From left: Washtenaw County equalization director Raman Patel with commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) at the April 16, 2014 board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.

The report was presented by Raman Patel, the county’s long-time equalization director. “Washtenaw County is showing improvements in the market,” he told commissioners. “We are slowly regaining our county’s equalized base. It appears that the worst part of the decline in market value is behind us.”

For 2014, taxable value in the county increased 2.02% to $14.18 billion. That’s a greater increase than the 1.68% climb in 2013, and an improvement over declines seen in recent years. Patel cautioned that several factors are impacting revenue for local governments, including the phase-out of personal property taxes, a variety of exemptions, and tax capture from entities like downtown development authorities.

More of the tax burden is also being shifted to residential property owners, he noted, compared to other categories, like commercial property. The category of residential property accounts for 67.34% of total property value in the county. Five years ago, in 2009, it was 63%.

In other action on April 16, commissioners gave initial approval to distribute proceeds from a countywide tax on hotels and other accommodations. For 2013, $472,846 was available for distribution. If the resolution is given final approval, the county will keep 10% ($47,285) to pay for enforcement of the accommodation ordinance. The remainder will be divided between the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($319,171) and the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau ($106,390).

During public commentary, Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College, highlighted the union training programs that will be coming to the area this summer. The CVBs have been instrumental in recruiting these kinds of events to Washtenaw County.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to the annual Urban County action plan, which outlines proposed projects funded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships.

Final authorization was given to a two-year pricing proposal – for 2016 and 2017 – to provide police services to local municipalities through contracts with the county sheriff’s office. And commissioners gave final approval to a new brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town.

In other action, the board passed a resolution declaring April 13-19 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. They also honored Dr. Eugene Glysson, who had served on the county’s board of public works (BPW) since 1986, and was its chair since 1996. He died on April 2.

Several issues were raised during public commentary, including concerns about emergency sirens installed by a pasture in Scio Township. The owner told commissioners that the sirens spook his horses, causing a dangerous situation if anyone is riding them or standing nearby. Other topics discussed by the public included the creation of a new group to help end homelessness, called Our 2020 Vision, and efforts by University of Michigan students to reduce the use of plastic bags by imposing a per-bag usage fee. They’re garnering support in part through a MoveOn.org petition.

Equalization Report

The 2014 equalization report was presented by Raman Patel, the county’s long-time equalization director. He began by noting that this was Washtenaw County’s 56th report, and he’s been involved in the process for 43 of those years. [.pdf 2014 equalization report] [.pdf chart of largest county taxpayers]

This year, Patel said, “Washtenaw County is showing improvements in the market. We are slowly regaining our county’s equalized base. It appears that the worst part of the decline in market value is behind us.”

Raman Patel, director of equalization for Washtenaw County.

Equalized (assessed) value is used to calculate taxable value, which determines tax revenues for the county as well as its various municipalities and other entities that rely on taxpayer dollars, including schools, libraries and the Ann Area Arbor Transportation Authority, among others. There are 72 units of government in Washtenaw County that rely on property tax revenues.

For 2014, taxable value in the county increased 2.02% to $14.18 billion. That’s a greater increase than the 1.68% climb in 2013, and an improvement over declines seen in recent years.

It’s also an improvement over projections made when the county administration prepared its 2014 budget. The general fund budget was approved with a projection of $63.79 million in tax revenues. But actual revenues, based on 2014 taxable value, are now estimated at $64.511 million – for an excess in 2014 general fund revenues of $720,486. Patel stressed that at this point, the taxable value is a recommendation and must be approved at the state level.

Patel also presented tentative taxable values for specific jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor shows a 2.68% increase in taxable value, while the city of Ypsilanti’s taxable value is an 0.87% increase over 2013. All but three municipalities showed an increase in taxable value. Those municipalities with decreases are the city of Saline (-1.41%), Ypsilanti Township (-0.37%), and the city of Milan (-0.85%).

Properties in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district – which includes the city of Ann Arbor and parts of surrounding townships – will see a 2.37% increase in taxable value. Properties taxed by the Ann Arbor District Library, covering a geographic area that in large part mirrors the AAPS district, increased in value by 2.36%.

Taxable value is determined by a state-mandated formula, and is the lower of two figures: (1) a parcel’s equalized (assessed) value; or (2) a capped value calculated by taking last year’s taxable value minus any losses (such as a building being torn down), multiplied by 5% or the rate of inflation (whichever is lower – this year inflation is 1.6%), plus the value of any additions or new construction.

In 2014, commercial property showed a 3.97% gain in equalized value. Residential property value – the largest classification of property in the county – showed an increase of 5.84%. That’s stronger than last year’s 2.37% increase, which had been the first climb in value since 2007.

Values for developmental property – a relatively small category that covers properties not yet developed – continue to struggle, registering a decrease of 9.54% in equalized value. Industrial property, which dropped 4.78% in equalized value last year, is essentially flat in 2014 at 0.1%. Over the past few years that category has lost significant value, falling from an equalized value of nearly $1 billion in 2007 to this year’s value of $422.146 million.

Some staff of the county’s equalization department.

Countywide, about $400 million is captured by entities like local downtown development authorities (DDAs), local district finance authorities (LDFAs), brownfield tax increment financing, and other entities that are allowed to capture funds from taxing jurisdictions. For taxes levied by Washtenaw County government alone, $2.472 million goes to these other tax-capturing entities that would otherwise be revenues for the county’s general fund. That’s an increase of $67,409 compared to last year.

Patel reported that in 2013, the county had seen new construction valued at $368.14 million. Of that, 30% of that taxable value is capture by DDAs within the county, he said. This year, new construction is valued at $334.18 million, with 26% of that captured by DDAs.

The category of residential property accounts for 67.34% of total property value in the county. Five years ago, in 2009, it was 63%. That means the tax burden is shifting onto residential property owners, Patel said. He noted that residential property values are increasing – from an average sales price of $154,015 in March 2009 to $231,541 this March.

This year, Patel noted that 1,709 appeals were made to the various boards of review – property owners who contested their assessments. That’s significantly lower than last year, when 2,793 appeals were made. Of this year’s appeals, 1,128 appeals were granted, decreasing the total assessed value of property countywide by $21.112 million. In addition, 134 poverty exemptions were granted and 73 parcels were given exemptions for disabled veterans.

Patel highlighted state legislation regarding personal property taxes (PPT) that would affect the overall growth of equalized and taxable value. This year, property valued at up to $40,000 is exempt from the PPT, affecting 5,137 parcels. It’s part of a gradual phase-out of the PPT over the next 10 years, he said. The county’s equalization department is responsible for tracking this process for each unit of local government in Washtenaw County. A referendum on the Aug. 5, 2014 ballot will ask voters to approve a replacement of PPT revenues, directing a portion of the state’s “use tax” to local governments.

In addition, Public Act 161 of 2013 extends the homestead property tax exemption for disabled military veterans to spouses of deceased veterans. These new exemptions and the resulting losses in tax revenues are reflected in the county’s equalized and taxable value, Patel said.

Patel noted that Washtenaw County’s gross tax revenue is further decreased from downtown development authorities (DDAs), local development finance authorities (LDFAs), tax increment finance authorities (TIFAs), brownfield redevelopment authorities, and obsolete property rehabilitation authorities (OPRAs). These are issues that commissioners should be aware of, Patel said.

Equalization Report: Board Discussion

Several commissioners thanked Patel and his staff for their work. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how the number of appeals granted this year (1,128) compared to last year. Patel replied that last year, more appeals were granted than this year – but in 2013, more appeals were sought as well.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the report gives separate equalized and taxable values for Willow Run and Ypsilanti public school systems. He wondered when the consolidation that took effect last year would be reflected in the equalization report. Patel indicated that the report will continue to list the districts separately for two more years, in case they split up again.

Smith also asked Patel if he could provide more historical information about the shift toward residential property, as a greater percentage of the total property in the county. “I think we need to be more aware of that shift that may be taking place, because it affects a lot of different policies in various ways,” Smith said.

Regarding that percentage, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked if there were an optimal balance to be struck, in Patel’s opinion. Patel replied that 72 units of government rely on the tax base. The only way to increase or decrease that base is through changes in market value, he said. Aside from market value, the base is decreased through legislative exemptions. “And when you reduce your tax base, somebody has to pick up the burden – that’s the bottom line for everybody,” Patel said.

In Washtenaw County, he said, there are 140,161 parcels. Of those, 4,509 parcels are tax-exempt, he noted. Every year, additional parcels go into this category. In 2014, 69 parcels were exempted, with a taxable value of $8.27 million. Those exemptions are issued by townships, cities, the county and other entities. Someone has to pick up the burden, Patel said, adding that “it’s not a small thing.” In addition, a portion of the taxes from certain properties are being captured by entities like DDAs, he noted. “It all adds up.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) referred to information that Patel had provided showing how property tax revenue would have increased if the state’s Headlee Act and Proposal were not in place.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

By way of background, the Headlee Amendment was approved by a voter referendum in 1978 as an amendment to the state constitution (Article IX, Sections 24-34). It limits the growth of property tax revenue by controlling how the maximum authorized millage rate is calculated. The maximum authorized millage rate is “rolled back” when taxable growth is greater than inflation. That limits the increase in tax revenue to the rate of inflation.

In 1994, Michigan voters approved Proposal A, a constitutional amendment that affected Article IX, Sections 3, 5, and 8. Designed to slow the increase of property taxes on individual parcels, it limits the increase in taxable value of each property to either the rate of inflation or 5% annually, whichever is less – even if the state equalized value (SEV) grows at a greater rate. When property is sold or transferred, the taxable value is reset – or “uncapped” – to the SEV.

Smith noted that during a strong economy, Proposal A didn’t have much effect. But when the economy turned down, Smith said “you saw this pretty dramatic skewing of what our revenue could have been from what it is.” In order to keep local governments whole, he said, legislative fixes are needed.

Patel noted that when the market value increases, it doesn’t mean that local governments will see that same growth in tax revenues. He pointed out that this year, equalized value for properties countywide grew 4.7%, but the increase in taxable value is only about 2%.

If Proposal A weren’t in place, the estimated tax revenue in 2014 would be about $87 million for the county’s general fund, Patel reported. Instead, it’s about $65 million.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the equalization report.

Police Services Contract

A two-year pricing proposal for contracts to provide police services to local municipalities was on the April 16 agenda for final authorization. Initial approval had been granted by the board on April 2, 2014.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton.

For 2016 and 2017, the police services unit (PSU) price will be $156,709 and $158,276, respectively. An initial vote had been taken on April 2, 2014.

By way of background, on July 6, 2011, commissioners had authorized the price that municipalities would pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The price in 2012 – $150,594 per “police services unit” – was unchanged from 2011, but has been rising in subsequent years by about 1% annually. The complex, politically-charged process of arriving at those figures in 2011 involved more than a year of discussion between the sheriff’s office, other county officials and leaders of local municipalities that contract for these services.

The board’s decision in 2011 was based on a recommendation from the police services steering committee. That same group recommended the next pricing changes as well, based on the cost of a police services unit (PSU). The PSU price for 2014 is $153,621. For 2015, the PSU price will be $155,157. In the following two years, the PSU price was proposed to be $156,709 in 2016 and $158,276 in 2017. The pricing for those two years was authorized by the board in its April 16 action.

Those figures are based on a 1% annual increase in direct costs to contracting municipalities. That rate of increase for PSUs is included in revenue projections for the county’s four-year budget, which the county board passed at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. The budget runs from 2014-2017, and includes revenue projections based on contracts for 79 PSUs.

According to a staff memo, there will be an addition to the 2016 and 2017 prices for in-car printer replacement, after the total cost of ownership is determined. The memo also notes that the pricing is based on salaries stipulated in current union contracts with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM). Those contracts run through 2014, and new contracts are currently being negotiated. The memo states that “no assumptions were made for salaries or fringes change in this cost metric in anticipation of any union negotiations.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The county – through the sheriff’s office budget – pays for the difference between the price charged for each PSU, and the actual cost to provide those services. In 2011, that difference was $25,514.

In 2016, the cost per PSU is expected to be $195,104 – a difference of $38,395 compared to the price being charged to municipalities. In 2017, the cost per PSU is estimated at $199,188 – a difference of $40,912. [.pdf of cost estimates]

Discussion during the April 2 meeting included concerns by some commissioners about the financial sustainability of this approach to funding police services, and the need for new revenue sources for public safety. Sheriff Jerry Clayton had been on hand to present the pricing proposal, and supported suggestions to seek new funding for public safety. He characterized the issue of public safety as one that encompasses economic development, human services and other aspects of the community.

There was no discussion on this item during the April 16 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to the police services contract price.

Thompson Block Brownfield

A resolution giving final approval to a brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town area was on the April 16 agenda. [.pdf of Thompson Block brownfield plan] Commissioners had granted initial approval on April 2, 2014.

This photo of the Sept. 23, 2009 fire on the Thompson Block property was included in the brownfield redevelopment plan packet.

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also would allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties.

Beal plans to create 16 “luxury lofts” in the structure’s second and third floors, and up to 14,000 square feet of commercial space in the remainder of the site. The project is estimated to cost about $7 million.

The resolution considered by the board also ends a previous brownfield plan for part of the same site, which was approved in 2008. A fire in 2009 delayed the project. The new plan now covers the 107 E. Cross, which was not part of the original plan, and includes public infrastructure improvements, such as streetscape enhancements along North River Street.

The Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority approved this plan at its March 6 meeting. Subsequently, the plan was approved by the Ypsilanti city council on March 18. The city council’s action included approving an “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, which freezes local millages at the current, pre-development level for 12 years. Because of that, the project’s TIF capture will apply only to the state’s school taxes.

The project can get up to $271,578 in eligible cost reimbursed over a 12-year period, for activities including brownfield plan and work plan preparation, limited building demolition, selective interior demolition, site preparation and utility work, infrastructure improvements, architectural and engineering design costs, asbestos and lead abatement, and construction oversight.

The intent of the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing is to support the redevelopment of urban sites that will increase the municipality’s tax base. Tax increment financing allows an entity to capture the difference between the taxable value before a project is undertaken, and the value of the property after it is developed.

A public hearing on this proposal was held at the April 2 meeting, when the board also voted to give initial approval to the plan. Only one person – Tyler Weston, representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke, telling the board that it would help the project.

Weston attended the April 16 meeting, but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to the Thompson Block brownfield redevelopment plan.

Accommodation Tax Distribution

A resolution to give initial approval to distribute proceeds from a countywide tax on hotels and other accommodations was on the April 16 agenda.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College.

For 2013, $472,846 was available for distribution. If the resolution is given final approval, the county will keep 10% ($47,285) to pay for enforcement of the accommodation ordinance. The remainder will be divided between the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($319,171) and the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau ($106,390).

A final vote on that distribution is expected on May 7.

The county collects the 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, and bed & breakfasts, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. The contract calls for the county to retain 10% of that tax to defray the cost of collection and enforcement. (Until 2009, the county had only retained 5% for this purpose.) The remaining funds are split, with 75% going to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and 25% going to the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau.

In December 2009, the board approved five-year contracts with the CVBs, outlining the distribution arrangement and creating an accommodation ordinance commission to oversee the process. An amendment made in September 2011 addressed the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county retained 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

Subsequently an ordinance change was made in October 2012, when the board voted to shift responsibility for collecting and enforcing accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director. The ordinance amendment transferred a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amended the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room.

Accommodation Tax Distribution: Public Commentary

The specific resolution was not addressed directly during public commentary. But Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College, and Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, attended the meeting to highlight the union training programs that will be coming to the area this summer. The CVBs have been instrumental in recruiting these kinds of events to Washtenaw County.

The United Association (UA) is coming in August, marking the 25th year that UA training has been held at WCC, Morgan said. The ironworkers union will also be training at WCC for the fifth year. The National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) National Training Institute for electricians is coming in July.

Morgan said he and Kerr wanted to make sure that the unions know they are appreciated by Washtenaw County and by WCC.

Kerr noted that the NJATC is celebrating its 25th year as a training program, so that milestone – along with the UA anniversary – will be bringing hundreds of additional people to this area. Collectively, the economic impact from these union training programs is $12 million annually in Washtenaw County, she said. That amount includes money spent on hotels, restaurants, entertainment, retail and transportation. “They do have a significant economic impact on the community,” Kerr said. “Our goal is to keep them here. Our goal is to roll out the red carpet and make this not only an educational opportunity for them, but also an entertaining and relaxing one as well.”

Accommodation Tax Distribution: Board Discussion

Several commissioners thanked Morgan and Kerr, and said they supported the economic vitality that unions bring to this community. Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised the work of the AACVB, saying that the county had an excellent partnership with them. He requested that Kerr return in the future to talk about the full range of activities that the CVB does. He wanted people to know that sometimes the government works well with the private sector. [.pdf of 2013 AACVB annual report]

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the accommodation tax distribution. Commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) were out of the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 7.

Urban County Action Plan

The 2014 Urban County action plan was on the April 16 agenda for initial approval. The plan covers the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 and outlines how the Urban County consortium intends to spend federal funding received from the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). [.pdf of draft action plan]

Map of Urban County participants.

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects. For the upcoming year, the Urban County will be receiving $2.914 million, including $1.832 million from CDBG and $925,308 from HOME. That represents a 5% decrease in CDBG compared to the current year, and a 2% increase in HOME funding.

The 2014 plan identifies six overarching goals: (1) increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities; (2) increasing quality, affordable rental housing; (3) improving public facilities and infrastructure; (4) promoting access to public services and resources; (5) supporting homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing services; and (6) enhancing economic development activities.

A public hearing on the 2014 plan was previously held on March 19, 2014. A final vote on the plan is expected on May 7.

Urban County Action Plan: Board Discussion

Discussion was brief. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) noted that there was almost a $90,000 decrease in CDBG funding. She asked what that decrease means in terms of the county’s ability to provide services.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, replied that the decrease is “better than we feared.” The staff had been anticipating more of a 7% cut, so a 5% decrease was good news. The $90,000 in cuts won’t affect just one program, she said. So it will result in either fewer projects or scaled-down projects.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Urban County action plan. Commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) were out of the room when the vote was taken. A final vote is expected on May 7.

Bond Re-Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final authorization to the re-funding of up to $16.5 million in outstanding capital improvement bonds, which were originally issued in 2006 to fund expansion of the county jail. Initial approval had been given at the board’s April 2, 2014 meeting.

According to a staff memo, $16.9 million in principal remains of the original $21.675 million bond sale. The county’s bond counsel, Axe & Ecklund, is advising the re-funding because of lower interest rates, and estimates a net savings of about $869,000 over life of the bond issue. The new issue would be called “County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2014.” [.pdf of refunding resolution]

At the board’s April 2 meeting, bond counsel John Axe had told the board that current interest rates are between 4% and 4.3%. He estimated that the re-funding interest rates would be between 2.2% and 3.8%.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the bond re-funding proposal.

Honoring Eugene Glysson

Commissioners held a moment of silence for Dr. Eugene Glysson, who had served on the county’s board of public works (BPW) since 1986. He died on April 2. They later passed a resolution of appreciation for his service to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of resolution for Eugene Glysson]

Ned Glysson, son of Eugene Glysson.

Glysson had served as chair of the BPW since 1996, and was considered an expert in solid waste management and planning. He also was a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Michigan.

The resolution noted several of Glysson’s accomplishments, including his leadership in reviewing and approving an agreement with Washtenaw County’s only active landfill “that has provided long term support for the County’s solid waste program including its household hazardous waste program that has removed tons of hazardous materials from the environment…”

Glysson’s son, Ned Glysson, was on hand to accept the resolution, saying it would have meant a lot to his father. He noted that his father refused to retire from the BPW, and about a month ago he had attended a meeting “and was incredibly rejuvenated by it.” It had given his father something to live for.

Evan Pratt, who as the county’s water resources commissioner also serves as director of public works, said Glysson had been a good chair. Commissioner Yousef Rabhi, who served on the BPW for almost four years, recalled that in the early days he’d been late to a few meetings, and Glysson hadn’t been happy about that. “He told me I wouldn’t be late anymore, and I wasn’t,” Rabhi quipped. Rabhi called Glysson a mentor to him and a great environmental leader.

Rabhi noted that a new member will need to be appointed to the BPW, so he’ll be seeking applicants for that.

Telecommunicator Week

The board passed a resolution declaring April 13-19 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of board resolution]

From right: Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency services; commissioner Yousef Rabhi; and Dave Halteman, manager of the county’s dispatch operations.

Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency services, was on hand to receive the resolution. He noted that six or seven dispatchers were working that night just a few blocks away.

Breckenridge introduced Dave Halteman, saying he’s worked with the county for 22 years, starting as a 911 dispatcher. In the mid-1990s, Halteman was promoted to lead the countywide 911 effort. Most recently, Halteman was involved in co-locating and integrating dispatch operations in Washtenaw County.

This month, Halteman was promoted to be manager of the county’s dispatch operations, Breckenridge said.

Halteman thanked the board, saying that the job of dispatcher is very difficult and requires the ability to multi-task.

Communications & Commentary

During the April 16 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Emergency Sirens

Speaking during public commentary, James Richardson of Scio Township told commissioners that there’s a potential life-threatening danger – a new emergency siren that was installed at the edge of his pasture.

James Richardson of Scio Township.

When the county approved the expansion of emergency sirens into the townships, he said, they probably viewed it as an improvement in public safety. But they might not have considered the resulting unintended danger. When he first learned that the siren would be installed, he expressed concern that it would bother his horses. He eventually spoke with Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency services, who assured him that studies show that livestock get used to these types of sounds. “I can assure you that these experts haven’t seen horses very near a siren,” Richardson said.

On Saturday, April 5 at noon, the sirens went off for the first time that he was aware of, Richardson said. He happened to be watching his horses, who reared and bolted, running wildly through the pasture. If someone had been riding a horse at that time or even standing near them, it could have caused serious injury and possibly death, he said. If the horses had been near the north end of the pasture, they might have bolted through the fence and onto Liberty Road.

Richardson said he was appealing to the board to have the siren removed from this location. He doubted that his horses would get used to the sound, especially since the sirens are only tested once a month for 1-2 minutes. “I’m notifying you of this danger, and also notifying you that if you fail to act, the board and the county will assume full responsibility for all and any of the resulting damage or injury to my horses, to my property, or any personal injury resulting from the dangerous situation that the emergency siren creates.”

Commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) urged Breckenridge to explore how the county can protect the interests of landowners as well as public safety. Sometimes those things come into conflict, he added, but it’s worth having a conversation to explore the options. Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he’d like to ensure that someone in the county administration follow up on this issue.

Communications & Commentary: Budget

Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) described the process for this year’s budget affirmation. Although the board passed a four-year budget in late 2013 – for the period of 2014 through 2017 – they also need to vote each year to reaffirm the next year’s budget, with any changes they might make.

Commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) talks with Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

As a first step, Brabec said, commissioners authorized the county administrator to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. That authorization took place at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting. That person will help the board work on aligning the budget to support community outcomes that commissioners had identified.

By way of additional background, as part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help it determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved. The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

On April 16, Peterson asked whether there could be a working session to review the goals and outcomes, saying that some things might have changed since those goals were adopted. Brabec replied that those kinds of discussions are being planned. Because of frequent low attendance at working sessions, she wondered whether it might be better for the discussion to occur at a ways & means committee meeting. “The discussion will happen,” she said. “We just need to find the best way for those discussions to happen.”

Communications & Commentary: MPRI

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about the need to support the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (MPRI), calling it an unfunded mandate from the state. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed that it was an issue the board needs to tackle. Rabhi noted that he serves on the board of the Religious Action for Affordable Housing (RAAH), which has made the Washtenaw County prisoner re-entry program one of its three top priorities. He thought the county should prioritize it too.

Peterson said he wanted a working session on the topic, including a discussion about how the county allocates its dollars for human services programs in relationship to the coordinated funding approach. “It’s not about stopping coordinated funding,” he said. “It’s about how we address the unmet needs of this community.”

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be glad to schedule a session on this topic. He noted that this year, the working sessions had not yet achieved 100% attendance. So he hoped commissioners would attend.

The following week, on April 22, LaBarre emailed commissioners an updated schedule of the next six working sessions:

• May 8: MSU Extension update; and follow-up on road commission expansion
• May 22: Community Health Improvement Plan report; and report on homelessness in Washtenaw County task force
• June 5: Report on Virtual Business Advisor initiative
• July 10: Dog licensing public awareness campaign; and Mental Health Court update
• August 7: ID task force report
• September 4: Prisoner reentry (MPRI)

Communications & Commentary: Smoking

During the time on the agenda to bring up items for current or future discussion, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) pointed out that earlier this year, she’d raised the issue of possibly requiring that new hires be tested to make sure they’re nicotine-free. It’s a policy that’s trending in the private sector, Ping noted, and she’d like to have a broader discussion about it. “It’s an expensive liability to take on people who are purposefully are not contributing to their good health,” Ping said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that staff are looking at a range of wellness issues, including that one.

Communications & Commentary: Homelessness

Elizabeth Kurtz spoke about the Delonis Center homeless shelter’s warming center. She thanked the board for funding an extension of the warming center until April 30. If it had closed on April 6 as previously planned, she said, a lot of people would have been outside during cold weather. She told commissioners that she’s lived on the streets for over a year, and based on the needs that she sees, she’s been working with others to end homelessness.

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

They’ve formed an organization called “Our 2020 Vision,” and are seeking support from local governments and private entities to help end homelessness by the end of this decade. The urgency of this issue will no longer allow it to be placed on the back burner, Kurtz said. Specifically, she called on commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) to help acquire the vacant East Middle School in Ypsilanti for use in this effort, and asked other commissioners to help as well.

Ray Gholston also thanked commissioners for helping extend the warming center through April. The county had provided $35,000 to keep it open, he noted, but he questioned why it would cost so much “just to throw a few mats on the lunchroom floor, say goodnight and turn off the lights.” He said he still has a job and is still trying to figure out where he’ll sleep after this month. He’s part of the Our 2020 Vision effort, calling it a human rights organization that’s focused on the homeless population. The group is requesting a meeting with some or all commissioners, to help deal with the crisis.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked advocates for the homeless for coming to the meeting, and said he looked forward to the board’s May 7 meeting when a timeline would be presented for addressing an update to the Blueprint to End Homelessness. [At its April 2, 2014 meeting, commissioners had directed county administrator Verna McDaniel to bring forward a plan by May 7 for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was originally adopted in 2004. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014. For board discussion on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Homeless Issues Emerge on County Agenda."]

Communications & Commentary: US-23

Yousef Rabhi noted that an environmental assessment is being conducted for MDOT’s proposed expansion of US-23 near Ann Arbor. MDOT is seeking public input, and Rabhi said he intended to express his opposition to the project because of environmental concerns. It would be expanded from M-14 to just north of 8 Mile Road near Whitmore Lake. He encouraged others to provide input as well.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Several University of Michigan students spoke during public commentary. As a class project, they’re working on an initiative to reduce the use of plastic bags in Washtenaw County.

University of Michigan students spoke during public commentary.

Their proposal is based on a model used in Washington D.C. that includes imposing a small usage fee on single-use plastic bags. The goal is to nudge consumers to be more aware of their consumption choices. They’ve spoken with commissioner Yousef Rabhi to explore their options. To gauge possible support, they’ve started a petition on MoveOn.org and have reached out to community groups like Recycle Ann Arbor and the Huron River Watershed Council, as well as student groups at UM, Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College.

Lefiest Galimore touched on several issues during public commentary. As he has in the past, Galimore argued that the coordinated funding approach tends to prevent African-American organizations from getting funded. If his small organization is given $1,500 and a larger organization is given $35,000, then that larger organization will have more capacity to do its work, he said. So the county needs to look at that. Galimore also said that people with mental illness who get involved in the criminal justice system get labeled as criminals, and it’s then impossible for them to get productive jobs. “We need to look at that as a community.”

Thomas Partridge told commissioners that the agenda needed to give more attention to greater priorities, including efforts to eliminate homelessness by providing true affordable housing and countywide public transportation. He supported the transit tax that’s on the May 6 ballot in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

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, May 7, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

For 2016 and 2017, the police services unit (PSU) price will be  $156,709 and  $158,276, respectively. An initial vote had been taken on April 2, 2014.

By way of background, on July 6, 2011, commissioners had authorized the price that municipalities would pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The price in 2012 – $150,594 per “police services unit” – was unchanged from 2011, but has been rising in subsequent years by about 1% annually. The complex, politically-charged process of arriving at those figures in 2011 involved more than a year of discussion between the sheriff’s office, other county officials and leaders of local municipalities that contract for these services.

The board’s decision in 2011 was based on a recommendation from the police services steering committee. That same group recommended the next pricing changes as well, based on the cost of a police services unit (PSU). The PSU price for 2014 is $153,621. For 2015, the PSU price will be $155,157. In the following two years, the PSU price was proposed to be $156,709 in 2016 and $158,276 in 2017. The pricing for those two years was authorized by the board in its April 16 action.

Those figures are based on a 1% annual increase in direct costs to contracting municipalities. That rate of increase for PSUs is included in revenue projections for the county’s four-year budget, which the county board passed at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. The budget runs from 2014-2017, and includes revenue projections based on contracts for 79 PSUs.

According to a staff memo, there will be an addition to the 2016 and 2017 prices for in-car printer replacement, after the total cost of ownership is determined. The memo also notes that the pricing is based on salaries stipulated in current union contracts with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM). Those contracts run through 2014, and new contracts are currently being negotiated. The memo states that ”no assumptions were made for salaries or fringes change in this cost metric in anticipation of any union negotiations.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The county – through the sheriff’s office budget – pays for the difference between the price charged for each PSU, and the actual cost to provide those services. In 2011, that difference was $25,514.

In 2016, the cost per PSU is expected to be $195,104 – a difference of $38,395 compared to the price being charged to municipalities. In 2017, the cost per PSU is estimated at $199,188 – a difference of $40,912. [.pdf of cost estimates]

Discussion during the April 2 meeting included concerns by some commissioners about the financial sustainability of this approach to funding police services, and the need for new revenue sources for public safety. Sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand to present the pricing proposal, and supported suggestions to seek new funding for public safety. As he’s done in the past, Clayton characterized the issue of public safety as one that encompasses economic development, human services and other aspects of the community.

There was no discussion on this item during the April 16 meeting.

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, talked with an advocate from the homeless community before the April 2 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The board ultimately voted to direct county administrator Verna McDaniel to work with community partners to address immediate needs of the homeless. In general, McDaniel has budgetary discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. Later in the week, she allocated $35,000 to the Delonis Center – which is run by the nonprofit Shelter Association of Washtenaw County – to keep its nighttime warming center open through April 30. The warming center had originally been slated to close for the season on April 6.

The resolution also directed the administration to develop a plan by May 7 for updating the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was adopted in 2004 but appears to be dormant. The process of updating that plan is to be completed by Oct. 1, 2014.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) had initially suggested allocating $40,000 to the shelter to keep the warming center open another month. Other commissioners had concerns about throwing money at the shelter without any input from shelter staff, and without knowing specifically how the money would be used. Because the item hadn’t been included on the agenda, representatives from the shelter staff didn’t attend the meeting.

Some commissioners thought there should be a strategic plan in place before any additional funding is given – and they seemed to assume that such a plan doesn’t already exist. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, noted that the city of Ann Arbor and several other entities are working on this issue, in partnership with the Shelter Association. The board had received a briefing from the association’s executive director, Ellen Schulmeister, at their Feb. 6, 2014 working session.

The vote on the resolution was 6-2, over dissent from Republicans Dan Smith (District 2) and Alicia Ping (District 3), who both objected to the process. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dan Smith called it “completely and entirely inappropriate” to be making policy and budgetary decisions on the fly, in response to a few people who showed up to speak during public commentary. He supported updating the Blueprint to End Homelessness, but thought it was a discussion that should take place at a working session before taking action at a regular board meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) responded by saying that commissioners are elected to work for the people. When people come to the board, it’s important to address their concerns in a serious manner, he said.

Because of the length of the meeting, some men who were staying at the shelter missed the 9:30 p.m. curfew. Typically, anyone showing up after that time isn’t allowed inside. Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, contacted the shelter staff and made arrangements for the men to be accommodated.

In other action, commissioners gave initial approval to a two-year pricing proposal – for 2016 and 2017 – to provide police services to local municipalities through contracts with the county sheriff’s office. Some commissioners expressed concern about the financial sustainability of this approach to funding police services, and cited the need for new revenue sources for public safety. Sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand to present the pricing proposal, and supported suggestions to seek a new funding source. As he’s done in the past, Clayton characterized the issue of public safety as one that encompasses economic development, human services and other aspects of the community.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to a new brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town, and took final action to add autism coverage to the health care benefits for employees. They postponed action on a resolution related to the county road commission until May 7, following an April 17 working session that will focus on that issue. The board also was briefed on the 2013 audit and comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), and received an award for financial reporting from the national Government Finance Officers Association.

During communications, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that the review of applications is underway for the current cycle of coordinated funding, a partnership to fund social service agencies that involves the county, city of Ann Arbor, and several other entities. For this cycle, 105 applications were received, representing $8.7 million in requests. The amount of available funding this year from all partners is $4.4 million. “So it’s a difficult, difficult process,” she said. Funding recommendations will be brought to the board in May.

On April 2, the board also honored five local businesses and institutions with “healthy workplace” awards, and recognized the Ann Arbor Community Center for 91 years of service.

Funds for Homeless Shelter

This year, the issue of homelessness has been highlighted during public commentary at several county board meetings. That was again true on April 2.

Washtenaw County owns the Delonis Center building at 312 W. Huron in Ann Arbor, but does not operate the shelter. Operations are handled by the nonprofit Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, led by executive director Ellen Schulmeister. Schulmeister had briefed commissioners about services for the homeless at their Feb. 6, 2014 working session. Her briefing had come in response to advocacy from several homeless advocates at the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioners had also discussed the need to do more.

The county budget included $51,230 for the Delonis Center in 2013 and that amount was increased to $160,000 this year as part of the regular budget approval process late last year. The county funding is set to increase again to $200,000 in 2015 and remain at that level through 2017. The Shelter Association’s annual budget is $2.583 million.

The Delonis Center was built to house 50 beds, but there have been 75 beds since 2009. In addition, the Delonis Center operates a warming center in its dining room, for a maximum of 65 people – although during the harshest weather, more are accommodated. The warming center is open from mid-November through April 6. There is no drug testing, but people are given a breathalyzer test and are not admitted into the shelter if their blood alcohol level is over .10 – above the legal intoxication level of .08.

Funds for Homeless Shelter: Public Commentary

Several people spoke to advocate for the homeless at the April 2 meeting. Diane Chapman noted that the warming center would be closing on April 6, and she wasn’t sure the weather was good enough for that to happen yet. She said she personally has had to rescue people to prevent them from freezing, so she was asking commissioners to help. It’s not a good thing to put people on the street right now.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) talks with advocates for the homeless during a break in the April 2 county board meeting.

Ray Gholston introduced himself as a resident of the Delonis warming center. He said he was outraged at the planned closing of the warming center on April 6. “This is a potential crisis,” he said, which would result in dozens of people put out onto the streets, and some could possibly die because of exposure to the elements. Basic shelter is not just a right for the privileged few, he said. It is a human right for everyone. Even prisoners of war get food, clothing and shelter, he noted – the United Nations mandates it. How much money does it take to roll out a cot and give a man a blanket? he asked. There are animal shelters, and if dogs and cats were on the street, there would be outrage and anger, he said. Some people on the streets are U.S. veterans who’ve served honorably, he said – look at how they’re being repaid.

Gholston told commissioners that he has a full-time job. “I’m not some bum. I work for a living,” he said, but he can’t afford to rent an apartment in Ann Arbor. How is he supposed to keep up his appearance and hygiene for his job, if he has to sleep on the streets? If the warming center is closed, people will be sleeping on private property, he said, and urinating and defecating in the streets. “This is a shame,” he said. America isn’t a third-world nation, but it could turn into one. He requested that the board do anything in its power to extend the availability of the warming center. He hoped they’d use their humanity to do the right thing.

Elizabeth Kurtz reminded commissioners that a group of people had approached the county board in January about issues related to the warming center. [She was referring to the Jan. 22, 2014 meeting.] As a result, she said, some people from the warming center met with commissioner and board chair Yousef Rabhi; county administrator Verna McDaniel; Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development; and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. During the meeting, Kurtz said, everyone agreed that there would be continuing dialogue about improving the warming center and addressing homelessness issues. At no point, no human being should be forced to sleep outside in the elements, she said.

Kurtz felt that the board had ignored these issues and had not given them the attention they deserve. She said the homeless community won’t rest until they have access to the human rights they’re entitled to. She read a statement that urged the board to force the Delonis Center to keep the warming center open, or to make other accommodations for people who are using it, such as hotel rooms or temporary trailers. The statement also referred to Kurtz herself, stating that she was “kicked out of the warming center for a non-criminal offense” and asking that she be allowed to return.

Christopher Ellis said he didn’t want to cast aspersions on the shelter. The staff does a humane job, and without it he wouldn’t have survived the winter. But he questioned the morality of closing the warming center on April 6. It should be looked at, he said.

Funds for Homeless Shelter: Board Discussion

Responding to the public commentary, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the advocates for the homeless, and said he felt he’d had a lot of opportunities to talk with them about these issues. He thought he’d been open and honest with them about the barriers. He agreed that the community needs to care for everyone, but it’s important to realize that this is part of a broader picture that includes affordable housing and resources to find jobs. He hoped that the tax base problems caused by the down economy would be turning around, but there haven’t been as many resources to address the issue because of that.

The Delonis Center is a great partner, Rabhi said, in leveraging county tax dollars with private funding and other sources. It’s a complex issue with many moving parts, he said, which includes wage disparity and access to economic opportunity.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked to amend the April 2 agenda so that the board could formally discuss the issues that had been raised.

Because this issue had not originally been on the agenda, no one from the Delonis Center was on hand to answer questions. So later in the meeting, Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development – was asked to provide some context. Callan reminded commissioners that the former shelter, which was demolished several years ago, was an 80-bed facility. The current shelter was originally recommended to be 200 beds, but ultimately was built with 50 beds and opened in 2003. More beds were added later, bringing the total to about 75 beds.

The Shelter Association also has a rotating shelter of 25 beds that’s housed by local religious groups. There’s also a warming center, which began with just chairs set up in a room for about 50 people. In 2009, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority purchased bedding for the center, so that clients could sleep in the floor, Callan said.

This winter, there’s been an increase in the number of people seeking services from the shelter – some nights, as many as 80 people. The warming center and the rotating shelter operate from November 18 through April 6, Callan said. The intent is that during the harshest winter months, people are provided with safety and warmth.

There are about 4,500 homeless people in Washtenaw County, Callan reported. There’s a growing lack of affordable housing, both locally and nationwide. She noted that the Urban Institute recently issued a report indicating that for every 100 people in Washtenaw County who are earning 30% or less than the area median income, there are 18 units of affordable housing.

Callan said Schulmeister wasn’t able to rush to the April 2 meeting when this issue arose, but she’s very interested in the board’s discussion. Although the Shelter Association tries to be as responsive as possible, Callan added, as a single nonprofit, it’s difficult to address homelessness in the entire community.

Noting that the cold weather isn’t over yet, Conan Smith said he didn’t want to wait two weeks to make funding available for what might be an emergency situation. “You know me – I’m not a throw-the-money-at-a-problem kind of person,” he said, adding that he wants to understand the root cause and what’s at play. But this is a situation that might need the county to throw money at the problem in the short term, Smith said.

The county doesn’t have the capacity for a year-round warming center, Smith added, but he hoped there was a way to address the next several weeks, until the weather warms up. He also wanted to know what resources are needed for longer-term solutions.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Rabhi replied that the board needs to be respectful of the Shelter Association as an organization. It’s a separate nonprofit, and receives money from other sources, not just the county. So any solutions should be developed in conjunction with them, he said. For him, the closure of the warming center was a new issue, Rabhi added – he hadn’t realized until recently it was closing on April 6. There needs to be a long-term strategy, he said, because this would arise again in future years. But he acknowledged that there’s a spectrum of need, including short-term problems.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who serves on the sustainable revenues for supportive housing services task force that was created in 2007, reported that the task force is looking at long-term solutions, including a potential millage and an endowment.

Conan Smith then put forward a proposal to allocate $40,000 as emergency funding to the shelter for an additional month. His rationale was based on his recollection that Schulmeister had said it cost about $10,000 a week to operate the warming center.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he hoped commissioners would keep this discussion in mind as the county moves forward with the disposition of the Platt Road property. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he reported that the issue of homelessness would be a topic for the first working session in May.

LaBarre clarified with Callan that from November 18 through April 6, a nighttime warming center was open. During the day, it opens up if temperatures are 10 degrees or colder. Responding to another query from LaBarre, Callan said the other major public funders for the shelter are the city of Ann Arbor and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

Callan told commissioners that the shelter staff are interested in being as flexible as possible. “I also want you all to know that the shelter staff has been working overtime literally for months,” she said. It’s a very complex, crowded, difficult place to be. So the feasibility of keeping it open would depend on whether it’s tenable from the staff’s perspective, she said. It’s been a very difficult season for everyone, Callan added – both the people who need services, and the people who provide those services.

Rabhi wondered if extending the warming center for a month would actually address the issues that have been raised. April 30 is an arbitrary end date, too, he noted. That’s a struggle for him.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked what the $40,000 would be used for. Is it for operations? Conan Smith said he was responding to the request for keeping the warming center open past April 6. Ping responded, saying that this is a bigger issue than just the next few weeks. She pointed out that the 10-day forecast called for temperatures in the 50s. “I don’t know that this is the right use of our money to keep the warming shelter open when clearly it is warming up.”

Ping also noted that the county isn’t in charge of the shelter. The county could provide funding, but the shelter can do anything it wants with that. Smith pointed out that the county owns the Delonis Center building.

Brabec noted that even though highs are forecast in the 50s, the lows will still be in the 30s. It highlights the struggle of needing to address short-term needs while also looking for long-term solutions. The $40,000 might help address the short-term need for residents, she said. It can run on parallel tracks.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wouldn’t support spending money unless there was also a long-term strategy in place before then, involving other partners who should also make an investment. Callan replied that more communications and connections could be made, but there’s also a lot happening regarding emergency shelter, rapid re-housing, supportive housing, and affordable housing. She suggested scheduling another working session on these issues.

People in the shelter are being housed, Callan said, “but that is an uphill battle.” Social equity and a dearth of affordable housing are issues in this community, she said, as is a lack of living-wage employment. “The most basic social service is a job,” she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Rabhi agreed that the broader discussion needs to include the issue of a living wage. He noted that earlier in the day, President Barack Obama had talked about the need to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10. Even at that, Rabhi noted, people wouldn’t necessarily be able to afford housing in Ann Arbor, but it’s a good step. He planned to bring a resolution to the April 16 meeting in support of raising the minimum wage.

Rabhi also talked about the need to include regional partners, including other county governments in southeast Michigan.

Conan Smith said he didn’t expect the conversation to end when the warming center closes, but he hoped to provide funding to give people the flexibility of addressing short-term needs. He didn’t want to be inactive, when people had asked for a response.

Brabec suggested directing the county administrator to work with regional partners and return to the board with a plan, including both emergency shelter and also a longer-term strategy. Smith cautioned against spending $40,000 so that people earning $70,000 or more could come up with a plan, saying he trusted the county administrator not to do that. He wanted the $40,000 to directly help people who are homeless.

Ping opposed allocating any dollar amount, but noted that county administrator Verna McDaniel already has discretion to allocate funding if she chose to – up to $100,000.

C. Smith then made a formal motion – a resolution directing the county administrator to work with regional partners to address short-term sheltering issues and to bring a plan back to the board for longer-term housing issues by no later than May 21. LaBarre proposed amending the motion to replace “housing” with “shelter.”

Rabhi noted that the board is asking staff to come up with a solution “to a problem that we have not been able to solve in the history of mankind.” He hoped that the goal for the proposed resolution is to tell commissioners what tools are available to move forward, and to put the issue in context. McDaniel replied that it wouldn’t be possible to find a solution, but it would be realistic to propose a strategy.

Noting that the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness was created in 2004, Rabhi recommended that the board dedicate 2014 to updating that blueprint and making it relevant for today. It could be another 10-year plan with a strategy for moving forward. He suggested asking staff to develop that by the fall, while addressing short-term needs in the meantime.

Rabhi then proposed a substitute resolution:

Resolved that the Board of Commissioners directs the Administrator to work with the County’s Community Partners to address the short term needs of the homeless in Washtenaw County;

Be it Further Resolved that the Administrator develop a plan for the Board of Commissioners to engage in a comprehensive update to the Blueprint to End Homelessness;

Be it Further Resolved that this strategic plan be presented no later than May 7, 2014, the strategic plan shall include a context of the last decade’s investments in housing and homelessness in Washtenaw County, a current picture of where the county is at today and a strategy for updating the plan over the course of 2014;

Be it Further Resolved that the Board of Commissioners will conclude this process by October 1, 2014.

Conan Smith withdrew his resolution, and LaBarre withdrew his proposed amendment to Smith’s resolution.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) criticized the approach, calling it “totally inappropriate.” April 6 has been looming for months, and the county has been doing a lot of work on this issue for a long time, he noted. “To make public policy based on the number of people who show up and speak at the podium is entirely inappropriate.” There are other agenda items, and staff and members of the public had been waiting over three hours for the board to conduct its business, he observed. And yet, the board takes something that’s not on the agenda and spends 90 minutes discussing it, then coming up with a proposal “on the fly.”

D. Smith said he had no problem taking up this issue in the future, including updating the Blueprint to End Homelessness. It’s also an appropriate topic for a working session, he said. But Smith said he wouldn’t support this resolution.

Rabhi replied that the board works for the people of Washtenaw County, and when people come forward with a concern, it’s important to address it in a serious manner. “That’s what we owe to the citizens who elected us to serve on this board,” Rabhi said.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Funds for Homeless Shelter: Coda

Later in the week, McDaniel allocated $35,000 to the Delonis Center, which has agreed to keep the warming center open through April 30. The funding will come from the county’s unearmarked reserves.

Road Commission

The April agenda included a resolution regarding the county road commission. The resolution, if passed, would leave the county road commission as an independent entity. The resolution also states that the county board does not support making the road commission’s board an elected body. [.pdf of board resolution]

The resolution is in line with recommendations of a board subcommittee that was appointed in October of 2013 to look at the future of the road commission. At its final meeting on March 1, 2014, the subcommittee voted to recommend that the road commission remain an independent operation, and not be absorbed into the county government.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

That subcommittee vote came over dissent from Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), who argued that consolidating the road commission into the county would allow for more flexibility and accountability in oversight. Currently, the road commission is overseen by a board with three members appointed by the county board of commissioners to six-year terms. Smith thought that asking voters to approve a countywide road millage – when the revenues aren’t allocated by an elected body – would be a tough sell. It would be especially tough to sell to voters in the city of Ann Arbor, who already pay a millage for street maintenance within the city.

But others on the subcommittee were in line with the strong support from township officials for keeping the road commission independent. Most township boards in the county have passed resolutions supporting the current structure, citing their strong relationships with the road commission staff and board.

The subcommittee did not make any recommendations on whether to expand the road commission from three to five members. The three county commissioners who served on the subcommittee – Conan Smith, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – had agreed that the question of expansion was primarily a political one, and should be taken up by the county board. Subcommittee members indicated that they’d be willing to discuss it further, if directed to do so by the county board.

Regarding the question of whether road commissioners should be elected positions, the subcommittee unanimously passed a resolution recommending not to pursue that option. The sense was that elections would be dominated by urban voters who are heavily Democratic, but who would be electing commissioners to oversee road projects in rural communities.

The three current road commissioners are Doug Fuller, Barbara Fuller, and Bill McFarlane, who was appointed by the county board at its March 19, 2014 meeting. At that time, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) voiced support for expanding the road commission board to five members.

These issues come in the context of a state law that opened the door to possible consolidation of the road commission into the county. In 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted amendments to Section 46.11 of Public Act 156 of 1851, which allows for county boards of commissioners to transfer the powers of the road commission to the county board. There’s a sunset to that section of the law, however. Unless extended by the legislature, it will expire at the end of 2014.

At the April 2 meeting, Conan Smith (D-District 9) moved to postpone the item until the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting. It’s the first board meeting that follows an April 17 working session, when issues related to the road commission will be discussed.

Outcome: On a voice vote, commissioners voted to postpone the road commission item until May 7. Dissenting was Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Thompson Block Brownfield Plan

A brownfield redevelopment plan for the Thompson Block in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town area was on the agenda for an initial vote. [.pdf of Thompson Block brownfield plan]

Fred Beal, president of JC Beal Construction Inc. and co-founder of Beal Properties LLC.

The plan covers 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St., an historic property that has been declared ”functionally obsolete and blighted.” That qualifies the project as a brownfield under the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing act (Public Act 381), which allows the owner to receive reimbursements for eligible activities through tax increment financing (TIF). Approval also will allow the developer to apply for Michigan Business Tax Credits. The property is currently owned by Thompson Block Partners LLC, led by Stewart Beal of Beal Properties. Beal’s father, Fred Beal, attended the April 2 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Beal plans to create 16 “luxury lofts” in the structure’s second and third floors, and up to 14,000 square feet of commercial space in the remainder of the site. The project is estimated to cost about $7 million.

The resolution on the April 2 agenda also would end a previous brownfield plan for part of the same site, which was approved in 2008. A fire in 2009 delayed the project. The new plan now covers the 107 E. Cross, which was not part of the original plan, and includes public infrastructure improvements, such as streetscape enhancements along North River Street.

The Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority approved this plan at its March 6 meeting. Subsequently, the plan was approved by the Ypsilanti city council on March 18. The city council’s action included approving an “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, which freezes local millages at the current, pre-development level for 12 years. Because of that, the project’s TIF capture will apply only to the state’s school taxes.

The project can get up to $271,578 in eligible cost reimbursed over a 12-year period, for activities including brownfield plan and work plan preparation, limited building demolition, selective interior demolition, site preparation and utility work, infrastructure improvements, architectural and engineering design costs, asbestos and lead abatement, and construction oversight.

The intent of the state’s brownfield redevelopment financing is to support the redevelopment of urban sites that will increase the municipality’s tax base. Tax increment financing allows an entity to capture the difference between the taxable value before a project is undertaken, and the value of the property after it’s developed.

A public hearing on this proposal was also held at the April 2 meeting. Only one person – Tyler Weston, a real estate agent representing Thompson Block Partners – spoke briefly, telling the board that the financing would help the project.

Thompson Block Brownfield Plan: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) praised the project, saying it’s an example of Beal’s commitment to the community. It’s in the heart of Depot Town and has had a lot of challenges, he noted. Rabhi serves on the county’s brownfield redevelopment authority board, which had recommended approval of this proposal.

Responding to a query from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Nathan Voght of the county’s office of community & economic development explained that the brownfield is the only TIF legislation that doesn’t allow for an opt-out – every taxing entity participates equally. But in this case, because of the “Obsolete Properties Rehabilitation” certificate, local millages will be frozen for up to 12 years, so there won’t be any increment available for TIF financing – with the exception of the state’s school taxes.

Brabec also asked about the differences between this proposal and the one approved in 2008. Voght noted that the 2009 fire damaged the entire structure, so the need for demolition changed. The overall eligible costs decreased from about $307,000 to about $271,000.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the brownfield plan. A final vote is expected on April 16.

Police Services Contract

A two-year pricing proposal for contracts to provide police services to local municipalities was on the April 2 agenda for initial authorization from the county board.

From left: Sheriff Jerry Clayton and Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management.

On July 6, 2011, commissioners had authorized the price that municipalities would pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The price in 2012 – $150,594 per “police services unit” – was unchanged from 2011, but has been rising in subsequent years by about 1% annually. The complex, politically-charged process of arriving at those figures in 2011 involved more than a year of discussion between the sheriff’s office, other county officials and leaders of local municipalities that contract for these services.

The board’s decision in 2011 was based on a recommendation from the police services steering committee. That same group is recommending the next pricing changes as well, based on the cost of a police services unit (PSU). The PSU price for 2014 is $153,621. For 2015, the PSU price will be $155,157. In the following two years, the PSU price is proposed to be $156,709 in 2016 and $158,276 in 2017.

Those figures are based on a 1% annual increase in direct costs to contracting municipalities. That rate of increase for PSUs is included in revenue projections for the county’s four-year budget, which the county board passed at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. The budget runs from 2014-2017, and includes revenue projections based on contracts for 79 PSUs.

According to a staff memo, there will be an addition to the 2016 and 2017 prices for in-car printer replacement, after the total cost of ownership is determined. The memo also notes that the pricing is based on salaries stipulated in current union contracts with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM). Those contracts run through 2014, and new contracts are currently being negotiated. The memo states that ”no assumptions were made for salaries or fringes change in this cost metric in anticipation of any union negotiations.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The county – through the sheriff’s office budget – pays for the difference between the price charged for each PSU, and the actual cost to provide those services. In 2011, that difference was $25,514.

In 2016, the cost per PSU is expected to be $195,104 – a difference of $38,395 compared to the price being charged to municipalities. In 2017, the cost per PSU is estimated at $199,188 – a difference of $40,912. [.pdf of cost estimates]

On April 2, sheriff Jerry Clayton described the cost model, explaining that it includes direct costs like salaries and benefits, which are paid by each contracting entity. It also includes indirect costs and overhead, which those entities partially pay. The county covers a portion of the indirect costs and overhead. The county also picks up the difference between the cost estimates and the actual cost, he said. In 2011, for example, the actual cost for delivering services was about $2,000 more than what was estimated per PSU. In 2012, the difference was about $4,500 more per PSU than estimated.

Because the sheriff’s office has about 400 positions – full time, part time and seasonal – there will always be openings, Clayton said. And because of that, his office has been able to offset those higher-than-expected costs by leaving some positions unfilled. But through budget cuts over the last few years, that flexibility becomes more challenging, he said.

Clayton said he supports the 1% increases in 2016 and 2017, but noted that it doesn’t account for possible changes to the POAM and COAM contracts. The result of those contract negotiations could have a big effect on the final price, because of the direct cost, he said.

He urged commissioners to think about how to find a sustainable revenue stream to support public safety countywide. Clayton noted that in the previous budget, the sheriff’s office came under its expenditure targets without compromising service, and also exceeded revenue. So the office has met its obligations as it relates to the overall county budget, he said. “But the ability to do that moving forward becomes a little more challenging.”

Police Services Contract: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) agreed that the county needs a sustainable revenue source for public safety. She asked if it was a trend that the difference between cost estimates and actual costs is increasing. SiRui Huang, finance manager for the sheriff’s office, said she thought 2013 would be close to the estimate, because there was a reduction in the fringe benefit rates.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) described the county as growing, which results in demand for services. He wondered when they would revisit the methodology used for policing the county, and the policy for contractual agreements with local municipalities.

Clayton replied that the financial architecture that’s in place to establish cost and price is sound. But the most recent analysis of recommended staffing levels for public safety in the county was done in 2000, he said. It established ideal staffing levels and minimum staffing levels. One of the recommendations from that report, which hasn’t been implemented, is to mandate the minimum staffing levels in some jurisdictions.

In theory, the county could mandate those minimal levels before it enters into a contract with the jurisdiction, he explained. If the jurisdiction indicates that it can’t afford the minimal level, then the county could decide not to enter into a contract to provide police services. Clayton said he didn’t recommend this approach, but it was an option that had been recommended.

When the study was done 14 years ago, the population of Washtenaw County was about 300,000, Clayton noted. Now, it’s closer to 350,000.

Peterson indicated that as the economy improves, he thought the county’s population would grow even more. The cost to the county’s general fund of providing public safety is increasing, but the county has to pay the price for the economic health of the community, Peterson said. There needs to be more discussion of this issue, he said.

Peterson said he’d like to see the “magic” of the current proposal work, but he didn’t see how it was a sustainable model.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked about the cost difference again, wondering if it would be consistent with the previous difference of about $25,000. Huang noted that the difference is estimated to increase in 2016 and 2017, but she restated that it doesn’t take into account any possible reductions that might occur based on current union negotiations. So the cost might change, she said.

Rabhi told Clayton that he wasn’t going to challenge this proposal strongly, adding that Clayton has been a great sheriff for the whole county. Rabhi noted that the cost difference, paid by the general fund, is borne by all county taxpayers – including those who live in jurisdictions that also have their own police departments, like Ann Arbor. That’s another issue to discuss in the future, Rabhi said, in addition to the funding sustainability. Whether you live in Ann Arbor or Bridgewater Township, public safety is important, he said, “and we need to find a way to fund it in a fair way, countywide.”

As the sheriff’s office is asked to bear more of the financial burden, Rabhi said, that makes it more fragile as a governmental unit. It’s important to look for new potential funding sources for public safety, he concluded.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the board should be grappling more with the issue of funding for public safety, especially considering that public safety accounts for more than 60% of the general fund budget. [That amount includes funding for courts, the prosecutor's office and other criminal justice units – not just the sheriff's office.]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) and Stefani Carter, a local attorney who was filling in for corporation counsel Curt Hedger.

Smith noted that the proportion of cost that’s being paid for by the sheriff’s office is increasing faster than the proportion paid for by the contracting entities. He wondered why that’s the case.

Clayton reiterated his point that it’s not a sustainable situation. He pointed out that while it’s not sustainable for the sheriff’s office, it’s also a problem for the contracting jurisdictions, which can’t afford to take on additional expenses. For some jurisdictions, the contract for police services accounts for almost 70% of their general funds. So raising the price for those jurisdictions isn’t really an option.

Public safety is key to other issues in the county, including human services and economic development, Clayton said. The county has reached the point where they need to consider creating other funding sources to sustain police services countywide. He noted that the sheriff’s office also provides services to jurisdictions that already have their own police departments, like Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Township. The sheriff’s office provides a safety net, he said, but there’s a limit to what they’re capable of in terms of resources, “and I think we’re there.”

C. Smith praised Clayton for making giant strides in integrating the sheriff’s office with nearly all aspects of the county, and for framing the issue differently for the board and the public. “I don’t see this as a city versus township fight,” Smith said. “I see this as a common struggle to provide public safety and quality of life for all of us.” The conversation should focus on what outcome the county is trying to achieve, he added, and how they fund that outcome.

Smith said he’d like to consider a countywide police force approach, whether that’s supporting the existing police forces or expanding the services that the sheriff’s office provides.

Clayton stressed that if other jurisdictions want to keep their police departments, that’s what they should do. He joked that it will save a lot of headache if that’s clear – the sheriff’s office isn’t trying to take over anything. C. Smith said he understood that Clayton was sensitive to that, but he thought it was a conversation they needed to have. It doesn’t make sense to “hyperlocalize” services in a lot of cases, Smith said.

There can be a happy medium, Clayton replied, in terms of collaborating. So that’s another option, and one that the sheriff’s office has pursued.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) agreed that public safety is a countywide issue, and praised Clayton and his staff for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval the police services contract proposal. A final vote is expected on April 16.

2013 Audit

Two representatives from the accounting firm Rehmann, which conducts the county’s audit, attended the April 2 meeting: Nate Baldermann and Mark Kettner. They gave part of a presentation on the county’s 2013 audit and comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). [.pdf of 2013 CAFR] [.pdf of 2013 audit summary]

From left: Mark Kettner and Nate Baldermann of the accounting firm Rehmann.

Baldermann, a principal at Rehmann and former board member of the Michigan Government Finance Officers Association, began by presenting the board with a certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting, for the county’s 2012 CAFR. The award is given by the national Government Finance Officers Association. Baldermann noted that this is the 23rd consecutive year that the county has received this award. Out of about 2,000 local governments in Michigan, only 102 are receiving this award.

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, gave an overview of the staff process involved in developing the CAFR, which reflects thousands of individual financial transactions. She gave highlights from a 2013 year-end financial presentation that staff had made at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, showing that the county had ended 2013 with a $3.92 million surplus for its general fund.

The complete audit, which consists of multiple documents, totals over 400 pages, Belknap noted.

Pete Collinson, the county’s accounting manager, gave a summary of the CAFR, which is over 200 pages. Over the years, the requirements have grown in complexity, he noted, and that’s reflected in the amount of information that’s included in the CAFR. At the same time, the finance staff has been reduced, he said, so the auditors have been helping assemble it.

Collinson highlighted some upcoming changes, including GASB 67, which takes effect this year and will be reflected in the next CAFR, and GASB 68, which takes effect in 2015. In 2014, the main change will be more disclosures in notes to the financial statements, he said. But in 2015, the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued pension liability will be booked as a liability in the county’s statement of net position, which will be a significant change, he said. The county’s finance staff have been working closely with their auditors and actuaries to plan for that, Collinson said.

Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann also gave a few remarks, noting that the auditor’s letter is included in the CAFR. The new term is “unmodified,” he said, which means it’s a clean statement. It’s an opinion just on the financial statements, he said – it’s not an opinion on the county’s financial controls. And it’s not an opinion on the county’s financial position, Kettner said, “although your financial position is pretty good, all things considered – coming off the last five or six years we’ve gone through.”

Kettner referred to a meeting – an “exit conference” – that he held with county administrator Verna McDaniel, board chair Yousef Rabhi and financial staff. There were a few areas for improvement, he said, because it’s a large organization. But there was nothing that he felt he needed to tell the board that night, Kettner added. The county is doing great, he said.

2013 Audit: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked about a section of the auditor’s letter:

We did not audit the financial statements of the Washtenaw County Road Commission, which represents 77.4% of the assets and 90.5% of the revenues of the aggregate discretely presented component units. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose report was furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the Washtenaw County Road Commission, is based solely on the report of the other auditors.

He asked Kettner to explain what that means, and why the audit refers to the road commission at all.

Kettner replied that the county government is considered the primary government for purposes of the audit. But the audit also is required to include all of the “component units” of county government, which are shown on pages 66-67 of the CAFR. In addition to the road commission, those units are: the department of public works, the office of the water resources commissioner, the hazardous materials response authority, and the brownfield redevelopment authority. The financial notes describe these operations in more detail.

Component units are separate legal entities, with a majority of their governing boards appointed by the county board of commissioners, or with the county board taking some level of financial accountability. For example, the county board must authorize any debt that’s issued by these other component units.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) talks with auditors from the accounting firm Rehmann before the start of the April 2 meeting.

Kettner noted that some of these component units conduct separate audits – that’s the case with the road commission. If Rehmann, as the primary unit’s auditor, takes responsibility for these separate audits, then it’s not mentioned in the auditor’s letter, Kettner said. But if the firm is not taking responsibility – “and there’d be no reason that we’d want to,” he said – then it’s mentioned in the letter, along with a perspective in terms of the financial significance of that unit. That’s why the letter includes the percentages reflecting the road commission’s assets.

Smith pointed out that even though the county board is responsible for the road commission’s debt, county commissioners don’t see the road commission’s budget or approve it. The road commission’s funding comes from the state, through Act 51, he noted. He observed that the GASB accounting standards are national, and probably don’t recognize the rather unique place that Michigan’s road commissions hold compared to all other states.

Kettner replied that although Rehmann doesn’t review the road commission’s financial statements annually, there is a periodic evaluation. The CAFR includes a description of the road commission, he said. That description states: “The Road Commission may not issue debt or levy a tax without the approval of the County Board of Commissioners. The Road Commission deposits its receipts with and has investments through the County.”

Noting that it’s outside of Kettner’s purview, Smith pointed out that the road commission has been the topic of discussion by the county board in Washtenaw County as well as across the state, as the result of state legislation passed in 2012 that allows for the possibility of county governments to absorb road commission operations. [For background on that discussion, see Chronicle coverage: "No Major Change Likely for Road Commission."]

Referring to the auditor’s management letter, Smith highlighted a statement that Michigan state statutes require local governments shall not spend in excess of amounts appropriated in a budget. But in many cases, Smith noted, there isn’t much of a penalty for violating those statutes. What’s the mechanism for enforcing that?

Kettner replied that page 81 of the CAFR lists the instances in which county units spent money in excess of appropriations during 2013. For an entity the size of Washtenaw County, he said, it’s unrealistic to expect that there would never be an item that’s over budget. Sometimes these items don’t show up in the CAFR because the county board amended the budget after the fact. In 2013, many of the excess expenditures were relatively minor, Kettner said. The largest one – $1.75 million over a budgeted $3.27 million in the accommodations ordinance tax line item – reflects a decision by the county board to distribute additional funds from the accommodations tax. The board voted to do that, he explained, but they didn’t do the technical step of voting to amend the budget.

From left: Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), chair of the ways & means committee, and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

There were about a half dozen items that Kettner said were relatively significant, and “we don’t want to see those again.”

Smith noted that to him, the words “shall not” in the state statute seemed like pretty strong wording, but there’s nothing to enforce it. Kettner replied: “That’s how the state writes those laws, you know.” The auditing firm submits its report to the state, Kettner explained, and that includes an audit procedures report form. The form includes boxes that must be checked if there’s an issue, he said. That will result in a letter from the state, asking how the county plans to address it.

Smith then asked how the audit and CAFR will look when GASB 68 takes effect. Kettner referred to page 119 of the CAFR, which contains a table of the county’s pension system. One column lists the unfunded actuarial accrued liability for the system, which in 2012 was $126.28 million. In 2015, when GASB 68 is implemented, the county will have to add that liability as part of the county’s statement of net position – page 41 of the CAFR. That liability will result in a deficit for the county’s unrestricted net position. For the 2013 CAFR, the unrestricted net position shows a positive $32.826 million.

However, Kettner stressed that this change will not affect the general fund budget. “You’re going to continue making your contributions to fund those pensions as you always have,” he said. But the financial statements will be more meaningful by adding that liability to the statement of net position.

There were no questions from other commissioners.

County Jail Bonds

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to authorize the re-funding of up to $16.5 million in outstanding capital improvement bonds, which were originally issued in 2006 to fund expansion of the county jail.

John Axe, the county’s bond counsel, brought reading material to the April 2 meeting.

According to a staff memo, $16.9 million in principal remains of the original $21.675 million bond sale. The county’s bond counsel, Axe & Ecklund, is advising the re-funding because of lower interest rates, and estimates a net savings of about $869,000 over the life of the bond issue. The new issue would be called “County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2014.” [.pdf of refunding resolution]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) asked the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, about interest rates. Axe told the board that current interest rates on the bonds are between 4% and 4.3%. He estimated that the re-funding interest rates would be between 2.2% and 3.8%. The bonds would be sold in June.

Axe said he hoped the savings would be even higher than the estimated $869,000.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the bond re-funding. A final vote is expected at the board’s April 16 meeting.

Autism Coverage

At the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to add an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits. It would allow the county to provide health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism, and was on the April 2 agenda for a final vote.

Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state.

Ellen Rabinowitz, Washtenaw County’s interim public health officer. She is also executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autism Coverage: Public Commentary

Ryan Schuett, a Washtenaw County employee whose daughter has been diagnosed with autism, thanked commissioners for acting quickly. He talked about the effect that the autism spectrum disorder has on employees. “Speaking humbly, I’m tired – very tired,” he said. In 2013, he worked over 1,000 hours of overtime to cover out-of-pocket costs associated with his daughter’s treatment. He averages between 64-72 hour workweeks, while also trying to be a good father and husband.

As an emergency dispatcher, he deals with other people’s problems while putting his own aside, Schuett said. He enjoys his work, and even more so when he knows he works for an institution that stands beside him. The treatments for his daughter are life-changing, he said. But because of the treatment costs, he has sometimes had to make the decision not to provide it. The board’s decision has made it possible for him not to seek employment elsewhere, Schuett said. Autism is affecting more people nationwide, and isn’t going away. He again thanked commissioners for helping the families of employees.

Autism Coverage: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she was pleased to see this move forward. It was very poignant that they’d be voting on it that day, she noted, because April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. It’s a much-needed benefit, she said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed to numerous county liabilities that are laid out in the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), which the board had been presented earlier in the evening. Those are significant, he noted, and the unfunded liabilities will continue to hamstring the board’s ability to be nimble and responsive.

He said he wasn’t happy to see the autism coverage brought forward for a final vote at this time. He supports adding the coverage, but thought it should be part of the board’s regular budget reaffirmation process later in the year. “However, given that it is World Autism Day, I think it would be a little uncouth to vote against this at this point,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to adding autism coverage.

First-Quarter Entitlement Grant Update

A report from the county’s office of community & economic development was included in the April 2 agenda, updating the board on the roughly 30 state and federal formula grants administered by the OCED. The grants are awarded based on state or federal allocation formulas. In 2014, those formula grants total about $9.6 million. [.pdf of entitlement grant update]

There was no presentation or discussion of this item.

Recognitions & Proclamations

Several resolutions honoring local individuals and businesses were on the April 2 agenda. Here are some highlights.

Recognitions & Proclamations: Public Health Week

The agenda included a resolution proclaiming April 7-13 as Public Health Week. Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s interim public health officer, was on hand to present the Washtenaw Healthy Workplace Awards to five local businesses. Each institution has taken great strides to promote healthy behaviors in their work places, she said.

The awardees are:

• National Kidney Foundation of Michigan
• Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority
• Manchester Community Schools
• Manpower Inc. of Southeast Michigan
• City of Ann Arbor

Recognitions & Proclamations: Ann Arbor Community Center

Reverend Yolanda Whiten, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Community Center, was presented with a resolution honoring the center for 91 years of service. She has served in that position since 2007.

Reverend Yolanda Whiten, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Community Center.

From the resolution: “Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby honors and expresses its sincere appreciation and deepest respect to The Ann Arbor Community Center for continuing to achieve its mission: ‘Influenced by a rich African American heritage, the Ann Arbor Community Center is a catalyst for transformation within the city and its greater community. With a primary focus on youth, adults and families, the Ann Arbor Community Center provides programs and services that promote self-reliance, social and economic well-being, diversity and community involvement.’”

Several supporters of the community center attended the meeting and gave Whiten a round of applause.

Communications & Commentary

During the April 2 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Same-Sex Marriage

During public commentary, Sandi Smith – president of the Jim Toy Community Center board – thanked the board for its help in opening the county clerk’s office for four hours on Saturday, March 22. “It was an amazing experience,” she said. Over 70 couples got married, including some who’d been waiting 20-30 years, she said. “Trust me – you’ll all be on the right side of history on this,” Smith said.

Federal judge Bernard Friedman had issued a ruling on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

Smith noted that county clerk Larry Kestenbaum was obviously very instrumental in allowing same-sex marriages to take place on the morning of March 22. Smith also thanked county administrator Verna McDaniel, sheriff Jerry Clayton, the clerk’s office staff – including Ed Golembiewski – and the facilities staff, who had to clean up afterwards. She hoped that it would never have to be repeated again, because she hoped the right to marry would soon be open to everybody.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Responding to Smith’s commentary – and noting that Smith and her partner, Linda Lombardini, are his friends – Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he was proud of what the county could do in moving this issue forward. It warmed his heart. He noted that during U.S. president Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Michigan earlier that day, Obama had told the audience not to jeer at things they don’t like, but to organize. In that context, Rabhi said Michigan needs a new attorney general – someone who’ll stand up for the people in Michigan and not waste taxpayer dollars in appealing a ruling that provides for marriage equality. Everyone who loves each other should be able to get married, he said. He thanked Smith and Lombardini for their activism.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said Kestenbaum deserves the most credit. Kestenbaum had asked the board “to do something that was real easy,” Smith said. He noted that it was a tough vote that the board had debated, but it was Kestenbaum’s leadership that made it happen, he said.

By way of background, the county board – at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting – had approved what’s essentially a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a marriage license, which ordinarily takes three days. The resolution passed by the board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

Last year, Kestenbaum had publicly indicated that he intended to waive fees for same-sex marriages, in anticipation of a court ruling that would allow such marriages. Subsequently, however, his authority to waive fees was challenged, and he learned that the county board would be required to grant that authority.

On Feb. 19, Kestenbaum had told the board that he expected various legal challenges to same-sex marriage bans to wind their way through the federal court system without a specific ruling affecting Michigan, and that his office would be unlikely to see a sudden influx of requests for same-sex marriage licenses.

Communications & Commentary: Coordinated Funding

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that the process of reviewing applications for coordinated funding is underway.

The county is one of several partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include the city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and the RNR Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010, and has been extended twice since then. The most recent extension was approved by the county board at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, and authorized the allocation of children’s well-being and human services funding for 2014 through 2016. That resolution also authorized the continued management of those funds through the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), using the coordinated funding approach – with some modifications.

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.

During the current funding cycle, 105 applications were received, representing $8.7 million in requests. That compares with 76 in the previous funding cycle, Brabec noted, for requests of $6.6 million. The amount of available funding this year from all partners is $4.4 million. “So it’s a difficult, difficult process,” she said. Brabec is one of 18 volunteer reviewers, plus four staff.

The recommendations will be brought to the board in May.

Communications & Commentary: Misc.

During public commentary, Thomas Partridge referred to U.S. president Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Michigan campus earlier in the day, where Obama advocated for raising the federal minimum wage. Partridge called on lawmakers to provide adequate resources for affordable housing and public transportation. He called attention to the May 6 election, when voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township will be voting on a new public transit tax for expanded services. He said all public bodies in Washtenaw County should work to weed out corruption. He criticized Gov. Rick Snyder and other Republicans, and urged voters to elect progressive Democrats this year.

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

On July 6, 2011, commissioners had authorized the price that municipalities would pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The price in 2012 – $150,594 per “police services unit” – was unchanged from 2011, but has been rising in subsequent years by about 1% annually. The complex, politically-charged process of arriving at those figures in 2011 involved more than a year of discussion between the sheriff’s office, other county officials and leaders of local municipalities that contract for these services.

The board’s decision in 2011 was based on a recommendation from the police services steering committee. That same group is recommending the next pricing changes as well, based on the cost of a police services unit (PSU). The PSU price for 2014 is $153,621. For 2015, the PSU price will be $155,157. In the following two years, the PSU price is proposed to be $156,709 in 2016 and $158,276 in 2017.

Those figures are based on a 1% annual increase in direct costs to contracting municipalities. That rate of increase for PSUs is included in revenue projections for the county’s four-year budget, which the county board passed at its Nov. 20, 2013 meeting. The budget runs from 2014-2017, and includes revenue projections based on contracts for 79 PSUs.

According to a staff memo, there will be an addition to the 2016 and 2017 prices for in-car printer replacement, after the total cost of ownership is determined. The memo also notes that the pricing is based on salaries stipulated in current union contracts with the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM). Those contracts run through 2014, and new contracts are currently being negotiated. The memo states that ”no assumptions were made for salaries or fringes change in this cost metric in anticipation of any union negotiations.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The county – through the sheriff’s office budget – pays for the difference between the price charged for each PSU, and the actual cost to provide those services. In 2011, that difference was $25,514.

In 2016, the cost per PSU is expected to be $195,104 – a difference of $38,395 compared to the price being charged to municipalities. In 2017, the cost per PSU is estimated at $199,188 – a difference of $40,912. [.pdf of cost estimates]

Discussion during the April 2 meeting included concerns by some commissioners about the financial sustainability of this approach to funding police services, and the need for new revenue sources for public safety. Sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand to present the pricing proposal, and supported suggestions to seek new funding for public safety. As he’s done in the past, Clayton characterized the issue of public safety as one that encompasses economic development, human services and other aspects of the community.

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

Mary Jo Callan talks with Tony Van Derworp before the start of the July 6, 2011 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. Callan is overseeing the consolidation of three county departments, including the economic development and energy department, which Van Derworp leads.

In the works for over a year, the consolidation would combine the office of community development, the economic development & energy department, and the employment training and community services (ETCS) department. The goal, according to county managers, is to cut costs by eliminating duplicated services in the face of declining revenues, while finding ways to deliver those services more efficiently to residents in need. The number of full-time employees in the merged departments would drop from 40 to 32, though most of those displaced workers will likely be moved to other county jobs. In total, about $500,000 in annual savings is expected from the merger.

While generally supportive of the change, several commissioners asked for additional details, and expressed frustration that they were provided new information – including a business plan – just hours before the meeting began. The proposal was originally on the agendas for initial approval at the Ways & Means committee meeting and final approval at the regular board meeting that same night, but commissioners decided to remove it from the board meeting agenda. They’ll likely consider it for a final vote at their Aug. 3 meeting. The consolidation will also be one of the topics at the July 11 Ann Arbor city council working session – the office of community development is a joint city/county unit.

Two other items that have received considerable – often contentious – discussion at previous meetings were passed with virtually no comment. Both relate to police services that are provided under contract to local municipalities by the sheriff’s office. On the first item, the county board approved the recommendation of a court-ordered facilitator in a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006 over the cost of police services. The recommendation states that Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township should pay the county $749,427 for police services provided in 2006. The boards of those townships are expected to vote on the recommendation this week. If approved, it could lead to the closure of that legal battle.

On the second related item, the county board gave final approval to the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The price in 2012 – $150,594 – is unchanged from this year, but will rise in subsequent years by about 1% annually. The complex, politically-charged process of arriving at those figures involved more than a year of discussion between the sheriff’s office, other county officials and leaders of local municipalities that contract for these services.

Several other budget-related issues were addressed during the July 6 meeting, including initial approval to an agreement with the Michigan Nurses Association – Unit I, the union that represents 13 public health nurses and nurse coordinators in the county’s health services department. It’s the first of 15 union agreements being negotiated as part of the 2012 and 2013 budget cycle, and is expected to achieve an annual savings of $132,000. In total, the county hopes to see about $8 million in labor concessions for the two-year budget cycle, to help address a projected $17.5 million deficit.

Commissioners also voted to raise the fee for waiving the statutory three-day marriage license waiting period, increasing it from $5 to $50. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, whose office processes marriage licenses, assured the board that the vast majority of applications are willing to wait the three days, and won’t incur this additional cost for expediting the process. Conan Smith joked that he had hoped Kestenbaum would come forward with a package discount deal – for marriage licenses and concealed weapons permits.

Police Services Lawsuit

In a step that could lead to ending a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted to approve the recommendation of a court-ordered facilitator. The recommendation sets $749,427 as the amount owed by Ypsilanti Township and August Township to the county for police services provided in 2006. That was the year those townships, along with Salem Township, filed a lawsuit against the county over the price of contract deputies. Salem Township reached a settlement with the county in 2010.

The bulk of the recommended payment – $732,927 – will come from Ypsilanti Township, which had contracted for 44 sheriff deputies in 2006. In addition to approval from the county board, the recommendation would also need to be voted on by the boards of both townships. Those meetings are expected to occur next week. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Vote Coming on Police Services Lawsuit"]

County representatives previously indicated they were seeking around $2 million. The county is not seeking payment for its legal expenses related to the lawsuit, which are estimated to be just over $1 million.

Police Services Lawsuit: Commissioner Comments

Conan Smith, the board’s chair, was the only commissioner to comment on this agenda item. He said he was grateful the county is settling this issue, which he noted had caused a lot of consternation and contention between the county and these contracting units. He expressed gratitude to everyone who came to the table and helped make this closure possible. It sets them on the right path for negotiations over police services contracts and future partnerships, he concluded.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the recommendation of a court-ordered facilitator at both their Ways & Means committee meeting and their regular board meeting.

Police Services Pricing

On the agenda was a resolution giving final approval to the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The police services steering committee recommended setting the price in 2012 for a police services unit (PSU) at $150,594. Initial approval by the county board had been given at its June 1 meeting.

Commissioner Alicia Ping talks with sheriff Jerry Clayton in the lobby of the county administration building prior to the start of the July 6 county board meeting.

The price in 2012 will remain unchanged from the 2011 rate of $150,594, which was a 4% increase over 2010 rates. In each of the following three years, the price per PSU increases about 1%: to $152,100 in 2013; $153,621 in 2014; and $155,157 in 2015.

In late 2010, the committee brought forward a recommendation to the board that set the cost of providing a PSU at $176,108. At its Dec. 1 meeting, the county board voted to accept that amount, with the understanding that commissioners would need to make a much harder decision – about the price that the county would charge for a PSU – at a later date. The difference between the cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be covered by the county.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton attended Wednesday’s meeting, but there was no discussion on this item and commissioners did not ask him to answer any questions about this recommendation. The board had been briefed by Clayton at a May 19 working session.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give final approval to the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015.

Departmental Merger: Community & Economic Development

A major consolidation of three county departments – the office of community development, the economic development & energy department, and the employment training and community services (ETCS) department – was given initial approval by the board of commissioners at their July 6 meeting. A final vote is expected at the board’s Aug. 3 meeting. The changes would take effect on Jan. 1, 2012. [.pdf draft budget summary] [.pdf draft business plan]

If the reorganization gets final approval, Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community development, will lead the new office of community & economic development. The goal is to cut costs by eliminating duplicated services in the face of declining revenues, while finding ways to deliver those services more efficiently to residents. The new department is expected to have a non-general fund budget of about $14.7 million – when federal stimulus funds were available, the three departments had been bringing in about $29 million in non-general fund revenue. In addition, about $1.66 million would be allocated to the merged department from the county’s general fund.

Several personnel changes are part of the restructuring, which would eliminate 11 positions and create 3 jobs – for a net loss of 8 jobs. In addition, there would be 20 job reclassifications, 5 title changes and 1 position held vacant.

Commissioners were briefed on the restructuring at a May 5, 2011 working session, and also discussed it at a June 28 agenda briefing. At that briefing, county administrator Verna McDaniel told commissioners that all but one person had been given a “soft landing” within the county’s organization.

Departmental Merger: Public Commentary

Andy LaBarre, vice president of government relations for the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the proposed reorganization.

Greg Dill, left, talks with Andy LaBarre, vice president of government relations for the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce. Dill is director of administrative services for the sheriff's office.

Consolidating these departments makes great sense, he said, and will help the county better serve its citizens. It holds promise as a model for other communities, schools and local governments to set aside traditional structures in the interest of the community as a whole.

The chamber did something similar in 2010, when the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti chambers merged into one regional entity, LaBarre said. Members and leaders of the chambers understood that it was time to reduce costs and maximize benefits by embracing regionalism and consolidation. “That time is still before us,” he said.

In particular, the merger of these three county departments will create a stronger, more efficient approach to regional economic development, LaBarre said. The chamber applauds the move and looks forward to partnering with the new office, he concluded.

Departmental Merger: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners had several questions about this proposal. It was originally on the agendas for initial approval at the Ways & Means committee meeting and final approval at the regular board meeting that same night, but commissioners decided to remove it from the board meeting. They’ll likely consider it for a final time at their Aug. 3 meeting.

Wes Prater began the discussion by noting that commissioners had received new material just that afternoon. There was a lot of information, he said, and he had a lot of questions about it. He clarified that there would be a net loss of eight jobs after the consolidation.

Mary Jo Callan acknowledged that the information has been a moving target. The employee count will drop from 40.35 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 32.1 FTEs.

Prater also asked for details on the span of control – the number of supervisors and the positions they oversee – that would result after the consolidation is completed.

Kristin Judge asked about the line item for in-kind contributions. It went from about $1 million last year to only about $63,000 this year – why did it drop? Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director and interim deputy administrator, said that in-kind contributions refer to county money or staff time that’s required as matching funds for federal grants. For 2010, all of the information is finalized. This year, information is still incomplete because the year hasn’t ended – they’ll have the final numbers after the 2011 audit, she said. And for 2012, the county still doesn’t know what grants they’ll be awarded.

Judge then asked for clarification about the total savings that were expected to result from the consolidation – it wasn’t clear from the materials they’d been provided, she said. Belknap reported that staff estimated about $500,000 in savings, from reducing general fund allocations to the new department, and requesting higher cost allocation plan (CAP) dollars from grant funds. [CAP refers to the amount charged to each department for things like the county attorney, information technology and administration.]

Judge said that for her to support this proposal on the final vote in August, she needed a much greater level of detail. She also asked about the proposed job reclassifications, wondering why it seemed that they were all going up a pay grade or more. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, explained that several jobs were being reclassified from non-union to union positions, and the pay grades weren’t equivalent. For example, a pay grade of 15 for a union job might equate to a pay grade of 8 for a non-union position.

After confirming that the board wouldn’t be taking a final vote that night, Ronnie Peterson then spoke at length about his concerns related to the consolidation, but said he’d save most of his questions for the August meeting. He said his statements weren’t directed at the current managers, but rather at the way the departments have evolved over many years.

From left: Caryette Fenner, president of the AFSCME local 2733, the largest union representing county employees; Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052; and county commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

He said he believes they lost the war on poverty long ago, and that’s especially true on the east side of the county. [Peterson represents District 6, covering Ypsilanti and part of Ypsilanti Township.] Given the decline of the auto industry, the east side is struggling, Peterson said. That’s why he’s committed to the Eastern Leaders Group, which advocates for economic development, and why he supported the Act 88 millage that funds ELG and Ann Arbor SPARK, the area’s economic development agency. The eastern part of the county needs jobs and neighborhood stabilization, Peterson said. “We don’t need more cheese and butter lines.”

It’s time to devote energy and resources to fighting poverty, Peterson said. No one has spoken about how funding will be allocated to do that, as a result of this consolidation, he added. He requested more details about how program activities would be funded, and said he appreciated that the final vote would be delayed until August.

Alicia Ping asked why the line item for supplies went from $542,040 in 2010 to $43,390 in the 2012 budget. Callan explained that the 2010 amount had been misclassified – about $500,000 of that amount should have been listed in the line item for the senior nutrition program, not supplies.

Ping also said she had a difficult time seeing where the savings would come from in this reorganization. Belknap told commissioners that the finance staff would provide a detailed supplemental budget that reflects those savings. Callan added that they have the information – commissioners had received detailed budget documents earlier this year. It just wasn’t in the summary that commissioners received for Wednesday’s meeting.

Callan also noted, in response to a question from Judge, that about 90% of the positions in the merged departments would not be funded out of the county’s general fund. Rather, those jobs would be supported through grant funding. Judge asked for a breakdown of how many positions would be supported through the general fund compared to non-general fund positions.

Dan Smith requested a better explanation about how the organizational savings would be achieved, and suggested also providing an organization chart for commissioners.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he strongly suggested that Callan meet with individual commissioners between now and Aug. 3 to address their questions. Commissioners agreed to email all their questions to the county administrative staff, and answers would be sent out to the entire board.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the reorganization, with a final vote expected at their Aug. 3 meeting.

Nurses Union Agreement

Commissioners held an executive session early in their meeting to discuss a collective bargaining agreement. When they emerged, they added a supplemental agenda item to give initial approval to an agreement with the Michigan Nurses Association – Unit I. The agreement covers the period from July 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013.

The agreement affects 13 public health nurses and nurse coordinators in the county’s health services department. It’s the first of 15 union agreements being negotiated as part of the 2012 and 2013 budget cycle, and is expected to achieve an annual savings of $132,000. In total, the county hopes to see about $8 million in labor concessions for the two-year budget cycle, to help address a projected $17.5 million deficit. [There are 17 unions representing the county workforce. In January 2011, the county reached agreements with two other unions – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – for a four-year period through 2014.]

According to terms of the agreement with the nurses union, union members will not receive across-the-board pay raises in 2012 or 2013. However, if eligible, they will continue to receive automatic “step” increases that are part of all union contracts. [On an employee’s anniversary date – typically the date of their hire – they get an automatic increase to the next step in the salary grade.]

The nurses will bear a greater share of health care expenses, pension contributions and retiree health care contributions. Details include:

• Co-pays will increase. For example, co-pays for emergency room visits will increase from $50 to $250. An office visit co-pay will be $40.
• Union members will now pay deductibles, and a percentage of the cost of their medical expenses, up to an annual maximum. Prescription drug co-pays will also be increased under the new agreement.
• As of Jan. 1, 2012, all employees under this contract will contribute 8.5% to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS), a defined benefit plan. [In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement.] They previously contributed 7.5%.
• Union members will begin contributing 0.5% toward their retiree healthcare. They previously did not make contributions.
• The number of annual “banked leave” days – similar to unpaid furlough days – will increase from 6 to 12.
• Longevity pay will be eliminated for new hires after Jan. 1, 2012. Longevity pay is a benefit provided to union employees based on years of service with the organization (generally after 5 years of service). Employees would receive between 3%-9% of their prior year’s wages, paid out either in a lump sum payment or bi-weekly throughout the year.

In addition, tuition reimbursement and the “excessive vacation payout” program will be eliminated as of Jan. 1, 2012.

The contract includes a “me too” clause that would provide parity if another union contract is negotiated for higher wages or benefits. There’s also a “reopener” contingency – if the county sees at least a 2% revenue gain by the end of 2012, the contract could be reopened to consider wage increases.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to give initial approval to the collective bargaining agreement with the Michigan Nurses Association – Unit I. The board is expected to take a final vote on the agreement at its Aug. 3 meeting.

Trial Court Renovations

The board was asked to approve a resolution authorizing up to $1 million for the next phase of the Washtenaw County trial court consolidation of services at the downtown courthouse facility, where the juvenile court recently relocated.

Phase two entails renovation of the first floor of the courthouse. Commissioners had previously received a detailed briefing on this project from Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenew County trial court, at their Jan. 19, 2011 board meeting. The downtown courthouse is located at the corner of Huron and Main.

Trail Court Renovations: Commissioner Discussion

Dan Smith asked for more details about a line item of $100,000 for furniture and equipment.

Dave Shirley, the county’s facilities manager, said existing furniture from the Platt Road location is being used as much as possible. But some items are needed – such as filing cabinets – due to the different configuration of the downtown courthouse. They’ll also need additional chairs, since the Platt Road facility didn’t get the ergonomic furniture upgrade that the rest of the county facilities received a few years ago.

D. Smith asked whether they could buy gently-used furniture, and Shirley said the county did that as much as possible.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve up to $1 million for the next phase of the Washtenaw County trial court consolidation.

Marriage License Waiting Period Waiver Fee

The board was asked to approve a $50 fee for waiving the statutory three-day marriage license waiting period. According to a staff memo, the current waiver fee of $5 does not cover the costs of the Washtenaw County Clerk and Register of Deeds in “interrupting other services to immediately fulfill a marriage license waiver request.”

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum attended Wednesday’s meeting and told commissioners that the $5 fee is too nominal – some counties charge as much as $100, he said. It would also apply to only a few applications. “This fee would only affect people who are in a hurry.”

Marriage License Waiting Period Waiver Fee: Commissioner Discussion

Barbara Bergman wondered why they weren’t raising the fee to $100 as well. Kestenbaum told her that his staff originally recommended an increase to $25, but he was proposing $50. The amount is in the purview of the county board to set, he noted, adding that he wouldn’t object to a $100 fee.

Bergman moved to amend the resolution to increase the amount to $100, but the motion died for lack of a second.

County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, left, talks with county clerk Larry Kestenbaum during a break at the July 6 board of commissioners meeting.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he wouldn’t support raising the fee to $100 because getting married “is supposed to be one of the happiest times in your life.” It already cost a lot of money to get married, and the county shouldn’t add to that.

Ronnie Peterson noted that it cost a lot of money to be born, get married and “certainly to die.” He recommended approving Kestenbaum’s original suggestion of $50, which Peterson said was respectful of the current economic conditions. It makes a statement about providing the expedited service at a cost that was somewhat uncomfortable, he said, but not too much.

Conan Smith began his comments by joking that he had hoped Kestenbaum would come forward with a package discount deal – for marriage licenses and concealed weapons permits. He then noted that this was actually an important increase, and not arbitrary. As the county reduces its staff and asks employees to adhere to their work plan, that approach gets compromised by last-minute requests, he said. It complicates the staff’s work. The increase is a disincentive for citizens to make such requests, and results in helping employees be as efficient as possible. Smith said he also appreciated that the standard fee for the three-day processing is unchanged.

Kestenbaum observed that processing a marriage license requires great attention to detail. All of the information must be correct: “It is not a frivolous thing at all.” C. Smith noted that it would be unfortunate if the paperwork resulted in someone inadvertently marrying the wrong person. “That’s not our problem,” Kestenbaum quipped.

Wes Prater also supported the increase to $50, saying that people spend much more than that on other parts of their wedding.

Dan Smith confirmed that the standard fee – to process the license in three days – hasn’t changed. Kestenbaum explained that more than 95% of the licenses are handled this way. Normally, he added, a wedding involves planning, and getting a license is part of that.

D. Smith then asked a series of questions to elicit more details about the process, prompting Sizemore to say, “You’re asking a lot of questions – is there something we don’t know?” [Smith is single.]

Alicia Ping asked how much the standard license costs. It’s $30, Kestenbaum said – an amount set by state statute that’s been unchanged for more than 40 years.

Ping disagreed with Prater and others, and felt that for many people, $50 was a lot of money. However, she said she understood that $5 was too low.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved increasing the fee for expediting the marriage license processing to $50.

Drain Projects in Ann Arbor

Initial approval for five projects planned by the county’s water resources commissioner had been given at the board’s June 1 meeting. On Wednesday, the projects were before the board for final approval.

The projects, which require the county to back bond payments totaling up to $6.54 million, are all located in Ann Arbor: (1) Allen Creek drain cistern installation, downspout disconnection and tree planting – up to $330,000; (2) County Farm drain stream bank stabilization – up to $1.2 million; (3) Malletts Creek drain/Burns Park porous alley; Malletts Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Malletts Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $3.48 million; (4) Swift Run cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting – up to $75,000; and (5) Traver Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Traver Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $780,000.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the drain projects in Ann Arbor, without comment.

Hearing Set on Agreement with Energy Office

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for its Aug. 3 meeting regarding a proposed interlocal agreement with the Southeast Michigan Energy Office Community Alliance (SEMRO). The Ferndale-based nonprofit (SEMRO) provides technical services to the county in identifying and implementing federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant projects.

The energy office is a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. County commissioner and board chair Conan Smith is CEO of the alliance. The board voted initially to join the energy office at its March 17, 2010 meeting. Smith abstained from that vote.

Outcome: Without comment, the board voted to set a hearing on Aug. 3 regarding an interlocal agreement with SEMRO.

Proclamation on National Training Institute Week

On the agenda was an item proclaiming July 30 through Aug. 5, 2011 as National Training Institute Week in Washtenaw County. The proclamation recognized the estimated $5 million economic impact of the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) for the Electrical Industry – its annual training week brings about 2,000 people to this area. [See 2009 Chronicle coverage: "Electricians Juice Up Ann Arbor"]

The proclamation was introduced and read by commissioner Rob Turner, who was instrumental in convincing the NJATC to move its annual training week to this area. Turner described how he had worked with Greg Stephens, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 252, and others to convince NJATC to hold its training in Washtenaw County, and how the community has reached out to make the NJATC members feel welcome.

Wes Prater added that credit goes to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitor bureaus too.

Outcome: The proclamation declaring July 30-Aug. 5, 2011 as National Training Institute Week in Washtenaw County was passed unanimously.

Appointments

Commissioners unanimously approved the appointment of Scott Menzel to the Washtenaw County Workforce Development Board to represent the educational sector for a term expiring Dec. 31, 2012. Menzel is the new superintendent for the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. Commissioner Dan Smith commented that he knew Menzel when Menzel was superintendent of the Whitmore Lake school district, and Smith was glad that he’s brought his skills to WISD.

The board also appointed Robert Gray as a representative of the general public to the Washtenaw County Health Code Appeals Board/Public Health Advisory Committee for a five-year term, expiring Dec. 31, 2015.

Nominations for appointments to county boards and commissions are made by the board chair, Conan Smith, but require approval by the board of commissioners.

Misc. Communications

There are several opportunities for commissioners and the administration to share information during the meeting, as well as four slots for public commentary.

County administrator Verna McDaniel told commissioners that she’d be working with staff to develop a pro-active plan in light of state legislation that will end cash assistance to welfare beneficiaries who’ve been receiving aid for more than 48 months. About 900 people will be affected in Washtenaw County, she said. They’re working with Cynthia Maritato, director of the state Department of Human Services – and former director of the Washtenaw County department of human services – to see who will be affected by this law. She hopes to bring a plan to the board in early September.

Conan Smith noted that Nelson Meade, one of the founders of the county’s parks & recreation commission who has served on that commission for more than 35 years, is being honored at the national level as a public official of the year. Smith said it was a well-earned honor, and gave a “hearty congratulations” to Meade for his service.

Kristin Judge congratulated the county’s information technology department, noting that they had moved up from 8th place to 4th place in a national ranking of county IT departments. The ranking is from the 2011 Digital Counties Survey, conducted by the Center for Digital Government and the National Association of Counties (NACo). [The award will be presented on July 16 at the NACo annual conference in Portland, Oregon. Judge, a member of NACo's justice and public safety steering committee, will be accepting the award on behalf of the county.]

Misc. Communications: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during the four opportunities available for public commentary. He called for the board to add an agenda item that would address the impact of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget, and urged commissioners to support a recall effort of Snyder, his administration and Republican legislators. It’s the only responsible thing to do for anyone who advocates for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised citizens, he said.

Partridge also called for reforms and changes to county government, and advocated for having an elected county administrator. [The Washtenaw County administrator is a position appointed by the board of commissioners.] Partridge objected to the redistricting decision earlier this year that resulted in decreasing the number of districts represented on the board from 11 to 9 – a change that will take effect for the 2012 election. He said it might be necessary to pursue legal action on this issue, and he urged commissioners to ask the county’s corporation counsel to look into the matter.

Public Commentary: Commissioner Response

Following Partridge’s first public commentary, Barbara Bergman – a Democrat from Ann Arbor – said that Republicans and Democrats on the board worked together, with the goal of bettering services for the county’s residents. They aren’t there to take political stances, she said, and it’s not their business to pass resolutions criticizing or supporting one political party or individual. [Partridge walked out of the boardroom midway through Bergman's remarks, and returned when she finished talking.]

Regarding Partridge’s comments about redistricting, Conan Smith pointed out that Brian Mackie was in the audience – and that Mackie, the county’s prosecuting attorney, was one of the five members of the apportionment commission. [As part of a mandated redistricting process keyed to the U.S. census results, the apportionment commission voted in May to adopt the 9-district plan.] Smith, a Democrat, said the commission had met frequently, and those meetings were public. The maps were displayed prominently in advance, he said, and the process had been extremely accessible. They did the job they were charged to do, Smith said, in a manner that comported with the law. He would not recommend that they encourage the county’s corporation counsel to get involved.

Dan Smith, one of three Republican county commissioners, also weighed in. He noted that he was the only county commissioner who attended every meeting of the apportionment commission. He agreed with Conan Smith that the process was handled properly, saying he saw no inappropriate actions.

[The Chronicle attended several meetings of the apportionment commission. The final plan that was adopted had been posted for public view shortly before the commission's final meeting. From coverage of the commission's final meeting on May 11:

The final vote was for a 9-district plan drafted by county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and revised with input from other Democrats on the apportionment commission, including [county clerk Larry] Kestenbaum and county treasurer Catherine McClary. It gained unanimous support from the full commission. [.pdf file of adopted 9-district county map]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, based on population changes determined by the U.S. census. Until this week, only two plans had been offered: one for 9 districts, another for 12. However, just hours before Wednesday’s 5:30 p.m. meeting, several new plans were submitted for consideration. In total, 11 plans were considered by the commission – for 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 21 districts. One resident during public commentary said he’d attended several previous meeting, and that it was shocking to arrive and see so many new plans on the day of the final vote.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, and Dan Smith.

Absent: Yousef Rabhi

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting. In addition, the board will hold a July 21 working session on the 2012-2013 budget, starting at 6:30 p.m. in the same location.

Next working session: Thursday, July 21, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The working session will focus on the 2012-2013 budget.

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

The bulk of the recommended payment – $732,927 – will come from Ypsilanti Township, which had contracted for 44 sheriff deputies in 2006. In addition to approval from the county board, the recommendation would also need to be voted on by the boards of both townships. Those meetings are expected to occur next week. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Vote Coming on Police Services Lawsuit"]

County representatives previously indicated they were seeking around $2 million. The county is not seeking payment for its legal expenses related to the lawsuit, which are estimated to be more than $1 million.

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

A resolution is expected to be added as a supplemental agenda item at Wednesday night’s meeting, asking commissioners to approve the recommendation of a court-ordered facilitator. At issue is how much is owed by Ypsilanti Township and August Township to the county for police services that were provided by the county in 2006. That was the year those townships, along with Salem Township, filed a lawsuit against the county over the price of contract deputies.

While county representatives previously indicated they were seeking around $2 million, the recommendation calls for payment to the county of $749,427 – the bulk of that from Ypsilanti Township. In addition to approval from the county board, the recommendation would also need to be voted on by the boards of both townships. Those meetings are expected to occur next week.

On a related note, the county board is also expected to take a final vote at Wednesday’s meeting to set the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015.

Police Services Lawsuit: A Brief Background

The issue of how much the county charges for providing sheriff deputy patrols under contract with municipalities goes back decades. It came to a head in 2006, when three townships – Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti – filed a lawsuit against the county, disputing the amount that was charged for police services. Over the years, court rulings have gone against the townships – they ultimately appealed to the state Supreme Court, which in 2010 refused to hear the case.

The court has held that the townships are liable to the county for additional amounts to cover police services that the county provided to them between Jan. 1 and Dec. 5, 2006 – at $24 an hour more than the townships had paid under a previous contract. When the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, it was sent back to 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello to rule on a judgment request.

Costello told the county that it needed to provide evidence documenting the specific number of hours of police services provided to the three townships during that time period. Then in mid-2010, Salem Township agreed to settle its part of the lawsuit and pay the additional $24 per hour for the police services provided to it during that time period – totaling $48,000.

The county asked the court to enter a judgment for $24 per hour, plus interest and costs previously awarded by the court to the county. That amount totaled $2,103,822 for Ypsilanti Township, which used 44 deputies in 2006, and $95,932 for Augusta Township, which used two deputies. Ypsilanti and Augusta townships asked for a trial on the issue of whether they were liable for additional payments at all, but the court denied that request.

Recommendations from the Facilitator

Earlier this year, Costello ordered the remaining two townships and the county into non-binding facilitation before James Rashid, a retired Wayne County Circuit Court judge. Rashid’s business, Judicial Resource Services, provides mediation and facilitation for these kinds of cases. The facilitation meeting took place June 22.

Three people represented the county at the June 22 meeting: Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel; Jill Wheaton, an attorney with the law firm Dykema that’s been handling the case for the county; and county board chair Conan Smith. In a phone interview this week, Hedger told The Chronicle that they spent nearly 12 hours there, as Rashid met separately with representatives from the townships and the county.

The outcome was a recommendation that the county receive $749,427 from the townships – including $732,927 from Ypsilanti Township, and $16,500 from Augusta Township.

During a June 28 agenda briefing, the county board met in executive session to discuss pending litigation. Though details of that discussion haven’t been disclosed, it’s likely the board was briefed about the recommendations by Hedger.

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Hedger said a resolution regarding the recommendation would be presented at the board’s Ways & Means committee on Wednesday as a supplemental agenda item. [All resolutions are voted on twice by the board: first at the meeting of Ways & Means, a committee of the entire board; and finally at the regular board meeting. Ways & Means and regular board meetings are held back-to-back, but typically a resolution that's passed at the Ways & Means meeting is considered at the regular board meeting two weeks later. The board is currently on a summer schedule, meeting only once a month.]

If the resolution passes at Ways & Means on Wednesday, Hedger said it would require a vote by two-thirds of the board – eight of the 11 commissioners – to move it for consideration at the regular board meeting later that evening. Citing attorney-client privilege, Hedger said he couldn’t discuss advice he’s given to commissioners about the recommendation.

The county is not seeking payment of its legal fees from the townships. The county has spent over $1 million in legal expenses related to the lawsuit since 2006. On Tuesday, Hedger said he could not immediately provide a current tally of those costs.

Reached by phone on Tuesday, Doug Winters – an attorney who has represented the townships in this lawsuit – declined to comment about the recommendation from the facilitator. The Augusta Township board is expected to vote on the recommendation at its regular meeting on Tuesday, July 12. The Ypsilanti Township board’s next regular meeting is on Tuesday, July 19 – a special meeting will likely be scheduled on the issue, Winters said, possibly on the morning of Wednesday, July 13.

Sheriff’s Contract Deputy Pricing

On Wednesday’s agenda for the board’s regular meeting is a final vote to set the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The police services steering committee recommended setting the price in 2012 for a police services unit (PSU) at $150,594. The board had been briefed on the recommendation by sheriff Jerry Clayton at a May 19 working session, then gave initial approval to this proposal at its June 1 meeting.

The price in 2012 would remain unchanged from the 2011 rate of $150,594, which was a 4% increase over 2010 rates. In each of the following three years, the price per PSU increases about 1%: to $152,100 in 2013; $153,621 in 2014; and $155,157 in 2015.

In late 2010, the committee brought forward a recommendation to the board that set the cost of providing a PSU at $176,108. At its Dec. 1 meeting, the county board voted to accept that amount, with the understanding that commissioners would need to make a much harder decision at a later date – about the price that the county would charge for a PSU. The difference between the cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be covered by the county.

For additional background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage:

• “What’s Next for Washtenaw Police Services?” (Jan. 4, 2011)
• “County Board Acts on Budget Items” (Dec. 4, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Board Debates Budget Issues” (Nov. 22, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Police Services: What’s It Cost?” (Nov. 8, 2010)

The Chronicle relies in part on 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!

Key features of the contract are no wage increases and participating in the city’s health plan, which requires a contribution by employees to the cost. There are five members of the police service specialist union. They are civilians, who provide support services to police officers.

This leaves the contract with the much larger police officers union still unsettled – it expired on June 30, 2009.

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

From left: Washtenaw County public health officer Dick Fleece, newly appointed public health medical director Monique Reeves, interim deputy county administrator Kelly Belknap, and county commissioner Wes Prater. Commissioners approved the hiring of Reeves at their June 1 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

While the board’s previous meeting drew supporters from a range of human services groups, on Wednesday most public commenters spoke against funding of one specific nonprofit: Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan. Their arguments on financial and moral grounds were ultimately unpersuasive to commissioners, who voted unanimously to approve support for Planned Parenthood and several other agencies, totaling $1.015 million through fiscal year 2013, including $53,040 from the county for Planned Parenthood.

Two commissioners raised concerns that county funding for human services in general is inadequate, especially in light of proposed changes that could bump thousands of beneficiaries statewide off the welfare rolls later this year.

In a vote that also holds budget implications, the board’s move to set the price for a contract sheriff’s deputy was remarkable mainly for its lack of debate – historically it’s been a contentious issue. Commissioners gave initial approval without comment. The price set in 2012 for a police services unit (PSU) is $150,594 – unchanged from this year. That’s followed by 1% annual increases through 2015. The difference between the actual cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be covered by the county. The item will return to the board’s July 6 meeting for a final vote.

Meanwhile, a 2006 lawsuit filed against the county over the amount it charged at that time for contract deputies remains unresolved. Judge Joseph Costello of the 38th Circuit Court Chief has ordered the county and Augusta and Ypsilanti townships into non-binding facilitation, in a meeting set for June 22.

During Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners also approved a raft of other items, including: (1) the hiring of Monique Reeves as new medical director; and (2) five drain projects in Ann Arbor that require bonds backed by the county’s full faith and credit. The board also voted to add five new working sessions to its calendar: on June 16, July 21, Aug. 18, Sept. 15 and Oct. 13. All are focused on the 2012-2013 budget.

Finally, at the end of its meeting the board went into executive session for about an hour to address three issues: (1) a collective bargaining strategy; (2) possible settlement of pending litigation; and (3) review of a legal opinion.

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval to allocate $507,500 in children’s well-being and human services funding for 2011, as well as additional funds in 2012 and 2013, contingent on the board’s approval of those budgets later this year. In total, the board was asked to allocate $1.015 million through 2013.

The allocations for these awards were recommended by a coordinated funding review committee. The committee focused on six priorities for the entire county: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food. The process is being managed by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, which is coordinating the funding efforts of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is participating in other parts of the effort. [.pdf of funding recommendations]

The board had given initial approval for funding at its May 18 meeting, when they also heard from about 20 people during public commentary, mostly urging commissioners to continue support for various nonprofits. Three people at that meeting spoke against funding Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan.

At the June 1 meeting, most of the public commentary came from 10 residents who opposed funding for Planned Parenthood. Two people spoke in support of funding Planned Parenthood. Commissioners did not change the recommended allocation – a total of $67,440 was earmarked for the nonprofit, including $53,040 from the county.

Ccommissioners had approved the coordinated funding process at their Nov. 3, 2010 meeting. They had been briefed on the effort at an Oct. 7 working session, and most recently discussed the process at their May 4 meeting. The governing bodies of all other coordinated funding groups have now approved the allocations, including the Ann Arbor city council, which took a final vote at its meeting on Tuesday, May 31.

Related to this funding, the office of community development released a 16-page report last week that attempts to quantify the economic impact of the local nonprofits that are funded by the county and city. In 2011, the combined investments from the city and county in those nonprofits totaled $2.7 million. According to the report, those funds leveraged more than $34 million in non-local revenue.[.pdf of nonprofit investment report]

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits: Public Commentary

At Wednesday’s meeting, a dozen people spoke on the issue of funding for human services, 10 of them objecting to funds allocated to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan (PPMSM). Here’s a summary:

Brigid Kowalczyk of Ann Arbor said she applauded the board’s support of nonprofits, but urged them to defund Planned Parenthood. She noted that several people were at the meeting to outline reasons for defunding, and that they had provided a handout to commissioners as well. [.pdf of document given to the board – the 2008 IRS Form 990 for PPMSM, and portions of the nonprofit's 2009 annual report.] Kowalczyk highlighted some of the funding data from the nonprofit’s tax return, concluding that Planned Parenthood didn’t have a problem raising money, and didn’t need money from the county. There are other organizations more deserving and that help people who are truly in need, she said.

Karen Walacavage of Superior Township told the board that she had looked at the tax returns for some of the other nonprofits that the county planned to fund, and that none of them get as much revenue and grant funding as Planned Parenthood. It’s fiscally irresponsible for the county to fund Planned Parenthood, she said.

Joshua Wade and Jeffrey Brown – both Ann Arbor residents – and Joe Lipa of Lodi Township also argued against funding PPMSM. Wade noted that the large amount of contraceptives provided, as well as the number of abortions, resulted in fewer births of Washtenaw County taxpayers. The nonprofit doesn’t care about children’s well-being, he said. Lipa pointed out that there are other options for low-income women, including clinics at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and the Corner Health Center, as well as federal health care centers in surrounding counties.

Paul Malocha of Ann Arbor urged commissioners to fund nonprofits that don’t provide contraceptives and abortions. Planned Parenthood asks people to view pregnancy as a sort of sickness, he said, when it’s clearly normal and healthy. The Planned Parenthood view results in more out-of-wedlock pregnancies, he said, and promotes a disordered and amoral society.

Paul Dobrowolski of Pittsfield Township said he’d learned that a commissioner had talked with the head of the county’s human services department about funding of Planned Parenthood, and was told it would be almost impossible to remove the funding. If Planned Parenthood funding was pulled, then others on the board would ask that county funding be pulled from faith-based organizations, using a separation of church and state argument. But laws exist for freedom of religion, he said, not freedom from religion. It’s disturbing that some people would apply blackmail and pressure tactics. He noted that the county was hiring a firm to do an internal audit – maybe looking at this issue is a good place to start, he said. Dobrowolski reminded the board that president Barack Obama and former president George Bush both supported faith-based initiatives, especially for social services.

John Donnelly of Ypsilanti said there is videotaped evidence of Planned Parenthood workers offering no objection when a man posing as a pimp tried to get deals on abortions and contraceptives for his prostitutes. Donnelly said it proved Planned Parenthood was willing to do anything to make the prostitution ring possible. [Donnelly was referring to a videotape released by the anti-abortion group Live Action and filmed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in the Bronx. The incident and video were reported in a Feb. 11, 2011 New York Times article.] Donnelly described other instances in which he said that Planned Parenthood staffers urged underage clients to lie about their age when they became pregnant by older men. “I don’t know how we can tolerate this,” he said.

Steve Gendregske of Superior Township and Sandra Weathers of Pittsfield Township each read from medical texts with graphic descriptions of late-stage abortion procedures. Gendregske said he got hung up over the words “decapitate” and “dismember,” and he hoped that commissioners did, too. He didn’t want his tax money supporting Planned Parenthood. Weathers said she wanted her tax dollars to fund St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and the Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, both of which offer prenatal programs.

Two people spoke in support of Planned Parenthood. Bernie Klein of Pittsfield Township said he was a volunteer for the nonprofit. He said that contraception causes abortions like umbrellas cause rain. One of the anti-Planned Parenthood speakers regularly comes to the PPMSM clinic and yells at women, he said, telling them they should go to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital or Corner Health Center. The answers that women give, he said, are that St. Joe’s doesn’t take their insurance, and Corner Health Center is full. Planned Parenthood provides the services that women want, Klein said. ”I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Later in the meeting, Thomas Partridge also voiced his support for funding Planned Parenthood.

Joshua Wade again spoke during an additional opportunity for public commentary, asking commissioners to address the concerns directly that they’d heard expressed about Planned Parenthood. He said the speakers during public commentary were deeply interested in the board’s opinions, and he asked that those opinions be openly shared and discussed.

Funding for Human Services Nonprofits: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners gave no follow-up to public commentary, nor did they discuss Planned Parenthood funding specifically.

Ronnie Peterson, who has previously raised concerns about how the process for allocating this funding has been handled, again asked for clarification about the process, and how much each funder would be paying.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the county's office of community development, and Brett Lenart of the economic development & energy department work on their laptops during a break in the June 1 county board of commissioners meeting.

In total – including funds from the county, city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw Urban County and Washtenaw United Way – 63 programs will receive $4,027,933. Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, reviewed the coordinated funding process and emphasized that nonprofits realized the second year of a two-year funding cycle was contingent on budgets that haven’t yet been approved.

Peterson commended the Ann Arbor city council for its generosity in funding these nonprofits. [At its May 31 session, the council allocated $1,159,029 – amending the amount to include 9% more than the review committee had recommended.] He said the issue is how to attack problems that face the county in the future, especially in light of proposed legislation that would tighten the amount of time that residents are eligible for welfare. If signed into law, an estimated 12,600 welfare beneficiaries who’ve been receiving aid for more than 48 months would no longer get benefits.

Some of those people live in Washtenaw County and will turn to local governments and nonprofits for assistance, Peterson said, calling it an unfunded mandate. The county needs to prepare for this storm, he said.

Barbara Bergman agreed, saying the money they’ve allocated to nonprofits won’t begin to address the need. She called the proposed reform criminal, adding that the county doesn’t have the resources to adequately respond. Bergman noted that the current director of the state Department of Human Services, Cynthia Maritato, is from this area – she was former director of the Washtenaw County department of human services. They should organize a meeting with Maritato and other community leaders, Bergman said, to strategize about how to deal with this problem.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved allocating the recommended amounts to human services nonprofits. Yousef Rahbi was not in the room at the time of the vote, and Rob Turner was absent. Although Dan Smith had voted against the allocations when they were given initial approval at the May 18 meeting – citing an objection to funding Planned Parenthood – he voted in favor of all the allocations for this final approval.

Sheriff’s Contract Deputy Pricing

With no discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to the price that municipalities will pay for a contract sheriff’s deputy through 2015. The police services steering committee recommended setting the price in 2012 for a police services unit (PSU) at $150,594. The board had been briefed on the recommendation by sheriff Jerry Clayton at a May 19 working session.

The price in 2012 will remain unchanged from the 2011 rate of $150,594, which was a 4% increase over 2010 rates. In each of the following three years, the price per PSU increases about 1%: to $152,100 in 2013; $153,621 in 2014; and $155,157 in 2015.

In late 2010, the committee brought forward a recommendation to the board that set the cost of providing a PSU at $176,108. At its Dec. 1 meeting, the county board voted to accept that amount, with the understanding that commissioners would need to make a much harder decision at a later date – about the price that the county would charge for a PSU. The difference between the cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be covered by the county.

Clayton attended the June 1 meeting, but was not asked to address the board. The only comment made by commissioners came from board chair Conan Smith, who commended the sheriff, the county’s finance staff and members of the police services steering committee for their work in putting together the proposal.

For additional background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage:

• “What’s Next for Washtenaw Police Services?” (Jan. 4, 2011)
• “County Board Acts on Budget Items” (Dec. 4, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Board Debates Budget Issues” (Nov. 22, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Police Services: What’s It Cost?” (Nov. 8, 2010)

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to set the price of a police services unit (PSU) at $150,594 in 2012, with 1% annual increases through 2015. A final vote is expected at the board’s July 6, 2011 meeting.

On a related note, a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006 over the price of contract deputies remains unresolved. Three townships – Augusta, Salem and Ypsilanti – originally sued the county, disputing the amount that was charged for police services. The court has held that the townships are liable to the county for additional amounts to cover police services that the county provided to them between Jan. 1 and Dec. 5, 2006 – at $24 an hour more than the townships had paid under a previous contract.

In mid 2010, the county settled with Salem Township, which agreed to pay the county $48,000. The county has been seeking more than $2 million from the other two townships – the bulk of that from Ypsilanti Township, which has the largest number of contract deputies.

The case is being handled by 38th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Costello, who has ordered the townships and county into non-binding facilitation before James Rashid, a retired Wayne County Circuit Court judge. Rashid’s business, Judicial Resource Services, provides mediation and facilitation for these kinds of cases. The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 22.

Medical Director, Other Appointments

Diana Torres-Burgos, the county’s public health medical director, recently announced her resignation – she’ll be leaving her job later this month. At their June 1 meeting, commissioners were asked to approve the hire of her replacement – Monique Reeves – at an annual salary of $125,000. She’ll start the job on June 20.

Reeves was introduced by Dick Fleece, the county’s public health officer. He told commissioners that she has more than 10 years of experience in emergency medicine, with a medical degree and a masters degree in public health, both from the University of Michigan. She’s been working as a resident with the county in preventive medicine – she’s intelligent, funny, and will do a wonderful job, Fleece said.

Under the Michigan Public Health Code (Public Act 368 of 1978), Medicare services provided by the county – including immunizations and the maternal infant health program – require that a licensed medical doctor on staff bill Medicare, via the state, for reimbursement.

Commissioner Wes Prater described Reeves’ resume as impressive. Rolland Sizemore Jr. thanked her for attending the meeting, saying it was always good to see how they’re spending the county’s money. Conan Smith also complimented Reeves, but joked that he didn’t see anything on her resumé indicating that she was qualified to handle Fleece.

Reeves spoke briefly, telling commissioners that after nearly 11 years in emergency medicine, she decided she wanted to do more than just put a Band-Aid on the problems she’d been treating. She felt public health was the best way to do that, even though it meant she’d be taking a significant pay cut.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the hiring of Monique Reeves as the county’s public health medical director.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners approved appointments to two of the county’s volunteer boards and committees. There was no discussion on these items.

Bob Grese was named to a two-year term on the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee, which oversees the county’s natural area preservation program. The term expires Dec. 31, 2012. Grese is director Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum and a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment.

The board also appointed Mark Creekmore to a three-year term expiring March 31, 2014 for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) board, a partnership between the county and UM. Creekmore is founder and executive director of the nonprofit Community Service Systems Inc.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the appointments of Bob Grese and Mark Creekmore.

Drain Projects in Ann Arbor

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to five projects planned by the county’s water resources commissioner.

Commissioner Dan Smith talks with Janis Bobrin, the county's water resources commissioner.

The projects, which require the county to back bond payments totaling up to $6.54 million, are all located in Ann Arbor: (1) Allen Creek drain cistern installation, downspout disconnection and tree planting – up to $330,000; (2) County Farm drain stream bank stabilization – up to $1.2 million; (3) Malletts Creek drain/Burns Park porous alley; Malletts Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Malletts Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $3.48 million; (4) Swift Run cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting – up to $75,000; and (5) Traver Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Traver Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $780,000.

Leah Gunn asked Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, to describe the projects and the grants she’s received to help pay for them.

Bobrin told commissioners that 50% of the project costs would be funded with a low-interest loan – now at 2.5% – from a state revolving loan fund. More importantly, she said, the remaining 50% would be funded through federal stimulus dollars. The projects met certain “green” requirements that many other applicants didn’t meet – that news resulted in a round of applause from commissioners.

Dan Smith pointed to an item of communication in the board’s meeting packet – a resolution passed by the Gratiot County board of commissioners, urging support of state legislation that includes creation of a delinquent special assessment revolving loan fund. He noted that the Gratiot resolution mentioned revenue from special assessment districts – used to make bond payments – is declining, because of decreasing property values. The proposed Ann Arbor drain projects would be in special assessment districts, and he asked Bobrin to talk about that.

Bobrin said that Ann Arbor is the chief partner in virtually all these bonds, and it collects stormwater utility fees from all residents to pay for these types of projects. All of these projects are in the city’s capital improvements plan, she said, and funding has been secured. There are no rate increases associated with the projects.

Conan Smith observed that although the projects being approved that night were all in Ann Arbor, other drain projects are often done throughout the county.

Outcome: The board gave initial approval to the five drain projects in Ann Arbor. Commissioners are expected to take final action on these items at their July 6 meeting.

Brownfields: LaFontaine, Packard Square

The brownfield plan for the LaFontaine Chevrolet redevelopment project in Dexter was up for final approval from commissioners at their June 1 meeting. Though heightened attention had been given to another brownfield project – the Packard Square development at the former Georgetown Mall site – there was no discussion of the LaFontaine project at Wednesday’s meeting. The plan had received initial approval at the board’s May 18 meeting.

The LaFontaine brownfield plan would enable the use of up to $330,330 of tax increment financing (TIF) for four years to pay for cleanup work, including asbestos and lead abatement. Of that amount, $25,410 would support the county’s brownfield program management, and $50,820 would be deposited into the county’s Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund. The project is expected to retain 76 jobs and create 50 new ones, and to increase the annual tax revenues to the county from $4,516 to $11,119 after the TIF ends.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the LaFontaine Chevrolet brownfield plan.

Brownfields: Packard Square

There was no agenda item on June 1 related to the Packard Square development. At their May 18 meeting, commissioners had approved the project’s brownfield plan, as well as a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $48 million development.. Wes Prater had voted against both those items.

Also at the May 18 meeting, the board had postponed action on a $1 million loan application to the MDEQ for Packard Square, as well as a request to authorize designation of the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for any loan that might be awarded, up to $1 million. They also discussed but ultimately postponed action on a broader public-private investment policy they’re developing, a policy spurred in large part by the request to back the MDEQ loan.

They’d initially planned to take up both those topics again on June 1. But at a May 24 agenda briefing, the board learned that Packard Square developers had decided not to pursue a state loan. That prompted commissioners to defer action on the broader policy issue, with the intent of taking more time to develop it before bringing it back to the board for consideration.

At the June 1 meeting, Prater asked staff to give an update on the status of Packard Square. Brett Lenart of the county’s economic development & energy department told commissioners that the loan request had been pulled, and that the brownfield grant application would likely be submitted to the state next week. He said no other board action would be required.

Prater told Lenart he still had questions about the project, including who would ultimately be responsible for the brownfield remediation. There was no other discussion about the project.

Budget & Finance: Millage, New Work Sessions, Internal Audit

Commissioners acted on several other items related to budget and finance at Wednesday’s meeting.

Budget & Finance: General Operating Millage

At their May 18 meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to establish the 2011 county millage rate at 5.6768 mills. That includes the general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills, unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages – including those for parks and recreation, emergency communications and the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority – are levied separately, bringing the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s state equalized value, or SEV.

On Wednesday, a public hearing was held on the action. One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke. He said the county doesn’t have sufficient revenues to meet its current obligations, especially not in this economy. As he outlined some of the county’s needs, Partridge was advised by board chair Conan Smith to stick to the topic of the public hearing – the millage rate. Partridge replied by challenging Smith’s leadership, saying the commissioner was not pushing to set property taxes at a level that would support county services adequately. “Do you not understand that?” Partridge asked.

[With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to give final approve to set the total tax for Washtenaw County at 5.6768 mills.

Budget & Finance: Working Sessions

A resolution was added to the agenda at the meeting, adding five new working sessions to the board’s calendar focused on the 2012-2013 budget. The dates are June 16, July 21, Aug. 18, Sept. 15 and Oct. 13 – all Thursdays.

Currently, the meetings are scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. However, it’s possible that some or all of the added working sessions will be held elsewhere, at locations throughout the county. Those decisions will be made at a later date.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to add five new budget-related working sessions to its calendar.

Budget & Finance: Internal Audit

The board was asked to give final approval to hire the professional services firm Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) to perform internal auditing services for the county for one year, with the possibility of extending the contract over additional years. The board had authorized the county administration to issue requests for proposals for these services at its Dec. 1, 2010 meeting. The county received 10 responses, and a review team narrowed the selection and held interviews with three firms. The team’s recommendation for Experis was unanimous, according to a staff report.

The total cost for internal audit work in 2011 is $87,500. It would include: (1) overall internal control review and risk assessment; (2) more detailed internal control review for two county departments; (3) establishing a fraud hotline; and (4) eight hours of internal control training for county staff.

The contract was originally proposed for a five-year period. At their May 18 meeting, several commissioners raised concerns about the expenditure to an outside firm, and the resolution was amended to shorten the contract to one year.

Representatives from Experis attended the June 1 meeting, but commissioners did not ask them to address the board.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to hire Experis for internal auditing services.

Grants: Community Corrections, Weatherization, Summer Food

On the agenda for final consideration were several grants that had received initial approval at the May 18 meeting.

Final approval was sought for a grant application for the county’s community corrections program, operated by the sheriff’s office. The grant of $421,801 – for the period from Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2012 – is only a portion of the program’s $1.01 million budget.

Other revenues include $215,983 from the county’s general fund, $76,386 from the program’s fund balance, and an estimated $295,890 in program-generated revenues, including fees from tethering and drug testing.

Programs run by community corrections are designed in part to provide sentencing alternatives to the Washtenaw County Trial Court. Programs include pre-trial screening, drug testing, electronic tethering, supervised release, and educational efforts, such as the “Thinking Matters” program offered in partnership with the nonprofit Dawn Farm.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to give final approval to the community corrections grant application.

Two items on the June 1 agenda related to the county’s employment training and community services (ETCS) department.

Commissioners were asked to approve the acceptance of $455,000 in federal stimulus funds – from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – to pay for weatherization assistance. The funds were originally granted to other municipalities but weren’t used, and are being redistributed. Washtenaw County has already been granted $4.3 million in weatherization funds from 2009-2011, and has finished work on 611 residences. The new funding will pay for about 70 additional residences. The services – including home inspections, refrigerator efficiency testing and consumer education – are available to residents with an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. That’s $23,448 for a single person, or $45,088 for a family of four.

A grant application to fund a summer food program for children was also on the agenda. Nearly $116,000 in federal funds, distributed through the state Dept. of Education, are available to pay for breakfasts, lunches and snacks to low-income children at 30 sites throughout the county.

Outcome: Final approval was given to the weatherization and summer food program grants.

Urban County Annual Plan

On the agenda was a resolution for final approval of the Washtenaw Urban County annual plan from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012.

The plan must be submitted to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), outlining specific projects and programs that the Washtenaw Urban County will undertake with HUD funding from several sources: the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; HOME grants; and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG). The county is expected to receive $3,602,480 from these programs during the coming fiscal year. A $448,920 in-kind county match is required. [.pdf of fiscal year 2011 Washtenaw Urban County plan]

The Urban County is a consortium of 11 local governments that receive federal funding for programs that serve low-income residents and neighborhoods.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to the Washtenaw Urban County annual plan.

Misc. Communications

During her report to the board, county administrator Verna McDaniel noted that this was the last week on the job for Joanna Bidlack.

Joanna Bidlack talks with Bob Tetens, director of the county's parks & recreation department. Bidlack has served as a management analyst with the county, a role that in part included working as support staff for the county board. June 3 was her last day on the job.

Bidlack has been a management analyst in the county administrator’s office, a role that in part included serving as support staff for the county board. For example, she was the point person for compiling agendas, and previously led the board’s agenda briefings.

Bidlack has taken a job with General Electric’s operation in Van Buren Township. McDaniel told the board it would be a huge loss for the county – Bidlack is intelligent, loyal and a great communicator, she said. They’ll all miss her, McDaniel said, but they wished her well.

Commissioners and others attending the meeting gave Bidlack a round of applause.

Misc. Communications: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke five times during the evening – at a public hearing, and the four opportunities for general public commentary. In addition to the commentary reported earlier in this article, Partridge also:  (1) urged commissioners to support the recall of Gov. Rick Snyder; (2) questioned funding of the county’s public outreach team (PORT) because it supports a homeless soccer team with money that could be used for shelter or other services; (3) chastised the board for not seeking the maximum available revenue from grants and other sources to pay for needed county services; and (4) advocated for an agenda item that would address protection of residents from exposure to medical marijuana and other harmful substances.

Executive Session: Labor, Legal

At the end of the meeting, the board went into executive session for about an hour to address three issues: (1) a collective bargaining strategy; (2) possible settlement of pending litigation; and (3) review of a legal opinion. Under the Michigan Open Meetings Act, public bodies must state the reason for entering into a closed session. They can – but are not required to – provide details about the topics they’ll be discussing. In this case, no additional information was provided.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, and Dan Smith. Rob Turner was absent for most of the meeting, arriving after the start of the board’s executive session.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

The board will also hold a Thursday, June 16 working session focused on the budget and starting at 6:30 p.m. in the county administration building, 220 N. Main.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on 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!

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, right, briefed county commissioners on May 19 about the recommended price to charge local municipalities to put a contract sheriff's deputy on patrol. In the foreground is Greg Dill, director of administrative services for the sheriff's office. (Photo by the writer.)

At a board working session on May 19, sheriff Jerry Clayton briefed commissioners about a recommendation from the police services steering committee (PSSC) to set the price in 2012 at $150,594 – the same amount that’s currently charged – with incremental increases over the following three years. By 2015, the price would reach $155,157 per police services unit, an amount that includes overhead and other costs.

For well over a year, the PSSC has been working on the contentious issue of how much it costs to provide sheriff patrols – and how much local municipalities should be charged. In late 2010, the committee brought forward a recommendation to the board that determined the cost of providing a police services unit (PSU) to be $176,108. At its Dec. 1 meeting, the board voted to accept that amount, with the understanding that they’d need to make a much harder decision – about the price that the county would charge for a PSU – at a later date.

That time has come.

The difference between the cost of a PSU and the amount charged – roughly $25,500, based on current figures – would be absorbed by the county. Leaders of two local municipalities – Ann Arbor township supervisor Mike Moran and Pat Vailliencourt, president of the Manchester village council – attended the May 19 work session. Both are members of the PSSC. They argued that the county benefits from supporting deputy patrols by creating a safer environment for residents and businesses, and ultimately strengthening the local economy.

Also during the May 19 working session, Clayton identified other policy issues that the board needs to address – issues that he’s raised a previous meetings as well. They include setting the contract length – Clayton favors longer terms – and developing a policy to handle requests from municipalities to add or subtract deputies.

If commissioners give initial approval to the price on June 1, the resolution would return for a final vote at the board’s July 6 meeting. The board is now operating on a summer schedule, with meetings held on the first Wednesday of the month.

Setting the Price: Background

During his presentation at the May 19 working session, sheriff Jerry Clayton covered much of the same ground he and others have discussed at previous public meetings.

For Chronicle coverage, see:

• “What’s Next for Washtenaw Police Services?” (Jan. 4, 2011)
• “County Board Acts on Budget Items” (Dec. 4, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Board Debates Budget Issues” (Nov. 22, 2010)
• “Washtenaw Police Services: What’s It Cost?” (Nov. 8, 2010)

Clayton began by noting that the police services steering committee (PSSC) was formed out of a desire to do a better job managing the issue of providing police services in the county. He alluded to what the previous sheriff’s administration had done to damage its relationship with the county, saying the PSSC was intended to bring people together to find better solutions to delivering police services, in a collaborative spirit. [Former sheriff Dan Minzey, who was defeated by Clayton in the 2008 Democratic primary, butted heads with the county board and administration over budget overruns and other issues, and sided with three townships that sued the county over the cost of contract deputies.]

The issue of cost versus price was one of the most divisive, Clayton said, and one that undermined the county’s trust and credibility with the contracting municipalities – that’s what the PSSC tackled.

Clayton sketched out a history of how the sheriff’s office has handled contract deputy services over the decades. In the past, prices would be negotiated with each jurisdiction, separately. That evolved to a more formal model in the mid-1980s, based on a report by Susan Kattelus of Eastern Michigan University. The report suggested a formula for establishing the cost of a contract deputy. It included a set of direct costs – salary, fringe benefits, uniform allowance, overtime, liability insurance and training. In addition, it established a 39% indirect cost rate, plus a charge of 33 cents per mile for vehicles used by contract deputies.

This model was used until 2000, when the current approach was adopted. The current model is based on a study commissioned by the county and conducted by the Northwestern University Traffic Institute. Known as the Northwestern study, it found the amount being charged for these contract deputies was too low, and undervalued the true cost of providing these services. The study outlined three alternative costing models, each setting different indirect cost rates – one as high as 94%. [.pdf of Northwestern study]

The study also included a staffing analysis, looking at how many patrols would be required for covering the county. It identified a minimum number of patrols for the contracting jurisdictions, and an ideal number as well. [.pdf of Northwestern staffing analysis chart]

Problems arose when policy issues connected to the report weren’t addressed. Many costs weren’t included – the cost of training officers, for example, or costs associated with hiring – which again led to an undervaluing of the true cost of providing these services. It explains why costs escalated over such a relatively short period of time, as the county started trying to adjust for the true cost. But from the perspective of the townships and villages that contracted for police services, the increases seemed arbitrary, Clayton said, and it was difficult for them to plan their budgets. ”Part of our charge was to move away from that,” he said.

The PSSC drilled down to look at the true cost of providing deputy patrols, identifying direct costs that are passed on to the contracting municipality, and deciding what percentage of indirect costs and overhead should be paid for. Clayton noted that one reason why they now refer to a police services unit (PSU) rather than a contract deputy is to capture the fact that there’s more involved in providing police services than just the deputy. Part of the issue is also to consider what it would cost a township or village to establish and maintain its own law enforcement agency – what costs would they be responsible for?

Based on the work of identifying costs – with specific categories for direct, indirect and overhead costs – the PSSC used those same categories in calculating the price, Clayton said. These categories can now serve as a framework for setting prices for future contracts as well.

Setting the Price: Recommendations

At the May 19 working session, Greg Dill, director of administrative services for the sheriff’s office, described the details of the price recommendation. [.pdf of 2012-2015 cost/price recommendation for police services]

He reiterated that the pricing categories are based on the cost categories that commissioners approved in December of 2010. Salary and fringe benefits are the primary drivers of increases in the coming years, he said. The biggest unknown is the cost of fringe benefits, he said, which includes health care. In consultation with the county’s human resources department, the recommendation assumes a 9.5% annual increase in fringe benefits.

The pricing in 2012 will remain unchanged from the 2011 rate of $150,594, which was a 4% increase over 2010 rates. The rationale is that costs didn’t increase by 4% this year, Clayton said, even though the price did.

In each of the following three years, the price per PSU increases about 1%: to $152,100 in 2013; $153,621 in 2014; and $155,157 in 2015.

Clayton noted that the pricing is based on the assumption of 74 contract deputies. If the number of contract deputies changes – either increasing or decreasing – that will impact the costs, he said. Within the pricing model they’ve developed, they can absorb some modest changes without increasing the county’s contribution, he said. What does it mean in terms of the number of vehicles needed, for example, or the number of supervisors? But it’s unclear what the tipping point would be to trigger a greater county contribution – or whether they’ve already reached it.

In 2011, the county’s contribution to contract patrols is 14.49% – or $1,888,036. That’s the difference between the cost of 74 PSUs ($13.03 million), and the price that contracting municipalities are paying ($11.14 million). That percentage contribution drops slightly to 13.9% in 2012 ($1.799 million) then increases to 21.16% by 2015 – or $3,081,068. The average contribution is about 17% during the four-year period from 2012-2015, Clayton said.

The county general fund will not bear that increase, Clayton said. That’s because the $1.3 million difference between the county’s contribution in 2012 and 2015 will be absorbed by the sheriff’s office, he said. They’ve committed to handling the price increases internally, he said – it’s appropriate, because they’re responsible for the county’s public safety, which they believe is crucial to its economic health.

Clayton outlined additional policy questions that the board would need to address: (1) the length of future contracts; and (2) the process and metrics related to setting future cost increases and decreases.

Longer contracts would create stability for the contracting municipalities as they plan their budgets or decide whether to seek voter approval for a police services millage, Clayton said. It would also provide a greater sense of job security for deputies, he said. The hope also is to eventually align labor contracts with the budget cycles of the county and local municipalities.

Clayton suggested that they start having a conversation about four-year contracts, with renewal every two years.

The board’s next steps would be to consider and hopefully adopt the PSSC’s recommended contract price, Clayton said, then implement the total police services “financial architecture” – including mechanisms for adjusting prices based on increases or decreases to the number of contract deputies, the length of the contracts, and the determination of the county’s contribution.

Clayton also told commissioners that his office is working with a consultant from Michigan State University on developing a benefits/values metric for police services – a way to calculate, using empirical data, the value of the contributions by the county and the local municipalities toward public safety.

Setting the Price: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Conan Smith asked about the difference in annual cost increases for a PSU of about 4%, compared to price increases of only 1%. How is that sustainable? he asked. They’re establishing a pattern of growth that has to stop at some point.

Greg Dill pointed out that almost 100% of direct costs are passed through to the contracting municipalities. That includes the biggest costs and variables – salaries and fringe benefits.

Clayton added that although the sheriff’s office will absorb the differential between cost and price increases through 2015, beyond that, they’ll have to revisit it. They’ll be having ongoing discussions with the contracting municipalities about the issue.

Smith asked whether the sheriff’s office felt that a 20-21% contribution from the county was realistic and appropriate, and whether Clayton expected it would hold steady at that level beyond 2015.

Clayton said he couldn’t project the future, but hoped it would hold steady. He also wanted to cast the conversation in terms of value, from an objective viewpoint. What is the county truly getting for the amount they invest, and if that value is greater, should they invest more than 20%?

Smith asked for Clayton to talk in more detail about what those value metrics entail. One way to look at it, Clayton said, is from the perspective of the total value of the county’s tax base and property values. If property values in Washtenaw County total $4 billion, and the county invests $10 million in police services – it’s like an insurance policy, he said. What’s the value-add of that insurance? You look at what you’re trying to protect, and whether your investment is worth it. That’s just looking at property and equipment values, Clayton noted – it doesn’t even address the value of human life. How do you quantify that?

Wes Prater said he felt good about where they stand – it’s been a slow process, he said, and was very difficult with the previous sheriff. Things started turning around when Clayton took office, said Prater, who’s been working with the PSSC on this issue. He’s pleased to hear the sheriff make a commitment about containing costs – it’s the first county department to make that commitment for the next four years, he said. Prater hoped other municipalities would come on board by contracting for sheriff’s deputies.

Prater, whose district covers the southeast part of the county, said he felt like only two police forces are needed: the city of Ann Arbor police department, and the sheriff’s department. It was a conclusion that he and former sheriff Ron Schebil had reached years ago “during one of our more intellectual conversations,” he said, but it’s a long-term solution.

Kristin Judge – who represents District 7, covering Pittsfield Township – said she’d like to see at least three public safety agencies in the county, including the Pittsfield Township department of public safety. Clayton said he agreed 100% – he had no interest in absorbing Pittsfield Township’s department.

Judge said that while her district is in Pittsfield, she represents residents in the entire county. The price for a PSU needs to be set so that it’s affordable, and all residents feel safe. She noted that public safety and human services go hand-in-hand – a point also made by Alicia Ping earlier in the meeting.

Rob Turner noted that the county has many communities with unique personalities. Without the county’s help, these smaller communities would literally become lawless zones, he said. In some areas, that’s happening already, he said – his business in Scio Township has been broken into seven times in the past five years. There’s only so much protection that a township can afford, but it’s beneficial to have all parts of the county safe, both for residents and for businesses, he said. People shouldn’t have to move into the city just to feel safe.

Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, chairing the board's May 19 working session.

Yousef Rabhi joked that as much as he and the other Ann Arbor commissioners would welcome people to move to their city, he recognized the importance of the other vibrant communities in the county.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked how the $7,500 in overhead costs for a PSU compared to other counties. Clayton said it was hard to compare, because other counties calculated costs differently. However, he said he’d argue that overhead costs are lower in Washtenaw. Sizemore then clarified that the main reason some municipalities wanted their own police departments related to issues of local control – it wasn’t that they could do it at a lower cost.

Dan Smith said he appreciated all the work that the sheriff’s office and PSSC had done. He noted that many township residents do put a high premium on public safety – Northfield Township, which is part of his district, passed two public safety millages last year, and another one this spring, he said.

The county is in a position to help provide public safety for communities that have vastly different circumstances and resources, D. Smith said. On one end there’s Salem Township, which doesn’t levy any property tax, he said, while Manchester’s tax rate is high. He said he appreciated the work that had been done to show how direct costs relate to price – it makes clear that there’s a relation, and that’s helpful.

Looking at the cost projections, D. Smith noted that the scary one relates to benefits – it’s a huge increase, from $45,820 per PSU in 2012 to $60,159 in 2015. Clayton said the county’s projections are 12-12.5% increase per year, but they’ve budgeted a roughly 9% annual increase for the contracts. Kelly Belknap, interim deputy county administrator, said the cost of benefits also depends on what happens at the state level, but that the administration is comfortable with the 9% proposed in the pricing recommendation.

Clayton noted that if the board agrees to a four-year contract that’s renegotiated every two years, they could adjust fringe benefit costs if needed, to reflect the true cost increases.

Prater said they needed to thank the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) unions, which agreed to concessions that are expected to save $5.6 million over the next four years – it’s greatly appreciated, he said. Had they not stepped up, he said, the county would be in even more financial difficulty. Clayton acknowledged that the unions had taken a different stance than in the past. He said he knew that some people thought the county should have gotten even greater concessions, but the fact is that the actions by the unions did play into the contract price.

Turner said he’d attended a recent memorial service for law enforcement officials, and saw firsthand the closeness and camaraderie of all the departments throughout the county. Even though they are separate entities, he said, they come together as a team. He said the Chelsea police chief, Ed Toth, had great things to say about Clayton. It’s the connectedness among police departments in the county that makes residents safer, Turner said, and the connecting thread is Clayton.

Clayton said the county benefits from having great police chiefs, who are easy to work with. That prompted other commissioners to give shout-outs to their respective police departments: Alicia Ping for Saline, Dan Smith for Northfield Township, and Yousef Rabhi for Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan.

Clayton joked that since Ronnie Peterson – who represents Ypsilanti – wasn’t at the working session, he’d commend the Ypsilanti police department on Peterson’s behalf. Clayton said it’s not in the interest of the sheriff’s office to eliminate any of these other police departments.

Setting the Price: Two Municipalities Weigh In

Conan Smith asked Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran and Manchester village council president Pat Vailliencourt to share their views on the pricing recommendation. Both are members of the police services steering committee (PSSC), which unanimously recommended the proposed contract deputy prices.

Moran noted that the county was well aware of decreases in state revenue-sharing – the portion of the state sales tax that’s allocated to municipalities. For Ann Arbor Township, state revenue-sharing has dropped 30% between 2002-2010. The township contracts for four deputies, he said, but the total from state revenue-sharing and the township’s general fund operating millage combined can’t cover those costs anymore, he said. The same is true of other townships, including Superior, Ypsilanti and Dexter.

When they started the discussion about the cost and price, Moran said, it was the hope of the contracting municipalities that the price could be dropped significantly from the 2011 rate. But fiscal reality and the sheriff’s leadership regarding shared sacrifices, he said, led them to the current recommendation. It allows them to share the cost obligations, while being able to budget for future increases and provide public safety to their communities, Moran said.

Moran said they’ll accept the recommendation and work to make it sustainable beyond 2015.

Smith asked whether they’d consider looking at 3% increases in 2016, for example, for both the county and the contracting municipalities. Moran said he’s hopeful that the economy will start turning around, though he noted it will be a very slow climb out of their current situation. He pointed out that before Ann Arbor Township passed a public safety millage, they had to dip into their reserves to cover costs, starting in 2006.

Smith noted that conversations in the community and around the board table often contrast investments in human services with public safety. It seemed to him that residents of the townships and villages put a high premium on public safety, and are willing to invest in it by voting for special millages to cover costs.

That’s true, Moran said. They also recognize that the county has an obligation for public safety services as well, though it’s never been clear what that level of support should be. Right now, the county pays for 12 deputies out of its general fund. He said he thinks the county recognizes that they couldn’t provide sufficient public safety to the entire county with just those 12 deputies – the county needs the 74 contract deputies as well.

Vailliencourt of Manchester shared her perspective as well, describing the village as a unique, beautiful corner of Washtenaw County, with about 2,000 residents. They previously contracted for four deputies, she said. Now, they partner with Lodi and Bridgewater townships for three deputies. In spite of that, costs are still going up, and Manchester residents pay 7 mills already, she said. It’s not that they don’t want to pay their fair share – it’s that they don’t know how much more they can bear.

She said when the PSSC began meeting, she didn’t have much hope that they would come up with a workable solution. Her biggest fear had been that there’d be “police-free” zones in the county, because the divide between the county administration and the contracting municipalities had been so huge. They’ve come far, she said, and setting the cost and now the price are significant steps. But there’s much more to do, Vailliencourt added. One question is what value do the 74 contracting deputies bring to the rest of the county, and at what price point will the contracting municipalities be unable to continue paying. Regarding that last point, she said, “Manchester’s there.”

C. Smith said it’s important to remind people that there’s a difference in capacity among communities in the county. At the heart of it, people need to feel safe, no matter where they live, he said. The power of collaboration with the county is that the county can help soften the financial blow while strengthening public safety. He praised Clayton for bringing rationality to the conversation, and said he’s excited by the values-oriented approach that the sheriff’s office is developing.

The fact that they’ve agreed on the cost of a police services unit is a good foundation, Smith said. Setting the price can’t be a specific calculus, he added, and it’s important to recognize the value of the county’s investment in public safety. “You’ll have my support for the pricing model,” he said.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.