so far in 2013, the library makes police requests to its downtown building on average every 3.5 days. “That is relatively frequent,” she said.

While she appreciates the interest that the park commission is showing for the public library, Parker stressed that she and Rosenthal did not intend to indicate that the AADL is in any way capable of advising the city regarding security and safety of a park.

Barbara Murphy referred to a different section of the report that discusses problems with the Library Lot site. It states:

Placemaking principles raise a number of concerns regarding the Library Lot site. Currently, the space is poorly activated, facing the backs of buildings on Liberty, William and Division Streets, Fifth Street traffic, and the windowless side of the Library. This lack of eyes on the space raises a number of concerns regarding safety and the promotion of positive behavior. A sizeable park space in this location would require significant financial investment for enhanced security, daily maintenance, and staff dedicated to year-round programming.

The subcommittee’s own comments about the site lay out all the problems, Murphy noted. “It’s almost as if they’re saying it would be a good idea, but we can’t do it for all these reasons.”

Parker said she couldn’t speak for anyone at the city, but she wanted to make it very clear that she and Rosenthal did not intend to give the impression that the library would be able to give advice on safety and security in a public park.

Margaret Leary observed that there was a lot she could say about this report, but she wanted to keep her remarks focused on the library. In the past, when the library has been involved with discussions about the underground parking structure, library officials have clearly said that what should be located at the site is a very active, completely developed set of activities that would generate a lot of street traffic, 24/7. It needs to be controlled by someone – whether the police or the property owner – but it should be well taken care of, Leary said. To designate it as a park “seems to be putting the cart before the horse” before resolving the question of what else will be located there, she said.

Leary also wanted to know what the police experiences are in Liberty Plaza – the existing park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. Why isn’t the city fixing Liberty Plaza before developing a new park? How much will a new park cost, and who’ll pay for it? Which existing parks will suffer if resources are shifted to a new park? “I just think there are a lot of questions,” Leary said.

She added that she couldn’t find an answer in the report to the question of whether there should be more downtown parks. There wasn’t much of an analysis of that question, she said, unless you count the 1,608 people – out of the roughly 116,000 residents of Ann Arbor – who responded to a survey “that was only known about by people who wanted a park there, pretty much.” The survey appears to be the basis for the entire recommendation, Leary said, when in fact there are a lot of other ways that opinions could have been gathered.

AADL trustee Barbara Murphy.

Jan Barney Newman said she couldn’t agree more with Leary, and that she didn’t know how to respond – other than to state that the library isn’t equipped to give advice regarding park security. Newman said she had talked to one of her neighbors who had been very enthusiastic about a park at the Library Lot site. But when Newman enumerated the problems that could likely occur, she said her neighbor changed her mind. Newman joked that unfortunately, she couldn’t talk to all 1,608 people who took the survey. The board needs to figure out how to communicate that this isn’t a productive use of the space, she said.

Nancy Kaplan said the report indicated that a downtown park should be publicly and privately financed, with buildings around it to have eyes on the site. There’s definitely concern that the responsibility for safety and well-being, and things like the use of bathrooms, should not belong to the library, she said. “This report is a start, but it’s only a start – and it raises many, many questions.”

A lot of work needs to be done, Kaplan added, but a large percentage of people who took the survey did indicate they’d like to see a downtown park.

Newman responded, saying that the idea for Library Lot had been to develop it, with a park as part of a development. “It was not to have a park, then hope that you could find a commercial entity to be responsible for it,” she said. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

Kaplan felt it should happen at the same time – with development as part of any park on the site.

Rebecca Head said she didn’t see the recommendations as being strong. The park commission did the best that they could, she said, but she feared that people would cherry-pick exactly the recommendation that they wanted – rather than to take the set of recommendations and caveats as a whole. “It’s not clear here,” she said.

Murphy thought the report wasn’t asking the library for security advice, but was just acknowledging that the library should be consulted as part of the planning process, whenever that might happen. She added that she wasn’t worried about anything happening soon. “It’s Ann Arbor,” she said.

Rosenthal thought the recommendations were ambiguous, “and I think it’s fair enough on our part to be wary of it.”

Leary pointed out that it’s not the library’s responsibility to figure out how to plan a park on that site. She wasn’t sure it was good for AADL staff to spend time on it “because it’s not our problem.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Parker indicated that she’d be contacting Ingrid Ault, chair of the park advisory commission who also chaired the downtown park subcommittee, to communicate the board’s reaction to this report.

Pittsfield State Street Corridor Improvement Authority

Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates attended the Oct. 21 meeting to answer questions about the township’s proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Street, south of Ann Arbor. They had made a presentation about the project at the board’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The CIA would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including the Ann Arbor District Library.

The new authority is expected to help fund roughly $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways.

The library’s Pittsfield branch is located in the township, and a portion of the AADL district is included in the northern part of the proposed CIA. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. The captured taxes would otherwise go to the entities that levy those taxes. Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries.

Dick Carlisle, a planning consultant for Pittsfield Township, and Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America. Kretschmer also serves on the board of the State Street corridor improvement authority.

In introducing the topic on Oct. 21, AADL director Josie Parker reported that she attended a recent CIA board meeting as well as the Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board of trustees. That hearing started the 60-day period during which taxing authorities in the proposed CIA have the opportunity to opt out.

Lyon introduced a CIA board member who also attended the Oct. 21 meeting: Claudia Kretschmer, founder and co-owner of Gym America. Kretschmer described Gym America, located at 4611 Platt Road, as a gymnastics school that has been in business for 34 years. They’re looking to expand and move to a location on Hines Drive off State Street. The school currently has about 700 students with another 200 on a waiting list. So they expect about 900 to 1,000 students when they open their new facility, she said.

The school will add a lot of traffic to State Street, she said, and the bulk of their business is at 4:30-5 p.m. Kretschmer noted that a lot of instructors are University of Michigan students, who would be able to ride the bus to Gym America when it’s located on State Street, after improvements are made. She also highlighted the competitions that are held by the school, which draw even more people to that area. The competitions are typically held at Saline High School.

Barbara Murphy asked if Gym America would be moving to Hines Drive if the CIA didn’t happen. It’s definitely a factor in choosing that location, Kretschmer replied. They haven’t yet closed the deal, she said. Other options include less expensive property in a more industrial location. No matter what, the school will expand, she said. They’ve been asked to consider locating to the Jackson Road area, and there’s more land available on that side of town, she said. But they want to stay in Pittsfield Township, because they’ve invested a lot in that community.

Lyon said that township officials have been asked why they need a TIF. He described it as a regional effort. The students who attend Gym America, for example, aren’t only coming from Pittsfield Township, he noted. They’re coming from all around Washtenaw County and beyond. Carlisle added that Kretschmer’s experience isn’t unique. In the State Street area, there are 40 companies that employ about 5,000 people. That’s a significant employment based for local residents, he said.

“We’ve been presenting this as a road project, but it’s really much more than that,” Carlisle said. “It’s really an economic development project that’s being facilitated by the improvement of road infrastructure.” He noted that improvements along the Jackson Road corridor in Scio Township brought a great deal of economic development to the township, school district and county at large – a more than 300% increase in taxable value since 1990. That’s the same thing that Pittsfield Township is trying to do, he said.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Opting Out

Jan Barney Newman asked if all the other taxing authorities have decided whether to be involved. [The jurisdictions that collect taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metro parks), Washtenaw Community College, Saline District Library, and Ann Arbor District Library.]

None of the other entities have dropped out, Carlisle replied. He noted that the county board of commissioners gave initial approval to join the CIA at their Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, with a final vote expected on Nov. 6. The WCC board hasn’t made a decision, Lyon reported, and will be discussing it at their first meeting in November.

Josie Parker asked how the formal opt-out process works. Carlisle said that passing a board resolution would be sufficient. That must be done with 60 days, starting with the Oct. 9 public hearing. So the last day to opt out would be Dec. 9.

Margaret Leary wondered what the Saline District Library has decided to do. Carlisle reported that the library board hasn’t made a formal opt-out decision at this point.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Funding Options

Nancy Kaplan wondered what other funding options are available. Lyon characterized other options as “few and far between.” A city like Ann Arbor receives Act 51 funds, which are generated by the state’s gas tax. Townships don’t receive those funds, he said. Townships rely solely on the county road commission.

AADL trustee Margaret Leary.

For major expansion projects like the State Street effort – increasing from two lanes to four lanes, adding bike lanes and pedestrian amenities – the federal government gets involved, which would generally fund 80% of the project, along with a 20% local match. Pittsfield Township approached the road commission and asked if the road commission’s Act 51 dollars could be used for a local match, Lyon said. But the road commission decided not to participate.

In 2005, the state legislature created the CIA as a mechanism for funding regional projects like the State Street improvements, Lyon explained.

Kaplan said she understood that Walmart had paid for road improvements near its new store in Pittsfield Township. Has there been any thought of asking companies that will directly benefit from these improvements to kick in? Lyon noted that one reason why the CIA improvements aren’t going all the way to Michigan Avenue is that improvements there have already been made. The road commission required traffic studies from both Walmart and Costco, located on Ellsworth, and ultimately required those businesses to make improvements in the road infrastructure. Costco, for example, was required to fund a portion of the roundabout at State and Ellsworth. Looking ahead, traffic studies for new development will continue to be required, he said, and that might result in additional road improvement funding.

Carlisle noted that the township isn’t trying to attract retail businesses along the State Street corridor. Companies like Walmart and Costco are looking for locations near population centers, and are generally willing to pay a reasonable amount to get their projects at those sites. But the kinds of businesses in the corridor are those that are being recruited by other Michigan communities and states, he said – research, industrial and high-tech companies that could easily go somewhere else, if the environment is more attractive. So other forms of financing, like a special assessment district (SAD), would be a disincentive for companies to locate there, he said. It would also be difficult to use a SAD because you have to prove that the cost is proportional to the benefits that a particular parcel receives. Another factor is that many parcels – about 40% of the corridor – are currently vacant, he noted.

The library would benefit from improvements to the taxable value of land in the corridor, Carlisle pointed out, while not having to provide additional services – because the development would not be primarily residential. “It’s a potential windfall for some of the special taxing jurisdictions, such as libraries and county parks,” he said.

Leary wondered why a bond couldn’t be used to fund the project. Carlisle noted that there has to be a way to pay off the bond. The township wouldn’t be able to take out a general obligation bond, he said, because it wouldn’t make sense for them “to pay the whole freight.” Leary questioned that response: “They wouldn’t do it? Or it wouldn’t make sense?” It’s doubtful that the township could do it, Carlisle replied – because the township likely wouldn’t have the resources to bond against its general obligations.

However, when the CIA is in place, there might be the opportunity to bond against TIF revenues, he said. But it would need to be structured to ensure that the bonds could be paid off.

Parker posed a scenario in which TIF funding occurs, but the federal funding isn’t secured. Would the township bond against the TIF in anticipation of federal funding? Lyon said the current approach is to make the improvements in a phased approach over 20 years, using the TIF funds that are available, with a construction phase every 5-7 years. Bonding would make the overall expense of this project much greater, he pointed out, because of additional interest costs. So even with low-interest bonds of 3-4%, you’d end up spending almost double the cost of the project. Limiting the bonding is a preferred approach, he said.

Parker wondered when the township will know whether the federal funding is being awarded. Lyon said the township recently received approval from the state for a FONSI (finding of no significant impact). Carlisle explained that this means the federal government has signed off on an environmental assessment, which found that these proposed improvements won’t affect the environment. “That’s a huge step toward securing federal road funding,” he said. It’s not a slam-dunk, he added, but it’s now in the queue for funding.

A view showing the northern portion of the proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Road in Pittsfield Township, starting at the I-94 interchange. The red parcels indicate land that’s developed. Yellow parcels are undeveloped land. (Image links to .pdf file showing entire corridor boundaries.)

Lyon reported that when the township applies for federal funds, it will be asked about the revenue source for local matching funds. That’s when it will be important to show that the township has a CIA structure in place and money in the bank, he said. Securing federal funds could happen quickly, or it could take several years, he noted.

Parker asked what would be a reasonable time to wait for federal funding, before deciding to dissolve the CIA and refund the TIF money to the taxing jurisdictions. Lyon said that if nothing is done in the first 10 years, township officials will have to look at why the project isn’t moving forward. But all indicators show that the funding will likely be available, he said.

Carlisle felt there was a lot of momentum for this project. Ann Arbor SPARK has endorsed it, and the road commission has made a major commitment – even though it isn’t investing directly, he said. The roundabout at State and Ellsworth was essentially the first phase of this project, he said. Carlisle added that he’d be very surprised if they didn’t have at least initial funding lined up in 5-6 years.

Lyon noted that an annual report will be provided to the CIA board, the township board of trustees, and to each taxing jurisdiction. So each year they’ll review the status of the work.

Leary wondered if the state enabling legislation put any limit on the time that can pass before securing federal funding. Not beyond the sunset date in the plan, Carlisle said – a 20-year timeframe, through 2033.

Parker said the AADL’s concern is that the plan could result in the township banking TIF funds for 20 years, even if the road improvements don’t occur.

Lyon said he’s never seen a project like this not get funded. Carlisle added that the township could provide assurance that they will apply for federal funding. If the library board is looking for next steps in terms of providing federal funding, the township could provide that, he said. But they can’t provide assurances about when the funding might be secured.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Other Issues

Leary wondered how this project would be coordinated with Ann Arbor South State Street corridor plan, which was recently added to the city’s master plan. [.pdf of State Street corridor plan] Carlisle and Lyon indicated that aspects of the work – such as non-motorized paths – will line up with similar improvements in Ann Arbor’s portion of State Street. The township and city coordinate regularly, Carlisle said. He noted that there are coordinated planning provisions under Michigan law that require the sharing of planning documents. The two jurisdictions are also among the four entities that are working on Washtenaw Avenue improvements. Lyon reported that the roundabout at State and Ellsworth required coordination among Pittsfield Township, Ann Arbor and the county road commission.

Kaplan cited Carlisle’s comments about the increase in taxable value along Jackson Road. She wondered what Pittsfield Township was expecting. Lyon replied that the township is estimating a 250% increase in taxable value. The Jackson Road corridor improvements resulted in a 375% increase. All of the Pittsfield Township projections have been conservative, he said. Carlisle added that you don’t want to over-promise and under-deliver.

Kaplan also asked about tax abatements that are given to some businesses in Pittsfield Township. She noted that she had attended the township board meeting when the public hearing was held, and other agenda items included awarding tax abatements. Carlisle confirmed that when abatements are awarded, that results in less money for the CIA. He said this is a discussion that the township officials are having – the impact of abatements on the CIA. “It would ultimately be counterproductive for this,” he said.

Rebecca Head asked about the Ann Arbor airport: Would that contribute to the CIA? Lyon noted that the airport isn’t part of the CIA because as public land, no property taxes are paid on that property.

Barbara Murphy noted that there’s been a lot of talk about expanding the airport. How would that impact the plans for the CIA? Carlisle didn’t think it would be an issue, in part because it’s not possible to expand the airport toward State Street, where the CIA boundaries would be affected.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

2013-14 Budget Adjustment

The AADL board was asked to authorize a $40,000 adjustment to AADL’s 2013-14 budget to cover costs of repairs and testing of the downtown library roof.

The adjustment transfers $40,000 from the library’s fund balance to the repair and maintenance line item. According to the most recent financial report, the library had a fund balance of $8.03 million as of Sept. 30, 2013. The line item for repairs and maintenance that was approved as part of the 2013-14 was $302,000 for the entire fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013. The board approved the budget at its May 6, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 2013-14 budget summary]

AADL trustee Jan Barney Newman.

Ken Nieman, AADL’s associate director of finance, HR and operations, reminded the board that during budget discussions, they’d talked about using reserves for any big projects that might emerge during the year. It would be possible to pay for it out of the current budgeted line item for repair and maintenance, he said, but later in the year the library would likely deplete that budgeted amount and need to return to the board for a budget adjustment anyway.

Three repairs need to be completed before the winter, he said. The canopy over the entryway needs work, as does the roof that transitions between the second and third floors. Also, some metal work needs to be done on the atrium over the stairwell. The contractor would return in the spring to do more work, including tests to check the condition of the entire roof.

In response to a question from Prue Rosenthal, Nieman said the roof over the newest portion of the building was put on in 1990. Portions over other parts of the building are likely older. Margaret Leary said she thought it made sense to do the work now.

Repair and maintenance of the downtown facility has been an issue at recent meetings. At the board’s meeting on Aug. 19, 2013, Leary reported that the board’s facilities committee had given AADL director Josie Parker the go-ahead to get cost estimates for renovating the entry of the downtown library, including replacement of the front doors. It’s not yet clear if the project would require board approval.

The library board and administration had hoped to build a new downtown library, but a bond proposal to fund that project was defeated by voters in November 2012.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the budget adjustment.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the September 2013 financial statements included in the board packet. [.pdf of financial statements]

The unrestricted cash balance was $14.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2013. By the end of September, the library had received 81.7% ($9.353 million) of its budgeted tax receipts. [The library's fiscal year starts July 1. Summer property taxes are collected in July.] The fund balance at the end of September was $8.03 million.

Nine items are currently over budget, Nieman reported, mostly due to large payments made during the first quarter of the fiscal year. The items are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year. The over-budget line items are: (1) employment costs related to merit increases paid in July; (2) purchased services; (3) utilities; (4) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; (5) software; (6) building rental – for summer taxes and common area maintenance (CAM) charges at the Westgate branch; (7) copier/printer maintenance; (8) supplies, for new self-check stations; and (9) circulation supplies.

It was generally a normal month, he concluded.

There was one clarificational question, but otherwise no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Three brief committee reports were made during the Oct. 21 board meeting.

Committee Reports: Communications

Nancy Kaplan said the communications committee would be meeting next week, and hoped to have a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review.

Committee Reports: Executive

Prue Rosenthal, AADL board president, reported that the executive committee met “to discuss some of the issues that have been going on around the library, and we did not come to any particular conclusions and we will continue to discuss them and come back to you in November.” She did not elaborate.

Committee Reports: Policy

Barbara Murphy told the board that the policy committee met earlier this month. The staff had reviewed the policy manual and prepared a list of updates and proposed changes. It was a long meeting, she said, and the committee reviewed the staff’s suggestions. Staff members will now be incorporating the committee’s feedback into a new draft, which the committee will review at its next meeting.

Prue Rosenthal and Nancy Kaplan praised the staff for its work on this project. Kaplan said she was struck by the library’s generosity, as reflected in its policies.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker gave highlights from her written report. [.pdf of October director's report] She noted that she’d met with a group of people earlier in the day and it was mentioned that the library has a Minecraft server. For people who know about Minecraft, “it’s a really big deal,” she noted. The library does a lot of things that fall into that category, Parker added – things that unique and discrete groups really appreciate and identify with. That’s part of what makes the library as good as it is, she said, but it’s also part of the problem, in that not everyone knows everything that happens at AADL.

The Ann Arbor District Library board got an update on services for educators and students from associate director Celeste Choate, who is standing at the podium.

Parker said she thought about this when she read the first sentence of her director’s report: “The Oculus Rift Hackathon was held on the weekend of October 11-13th.” Three months ago, Parker said, she didn’t know what an Oculus Rift Hackathon meant. She wanted the board to think about these things that are important to some and completely irrelevant to others. “The combination of it all is what makes the Ann Arbor District Library the amazing library system that we all know it is. It’s the sum of all these parts, not one aspect or service.” Usually most people think about the library’s main service as the lending of books, Parker said. AADL still does that, she added, but there are so many other things as well.

Parker explained that Oculus Rift is a virtual reality game that requires wearing a head-mounted device. She likened it to the Star Trek holodeck. Prue Rosenthal asked if anyone could play it. In the absence of Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development who was in New Zealand – the questions were fielded by Kip DeGraaf of the library’s IT staff. He described Oculus Rift as a way of interacting with other games. Tim Grimes, AADL’s manager of community relations and marketing, explained that the hackathon entailed people developing new programs for this virtual reality system.

Board members asked several more questions about Minecraft. The library’s server is limited to creation activities, not war or violence, Parker said. People are challenged “to create an Ann Arbor that they’d like to live in.” She told board members that if they’d like to experience it, that could be arranged. Rosenthal reported that her son is taking her grandson to a Minecraft conference later this month.

Margaret Leary asked whether the use of the Minecraft server shows up in the AADL’s monthly statistics report. DeGraaf replied that those statistics haven’t yet been incorporated into the report. Leary wondered whether the virtual Ann Arbor being created by Minecraft would be of interest to local policymakers.

Other aspects of Parker’s report included ways that AADL interacts with University of Michigan students, and a presentation that Mariah Cherem made at EarthFest 2013. Parker also reported that a recent presentation made by Sherlonya Turner at the Michigan Library Association is receiving positive feedback. Also receiving a positive response was an MLA presentation by Celeste Choate about medical research and information.

The library also recently hosted an event with Bill Minutaglio, author of “Dallas 1963″ about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Parker reported that a man who attended the event had been in the honor guard that stood with JFK’s coffin. The event was well-attended, she said.

AADL Educational Services

The meeting concluded with a presentation about the range of AADL services for educators and students.

Sherlonya Turner, manager of youth and adult services and collections.

Celeste Choate – associate director of services, collections and access – noted that the library issues library cards to educators of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District and Ann Arbor Public Schools instructors who don’t live within the AADL district. You can also get a card if you’re a tutor, with a letter from your tutoring agency. She talked about the types of outreach that’s done to contact educators about this service. There are 24 cards issued to tutors, and 99 cards for non-resident instructors.

The library tries to attract educators through some of AADL’s new collections, Choate said. Those include digital microscopes, dinosaur kits, and musical instruments.

Sherlonya Turner, manager of youth and adult services and collections, talked to the board about the annual second-grade visit program, which has been taking place for many years. In 2012, 1,278 second-grade students from AAPS and charter schools came to the library. The Friends of the Library subsidizes the cost of busing students for this program. As a result, AADL gave out over 500 library cards.

The library staff also goes out into the schools every May to promote AADL’s summer game. In 2012, the staff visited 18 of 21 elementary schools, as well as all five AAPS middle schools and four private schools. There are also a variety of other outreach programs, Turner said. In addition, the staff develops curated lists of reading materials for students, and provides homework services like Brainfuse, which is offered online, as well as on-site tutors.

Terry Soave, manager of outreach and neighborhood services, talked about outreach to non-traditional students. AAPS adult education offers free GED classes at the Mallets Creek library branch, for example. Numbers are increasing, from 48 students in 2010-11 to 57 students in 2012-13.

Soave also described the Widening Advancements for Youth (WAY) program, an online public high school program. Part of the requirement is that students have to attend an on-site learning lab a minimum of two days a week, and AADL’s downtown library serves as one of the two locations in Washtenaw County for these labs.

The final program that Soave highlighted is called Library Songsters, coordinated by Ira Lax. It brings together local musicians – including Mr. B and Peter Madcat Ruth – with students who collaborate to write a song related to a theme that’s being studied in the schools. The presentation concluded with a video of fifth-grade students at Lawton Elementary who were studying core democratic values. They worked with their music teacher, Cynthia Page-Bogen, and musician Joe Reilly on a song about democracy.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Ed Surovell.

Next meeting: Monday, Nov. 11, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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 resolution would authorize the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted to participate at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) attempted to postpone action on participation until the Nov. 20 meeting. His motion failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

D. Smith then moved a substitute resolution stating that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

The vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

In total, the board debated the issue and asked questions of Pittsfield Township representatives for about 90 minutes. Questions were fielded by supervisor Mandy Grewal, consultant Dick Carlisle, attorney Jim Fink, and Craig Lyon, the township’s director of utilities and municipal services.

A final vote is expected on Nov. 6.

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]

Aerial view showing proposed location of a county recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti, in the city-owned Water Street property next to the Huron River and south of Michigan Avenue. (Image from the WCPARC Aug. 13, 2013 meeting packet.)

Commissioners approved expenses totaling $1,760,780 to acquire complete or partial interests in 140 acres for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), and took the first step to approve acquisition of conservation easements on 170 acres of farmland for $258,500.

The NAPP purchases include 71 acres in Ann Arbor Township presently owned by DF [Domino's Farms] Land Development, west and north of the intersection of Plymouth and Dixboro Roads. The purchase includes 54 acres – known as Arbor Vistas – on the south side of Ford Road. WCPARC will contribute $928,780 of the total price of $2.167 million, with the remainder of funding coming from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund ($1.088 million) and Ann Arbor Township ($150,000).

Two other parcels – 5 acres and 12 acres – are located near the larger site. In total, these three acquisitions will enhance access to existing preserves, according to staff, and will benefit from the parking areas and trails already built in those preserves.

The WCPARC also gave final approval to purchase the 66-acre Primeau property in Freedom Township for $420,000, and to buy the 3-acre Holley property in Pittsfield Township for $90,000. The Holley property – on the south side of Textile Road, north of Michigan Avenue – is important because of its woods and its adjacency to three other heavily wooded parcels that WCPARC has given tentative approval to purchase. The 8-1 vote for the Holley purchase came over dissent by commissioner Fred Veigel, who questioned paying $30,000 an acre for property that could be developed.

The WCPARC also administers the agricultural land preservation program, which protects farmland by purchasing development rights (conservation easements) rather than title to the land. At the Aug. 13 meeting, commissioners gave preliminary approval for two such purchases: (1) the 101-acre Cort property in Salem Township, for $100,000; and (2) the 69-acre Schneider property in Lodi Township at the southeast corner of Scio Church and Parker Roads, for $158,500.

The commission was briefed on one ongoing project: the proposed recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti‘s Water Street area. The presentation included a summary of a survey about how such a new facility might be used. The survey had been commissioned by the Ann Arbor YMCA with some funding from WCPARC, and showed that there is sufficient demand and willingness to pay for the center. The results also provided details to guide decisions about fees and the size and nature of facilities in the building.

In action related to the center, commissioners approved extending for six months a letter of intent to reach a development agreement between WCPARC and the city of Ypsilanti. The plan is to use that time to negotiate a full development agreement so that the city can transfer the property – up to 8 of the 38 acres on Michigan Avenue east of downtown Ypsilanti – before Jan. 4, 2014.

Commissioners were briefed about a proposed Pittsfield Township corridor improvement authority along State Road. It would use tax increment financing (TIF) to provide funding for upgrading South State between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue.

The commission also approved several financial reports for June and July, and received updates on various projects and activities. Director Bob Tetens distributed a draft of the WCPARC budget for 2014-2017, but there was neither description nor discussion of the document, which will be on the September agenda.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

The county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) is funded by a 10-year countywide millage of 0.2409 mills, which brings in about $3 million annually. Voters renewed the millage most recently in 2010, through 2020. The program enables WCPARC to purchase land worth preserving because of its natural features, and to purchase development rights on agricultural land. The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee advises WCPARC on NAPP acquisitions. The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee advises WCPARC on the purchase of development rights.

Several items were on the Aug. 13 agenda related to purchases for NAPP.

NAPP: DF Land Property (54-acre parcel)

Tom Freeman, retired deputy director of WCPARC who now serves as a consultant on NAPP activities, presented supporting material for all NAPP purchases at the August meeting. He began with three parcels owned by DF [Domino’s Farms] Land Development. WCPARC had given conditional approval to purchase those parcels at its June meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Acquire More Nature Preserves."]

Within the black circle, three parcels outlined in black are owned by DF Land Development LLC and are being acquired by the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission for nature preserves.

The largest parcel is 54 acres immediately west of the city of Ann Arbor’s 79-acre Marshall Nature Area and also near WCPARC’s 35-acre Goodrich Preserve and the University of Michigan’s 90-acre Horner-McLaughlin Woods. [.pdf of DF Land (54 acres) staff memo]

NATAC recommended this purchase, Freeman reported, because of the parcel’s proximity to other preserved areas and its significant natural features. It is entirely wooded, with areas of mature oaks, maples and other hardwoods. The western side of the property houses Kirk’s Brook, a tributary to Fleming Creek that flows south and east to the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. More significant are the steep slopes throughout the property, he said.

Freeman then described the financial aspects of this acquisition, which was appraised at $3.25 million. To facilitate the purchase, the owner reduced the price by $1.083 million. The Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund (MDNRTF) accepted an application from WCPARC for $1,088,220 toward buying the property, and most recently, Ann Arbor Township agreed to contribute $150,000. That left only $928,780 required from WCPARC to reach the final price of $2.167 million. The contribution from Ann Arbor Township was only finalized last month.

This process, Freeman noted, “generated more paperwork – from the state, the city, the township, the owner, and WCPARC – than any other WCPARC acquisition.” But, he added with a smile, “our [WCPARC’s] sign will be on the land.”

Freeman’s written report documented completion of the three due diligence steps required by WCPARC’s earlier conditional approval of this purchase: a phase 1 environmental site assessment by Mannik & Smith that found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns; a boundary survey with legal description and sealed survey drawing; and Bur Valuation Group’s appraisal, which valued the property at $3.25 million.

There was no substantive discussion.

Outcome: Unanimous approval, on a roll call vote, to purchase the 54 acres from DF Land Development for a net price of $2.167 million, of which $928,780 would come from WCPARC.

NAPP: DF Land Development (5- and 12-acre parcels)

Freeman then presented information on two other DF Land Development parcels, for 5 acres and 12 acres. He referred to the smaller property as the “dependent” parcel that would connect several others and allow access to and use of the Marshall and Goodrich preserves, a total of 290 acres under multiple ownerships. Both properties are almost entirely wooded, with areas of mature oaks, maples, hickories and other hardwoods. Freeman called out a “gorgeous buttonwood swamp” and shagbark hickories, but lamented the absence of beeches on the 12-acre parcel, which abuts the Goodrich Preserve along its southern border. The 5-acre parcel is adjacent to the University of Michigan Horner-McLaughlin Woods and will connect that property with other protected land to the south. [.pdf of DF Land (5, 12 acres) staff memo]

Bosserd Appraisal, Freeman reported, valued the 5-acre parcel at $100,000 and the 12-acre parcel at $222,000. Mannik & Smith Group did a phase 1 environmental site assessment of each property and found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns. Finally, boundary surveys including legal descriptions and sealed survey drawings were done, completing the requisite due diligence.

NAPP: DF Land Development (5- and 12-acre parcels) – Commission Discussion

Robert Marans, president of WCPARC, asked about the potential for trails on the parcels. Freeman described several possibilities, and emphasized the ability to use an existing parking area. The topography, he said, provides opportunity for many loop trails, at least two miles of them. Freeman also pointed out the opportunity to put up signs for the new and existing parcels, with the increased accessibility of the proposed purchases.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously approved, on a roll call vote, purchase of the 5-acre parcel for $100,000 and the 12-acre parcel for $222,000.

NAPP: Primeau

Tom Freeman presented information on this fourth proposed NAPP acquisition: 66 acres in Freedom Township, comprising two adjacent parcels on the north side of Ellsworth Road between Parker and Haab roads in the northeast part of the township. NATAC, he reported, had declared the site a high priority because of its diversity of land types, the perennial stream that runs to Mill Creek, its steep slopes, high quality woodlot, and wetland areas around the stream. The Brauer Preserve is less than half a mile to the east. Both Brauer and this property are ranked as “high value” on the Huron River Watershed Council’s bioreserve map. [.pdf of Primeau staff memo]

Freeman’s report noted that due diligence had been done: Bosserd Appraisal Services identified a value of $420,000, or about $6,363 per acre; Mannik & Smith’s phase 1 environmental site assessment found no evidence of environmental concerns; and a boundary survey, legal description, and sealed survey drawing were in hand.

Director Bob Tetens added that this acquisition was consistent with one of WCPARC’s basic concepts: to add land that would expand existing preserves and avoid the need to build new parking.

There was no substantive discussion.

Outcome: Unanimous approval on a roll call vote to acquire the Primeau property’s 66 acres for $420,000.

NAPP: Holley Property

The fifth acquisition Freeman presented was the Holley property, roughly 3 acres in Pittsfield Township. At WCPARC’s April 9, 2013 meeting, commissioners had given conditional approval to prepare an offer on several properties in that same area: the Holley property, 3 acres south of Textile Road; the 2-acre Kim property, which notches into the south and west sides of Holley and fronts on Michigan Avenue; the 4-acre M. Harwood property west of Kim, which also fronts on Michigan Avenue; and the 9-acre A. Harwood parcel, an adjacent site at the west of these properties, also on Michigan Avenue. [.pdf of Holley staff memo]

Aerial view showing boundaries of four properties along Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township that are being considered for purchase by the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Together, these four parcels would preserve a heavily wooded area, part of the larger woods that comprises much of the Pittsfield Preserve south of Textile Road. However, Freeman reported that while all four properties are still in consideration, the other three are in the midst of due diligence proceedings and only Holley is coming forward now.

NATAC identified the Holley property as high priority to protect and acquire. Freeman reported that the parcel is unusual because it is in an urban area, and the woodlot is a “character property” for the township and the county. Because the woods are dry – he pointed out the wet woods to the north of the property – they are “eminently develop-able.” Clearing the Holley property would, Freeman held, have a serious, detrimental impact on the Pittsfield Preserve, which has a large heron rookery in the preserve north of Textile. Freeman hoped to bring the two Harwood parcels to WCPARC for final approval in September. The Holley family wants to close as soon as possible.

Freeman’s written report documented an appraisal by Bosserd Appraisal Services at $90,000, or $30,000 an acre; Mannik & Smith’s phase 1 environmental site assessment that found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns; and a boundary survey with legal description and sealed survey drawing.

NAPP: Holley Property – Commission Discussion

Director Bob Tetens pointed out that this purchase is consistent with WCPARC’s strategy of building up existing preserves, both its own and those of other entities. This makes the best use of resources, he added, while creating more meaningful, larger preserved areas, and avoiding the need to build more parking areas.

Commissioner Fred Veigel – a current member and former chair of the Washtenaw County Road Commission – began the discussion by stating that he would vote against it: “Why would you pay $30,000 an acre for property that is develop-able? Why not let it be developed and generate tax revenue for the township, the county, and the schools? It just galls me that you would pay that much.”

Commissioner Patricia Scribner, who also serves as treasurer of Pittsfield Township, pointed out that the land is zoned residential and changing that to commercial, as Veigel suggested, is not part of the township’s master plan.

In response to Veigel’s concern about the cost of the property, Freeman said there are a number of elements to consider. For example, when land is in a municipal service area, the price naturally goes up. Also, smaller parcels cost more per acre than larger ones. Yet, for preservation purposes, a small parcel can “move the edge and change the habitat.” Freeman added: “We have had a series of appraisals done on it – it was valued higher two years ago.”

Commissioner Janis Bobrin weighed in: “Having worked on [NAPP] millage campaigns, I know that the object was to have high-quality land preserved not just way out in the county, but where people can get at it, to procure high quality [land] and to provide access to people who value having green open space adjacent to them. We are doing what the voters told us they wanted done.”

WCPARC member Dan Smith, who also serves on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, picked up on this point: “The voters approved us spending money this way. We have a rigorous process and criteria. Owners have to nominate property – we don’t solicit or make offers out of the blue. This proposal is a result of our process and criteria operating.”

Tetens made a related point: “We like to provide geographic equity. We get a lot in tax revenue from Pittsfield Township, perhaps more than what we have given back so far in recreational facilities or services.”

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the motion to purchase the Holley property for $90,000 passed 8-1, with Veigel voting against it.

Agricultural Land Preservation

Washtenaw County’s ordinance No. 128, which established the natural areas preservation program, also established the Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee (ALPAC) to advise WCPARC about whether to purchase development rights on a particular parcel of agricultural land, and how much the county should pay for those rights. More specifically, ALPAC looks to acquire development rights on lands that:

• Preserve working farms, particularly those including prime and unique soils;
• Preserve working farms that support the ecological integrity of wildlife habitat or important natural habitats;
• Complement the existing network of publicly and privately preserved lands;
• Maximize the public benefit.

The Ann Arbor-based Legacy Land Conservancy (LLC) assists WCPARC as well. Susan Lackey, the conservancy’s executive director, and Robin Burke, its land preservation coordinator, provide staff support to ALPAC under contract with the WCPARC. Burke presented two proposals at the Aug. 13 meeting.

Agricultural Land Preservation: Cort Property

This property in Salem Township lies on both the north and south sides of Six Mile Road just west of Towner Road in the northeast corner of the county. The original nomination was for 101 acres. However, LLC has decided to purchase the development rights on 17 acres – land that includes wetlands and that is not agricultural – and the Cort family has decided to retain 5 acres for its own use. So only 79 acres were part of the Aug. 13 proposal. The 5 acres retained by the family, while not covered by the conservation easement, will be permanently tied to the protected land – the two parcels cannot be separated and hence cannot be developed. [.pdf of Cort staff memo]

Map of Cort property (outlined in orange) in Salem Township.

The proposal will compensate the landowner for the cost of development rights and establish an agricultural conservation agreement between the landowner and WCPARC. The land will remain in private ownership.

Burke’s report described the somewhat complex history of this proposal. The parcels were originally submitted to both NAPP and to Salem Township’s land preservation and conservation board, which sought and received a federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) grant in 2012 for 49% of the cost of purchasing development rights.

Then, a change in township board membership resulted in a decision not to pursue conservation easements. ALPAC was approached, Burke said, to be a partner by contributing money and to be the successor holder of the easement. The township will receive the grant and hold the easement first in the chain of title, and then immediately pass the easement to WCPARC to hold.

Salem Township had already concluded due diligence: a phase I environmental assessment that found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions; an American Land Title Association survey; and an appraisal by Williams & Associates, which put the value for the development rights at $206,000. The FRPP grant will cover $100,940. The remaining $5,060 is being supplied by a private donor. Salem Township will cover the closing costs.

According to Burke, ALPAC recommended the Cort property because much of the soil is prime and locally important agricultural soil, and because nearby areas have a fair amount of residential development. The Bailo conservation easement held by WCPARC is to the west, across Pontiac Trail. As farmland, she said, it is “not topographically exciting, not even very photogenic,” but her photos showed it to grow ample corn and hay.

Agricultural Land Preservation: Cort Property – Commission Discussion

Dan Smith pointed out that this property is close to Pontiac Trail, a major traffic route between Ann Arbor and points north and east. In the future, there will be pressure for development, he noted.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, commissioners gave unanimous approval for WCPARC to: (1) contribute $100,000 to the conservation easement on the Cort property; and (2) serve as successor holder of the Cort easement, after Salem Township.

Agricultural Land Preservation: Schneider Property

Robin Burke also made a presentation about the Schneider property, to support the recommendation that WCPARC authorize preparation of a purchase offer of $158,500 for a conservation easement on 69 acres of farmland in Lodi Township, at the southeast corner of Scio Church and Parker Roads. ALPAC identified this property as one of nine highest priorities. The property has some wetland at the northwest corner but is predominantly farmland, and all the land is prime, unique, or locally important agricultural soils, as identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service. [.pdf of Schneider staff memo]

It is highly active farmland, Burke continued, part of the “historical richness of Washtenaw County. Once land like this is developed, it is irretrievable as farmland.” An additional valuable quality of the parcel is its proximity to a number of other protected properties, so that protecting Schneider would create a block of 170 acres of protected farmland. The WCPARC’s Brauer Preserve is less than half a mile south on Parker Road.

Burke’s photos illustrated that there is wetland at three of the corners of the Parker/Scio Church intersection. A pair of (protected) trumpeter swans nest here each spring. Protecting this corner would mean all three corners are protected: the corner to the north by Scio Township, and the property to the west by Legacy Land Conservancy. Parker Road is starting to become a protected corridor, she pointed out.

There was no discussion.

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the recommendation that WCAPRC authorize preparation of a purchase offer for a conservation easement at a price of $158,500 ($2,300.44 per acre), contingent upon the completion of all necessary due diligence and the commission’s final approval.

East County Recreation Center

For almost two years, WCPARC has engaged in a partnership with the city of Ypsilanti, the Ann Arbor YMCA, and faculty and students of the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning to develop a plan for a recreation center in the eastern part of the county. Focus has been on a 12-acre site located within Ypsilanti’s Water Street area, on the south side of Michigan Avenue just east of downtown and next to the Huron River. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Pursues Major New Parks & Rec Deal."] [.pdf of East County Rec Center staff memo]

From left: Bob Marans, chair of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, and WCPARC director Bob Tetens.

At the Aug. 13 meeting, deputy director Coy Vaughn summarized a market study by FourSquare Research Inc. that had been presented to WCPARC members at a lunch on June 25, 2013. [Summary of presentation at June 11, 2013 WCPARC meeting.]

Vaughn explained that YMCAs across the county use FourSquare for studies on the feasibility of establishing new recreation centers, including many for partnerships between a city and a Y. FourSquare is not hired, he said, to say “yes on any study – they take a critical look at whether a center can be supported.” Director Bob Tetens added that “they come back to see how well their predictions turned out, because sometimes their clients act against their advice and try to establish a center when FourSquare does not find support.”

Vaughn summarized the main findings, which were the result of a study of 600 random phone calls to cell and landlines across Washtenaw County. As background information, FourSquare provided context:

• There is slow population growth in the area, just 3%.
• 27% of households have kids, about the national average.
• However, only 9% are senior citizens, lower than nationally. There is low household income, $41,000 to $57,000.
• The area is relatively stable, as shown by the 63% who are homeowners.
• 57% are not physically active. Of those who are physically active, only 18% are affiliated with a place to exercise; 25% are not. This leads to favorable projections of membership.

The survey also sought to learn what the preferred location for a rec center would be. Downtown Ypsilanti was favored over Rolling Hills.

Vaughn gave a bullet-point summary:

1. There is significant interest in a new east county rec center, double the national average level of interest.
2. A location east of downtown Ypsilanti works better than locating at WCPARC’s Rolling Hills.
3. The profile of prospective members includes families with children, aging baby boomers, and health seekers, many who desire a “third place” [i.e. neither home nor work].
4. An indoor facility of about 44,000 square feet is recommended, smaller than the originally estimated 55-60,000 square feet.

East County Recreation Center: Commission Discussion

Discussion covered the question of whether there would be enough parking. According to staff, the site has plenty of room for parking, both for the rec center and future retail development. Also discussed was whether this facility would compete with the existing Meri Lou Murray Rec Center on Washtenaw Avenue in Ann Arbor, or be hurt by the renovated outdoor Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti. WCPARC director Bob Tetens didn’t think these facilities would compete. Each existing facility is aimed at a different group, and none are directly targeting residents in the eastern part of the county.

Commissioners also discussed the overall result of the survey. Vaughn noted that there was strong support for a rec center. He indicated that feedback from the survey would allow the building planners to reconfigure the building’s design to suit the needs revealed in the survey.

The survey was simply to inform WCPARC, according to staff. The results are confidential at this point, Vaughn said; the Ann Arbor YMCA board has yet to discuss them, and there are no public copies of the survey yet.

East County Recreation Center: Letter of Intent

An item of business before WCPARC was a proposal from Tetens to extend by six months the letter of intent between WCPARC and the city of Ypsilanti. Ypsilanti’s city council has already voted such an extension. According to Tetens’ report, “the intent is to negotiate a full development agreement and present it to the Ypsilanti city council and WCPARC to transfer the property before Jan. 4, 2014.” The agreement will include at least:

• Exact location and size of the site.
• Size and orientation of the recreation center structure.
• Proposed site plan and building design.
• Timeline for approvals, permits, and construction.
• Plan for infrastructure development beyond parcel footprint.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Terms of parcel transfer or long-term lease.
• Other legal responsibilities for development and opening of the recreational facility.

There was no commission discussion on this item.

Outcome: The motion to extend the letter of intent succeeded 8-1, with Dan Smith voting no.

State Street Corridor: Pittsfield Township

Director Bob Tetens introduced Dick Carlisle of Carlisle/Wortman Associates Inc. and Craig Lyon, director of utilities and public services for Pittsfield Township, to give a presentation about Pittsfield Township’s plan to create a corridor improvement authority (CIA) with powers to improve the State Road corridor in Pittsfield Township, from Ellsworth Road to Michigan Avenue. [.pdf of CIA report] State Road is now rated as D and F level of service, and the bad condition of the road severely constrains development and connections in the southern part of county. It creates gridlock.

From left: Craig Lyon, director of utilities and public services for Pittsfield Township; and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle/Wortman Associates.

Pittsfield Township proposes to improve the road, somewhat as Scio Township improved Jackson Road. The CIA, Carlisle explained, would use tax increment financing to enable the township to provide the local funding match – 20% of the total cost – needed to obtain state and federal funds that would pay for most of the project. The ways that local governments can raise these funds are limited, he said, and a CIA with tax increment financing authority, which Pittsfield Township could create, is one of the most promising.

Carlisle said he was making this presentation to all taxing authorities in the affected area along State Road: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College, WCPARC, Huron Clinton Metropark Authority, Saline District Library, and Ann Arbor District Library.

Pittsfield Township wants to improve the road to facilitate and encourage further development in the corridor, which is mostly zoned commercial but is only about 60% developed. The intent is to build according to the “Complete Streets” model, he said: a four-lane roadway with a central median, a 10-foot pedestrian pathway, bike lanes, and roundabouts at the Morgan and Textile Road intersections with State Road, like the one now being installed at Ellsworth and State. The corridor would link to and enhance existing multi-modal networks, he said, and promote local and regional economic development. The Washtenaw County Road Commission has estimated the project’s cost in 2012 dollars as $30 million.

Carlisle then explained how tax increment financing works. A base year is established, by which to measure the increase in taxable value in the future, which would presumably be the result of the corridor improvements, in this case. After that, a TIF district can capture all or a portion of the increase in taxable value over the base year, he said. Pittsfield Township is proposing to capture only half of the increase. In addition, he said, the other taxing authorities would have the chance to “opt out” of the arrangement, during a 60-day window after the date when Pittsfield Township establishes the development plan and tax increment financing plan. “By formulating this as a partnership, each jurisdiction has a vested interested in the improvements,” he said. Further, “TIF funds can only be spent in the district and only on the projects included in the development plan.”

State Street Corridor: Pittsfield Township – Commission Discussion

This was not an action item for WCPARC at the Aug. 13 meeting. Nevertheless, there was discussion. Major points included:

• Reiteration of the ability to opt out.
• Clarification of the overlap in objectives between WCPARC’s “Connecting Communities” program and the non-motorized elements in the corridor improvement plan – a roadway improvement that also improves walkability and recreation.
• Estimates of the financial impact on WCPARC, which commissioners termed “minimal.”
• Distinguishing tax increment financing from tax increases.

Carlisle emphasized that Pittsfield Township would “memorialize limits and what we will use the money for, for every penny we collect will go to the road improvement project.” Any money left over at the end will be returned to the taxing jurisdictions, he said. He also noted that he could provide a more detailed analysis of the financial impact on WCPARC – he had done that for Washtenaw Community College.

Lyon told commissioners that Pittsfield Township officials hope to complete the project without the need to sell bonds.

Dan Smith had two comments. First, he cautioned that some of the projections depend on voter-approved millages that might not be renewed. He also expressed concern about the number of TIF districts in Washtenaw County. “We need to get a handle on what we are doing with TIFs in the county,” he said. “We are doing them in a haphazard manner and the problem is that the money does add up over a large period of time.”

Commissioners also noted that corridor improvements related to non-motorized trails are ones that WCPARC would be looking to do anyway, regardless of this project.

Financial Reports

Staff provide several different financial reports to WCPARC each month, focused on the past month’s expenses (the “claims” report), monthly and year-to-date reports on expenses and revenues in the form of “fund balance” reports, and a listing of “major non-recurring expenses.” The August meeting reviewed reports for both June and July. There are separate reports on parks and facilities, and on the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which includes preservation of agricultural lands. Each of these has its own, separate funding, although WCPARC administers all of these programs.

Financial Reports: Claims Report

Parks and facilities paid a total of $589,370 in June, and $1,647,706 in July. In both months, director Bob Tetens explained, the largest expenditures were on capital improvements, especially at Independence Lake and Rolling Hills. At Independence Lake, expenses related primarily to a new water park. Rolling Hills saw major expansions and improvements to its water park.

The June reports for NAPP showed small expenses, only $14,430. July was more costly at $57,845.

Financial Reports: Non-recurring Major Expenses Report

The non-recurring major expenses reports for parks and facilities in June shows $140,361 paid to O’Boyle, Cowell, Blalock, & Associates Inc. for construction management at Independence Lake as the largest single expense. OCBA a landscape architecture and land planning firm, with offices in Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids. Second highest was the $75,000 provided to the city of Ypsilanti to help restore Rutherford Pool, part of what WCPARC considers its “partnership” program. See Chronicle coverage: “County Gives More Support to Rutherford Pool.“]

The same report for July shows the largest parks and facilities expense was $1,148,250 paid to Flint-based Sorenson Gross for construction at Rolling Hills. The second-highest expense was another “partnership” expense: $100,000 to Ypsilanti Township for the “Connecting Communities” program, to build three segments of trail along Whittaker, Tuttle Hill, and Textile Road. See Chronicle coverage: “County Awards Trail-Building Grants.”]

For NAPP, the June report showed $8,211 paid to Carver Construction for work at the Trinkle Preserve, and $1,200 to Bosserd Appraisal Services in Ypsilanti for work at the Clark-Avis Spike Preserve. The July report showed the largest single expense as $18,871 to the Legacy Land Conservancy for work with ALPAC, followed by $15,000 to Nagle Paving of Novi for work on the Squiers Preserve parking lot. Squiers Preserve is not yet open to the public.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance Reports

The fund balance for parks began the fiscal year on Jan. 1, 2013, with a balance of $12,950,815. As of July 31, year-to-date revenue totaled $8,150,158 – primarily from property taxes ($5,811,913) and fees and services (2,294,588). Expenses year-to-date were $7,277, 490. The projected fund balance at year-end is $10,299,761. In addition, the parks budget includes an operating reserve of $6.7 million and “partnership” funding commitments of $925,000.

The July 31 fund balance statement for NAPP shows a beginning fund balance on Jan. 1, 2013 of $10,283,644. Through July, revenue was $3,184,873 and expenses were $1,013,797, for a projected year-end fund balance of $13,006,576.

There was little discussion about any of the financial reports.

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

Recreation Reports

Each month, staff provide WCPARC with reports on attendance at its facilities where attendance can be counted, with information about participation in measurable activities and revenue received. The reports include the current year-to-date and comparable information for the last two years.

As he did at the June meeting, director Bob Tetens prefaced his presentation of the reports with comments about the difference between the weather in 2013 and 2012, suggesting that 2011 was more comparable to the current year because 2012 was unusually hot, and 2013 has been much cooler and wetter. This affects attendance. “Last year, the weather was our friend,” he said. “But some years it rains, and our revenue goes down. That’s what a fund balance is for.”

On the positive side, he pointed out the success, measured by attendance, of the new water park – Blue Heron Bay, at Independence Lake Park – where “we made $6,000 on food.” He also highlighted the popularity of day camps at Independence Lake, Rolling Hills, and the County Farm Park.

Tetens also noted the difference between the water parks at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake’s Blue Heron Bay. People stay all day at Rolling Hills, but there’s more turnover at Blue Heron Bay because the facilities are aimed at younger children, so families tend to stay for shorter periods. He noted WCPARC has made some good investments in these two parks that will pay dividends many years into the future.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

Tetens reported that attendance at the Meri Lou Murray rec center has improved a little – in daily passes, revenue, and recreation programming. “It looks better than for the past 3-4 years,” he said.

Year-to-date participation as of July 31, 2013 was 205,933 and revenue was $770,627. In 2012, year-to-date participation was 205,392 and revenues $707,755. In 2011, participation was 215,529 with revenues of $723,278.

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

The Pierce Lake Golf Course’s use and revenue reflected the impact of the weather. In 2012, the course opened on March 15; in 2013 and 2011, the opening did not occur until April 1.

Through July this year, there were 10,456 users and total revenue of $359,710. In 2012, the course drew 13,449 users and $423,732 in revenue. In 2011, there were 10,110 users and $318,102 in revenue.

Recreation Reports: Rolling Hills Park and Water Park

There is an entrance fee, and gate count, for everyone entering Rolling Hills park. There is a separate fee, and gate count, for those who use the water park there.

As of the end of July 2013, the park’s gate count was 20,509 ($169,474 in fees), compared to 25,654 ($207,249) in 2012 and 25,330 ($202,384) in 2011. This count includes individuals as well as buses and minivans, for which individuals are not counted.

The gate count for the water park was 61,770 ($460,326) in 2013; 85,584 ($583,664) in 2012, and 82,433 ($556,710) in 2011.

Revenue from programming and retail operations throughout the park and water park – including the above entry fees plus day camps, birthday packages, and facility and equipment rental – was $808,550 in 2013; $1,002,754 in 2012; and $950,814 in 2011.

Recreation Reports: Independence Lake Park and Blue Heron Bay

Blue Heron Bay opened this year, adding a real water park to Independence Lake park and nearly doubling use and revenue compared to 2011. As at Rolling Hills, there is an entry fee for the park, and an additional fee to use Blue Heron Bay.

Entrants to the park (individuals, buses, and minivans) and the fees paid in 2013 were 10,428 ($90,619); in 2012, 6,947 ($64,475); and 5,038 ($47,820) in 2011.

Blue Heron Bay saw 11,229 users and $44,127 in revenue. Total revenue at Independence Lake (entry fees, rentals, day camp, and food concessions) was $215,361 in 2013; $103,429 in 2012; and $81,557 in 2011.

Projects & Activities

Each month, WCPARC staff provide updates to commissioners about ongoing improvement to WCPARC’s facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. The staff also share communications from users, whether individuals or groups. Some of this information is provided in writing in the board packet; more is provided with visuals and informal commentary. This report summarizes the most significant items.

• Ann Arbor Skatepark: The Ann Arbor city council awarded a construction contract to Krull Construction of Ann Arbor and groundbreaking occurred on Aug. 9. Work should be complete by next spring. WCPARC contributed $400,000 to construction of the skatepark, located in the northwest corner of Ann Arbor’s Veterans Memorial Park.
• County Farm Park: Repairs to the pathway have stalled, so corporate counsel is pursuing legal action against the contractor for failing to complete the project. See Chronicle coverage: “County Parks Commission OKs $6M in Projects.”
• Border to Border Trail (B2B): Work on segment D1, River Terrace Trail in Dexter, is substantially complete. Staff are working with the village of Dexter and Michigan Dept. of Transportation on the final 1/8-mile extension that will connect the trail to the village at Central Street. Completion is hoped for in September.
• Public appreciation: WCPARC director Bob Tetens summarized several letters of thanks and congratulations received over the last two months. Dan Smith commented that the goal is “making sure that a broad base of taxpayers in Washtenaw County know how much good WCPARC does.”
• Food service at Pierce Lake: The facility got a perfect score from the county inspector.
• Eastside Rec Center AIA award: Craig Borum of PLY Architecture along with Maria Arquero and Jen Maigret of MAde studio were awarded a 2013 Michigan AIA Honor Award in the category of “unbuilt work” for their schematic design of a recreation center on the Water Street redevelopment site in Ypsilanti.
• Washtenaw County sheriff’s office: A new method of contracting for patrol services for parks, including dog parks and natural areas, is “far superior” to the past, Tetens reported. Now there are two people on patrol and they overlap at busy times.
• Staebler Farm: The sidewalk and porch at the residence are being replaced for Donald Staebler, who still lives on the premises. See Chronicle coverage: “County Parks: Options for Staebler Farm.”
• Marketing: Several marketing efforts were described, including: (1) signs on an AAATA bus, on varying routes for two months, to advertise the water parks, costing less than $1,300; (2) Ann Arbor Family blog awards for five of WCPARC facilities; and (3) aerial photos of facilities by Victor Banta Photography.

Present: Jan Anschuetz, Janis Bobrin, Robert Marans, Nelson Meade, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, and Fred Veigel.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore, Jr.

Staff: Director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, planner Meghan Bonfiglio, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor, in the County Farm Park property.

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