A description of the board’s duties was outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the original May 21 resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The board will consist of 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Appointments will be made at a later date. Members will be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually.

The resolution passed on July 9 also dissolved two existing boards: (1) the environmental health code appeals board/public health advisory committee; and (2) the hearing board of the health department food service regulation. Duties of those entities will be taken on by the new board of health.

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

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman, left, talks with Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) before the board’s May 21, 2014 meeting. Bergman spoke during public commentary to oppose a possible road tax. (Photos by the writer.)

The vote on levying a millage was 2-6, with support only from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

Several commissioners spoke against levying this kind of tax at this time. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) advocated for waiting to see whether the state provides more funding for roads. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) reported that the boards of Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools are considering levying tax increases this summer of 2.8 mills and 1.2 mills, respectively. The state passed legislation that enables school districts to levy millages for debt retirement without voter approval. Noting that a new public transit millage had been approved by voters earlier this month – in Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Ann Arbor – Peterson said the communities that he represents would be hard-pressed to handle yet another tax increase.

Dan Smith argued that there are few funding options available to the county to pay for road repair, and that the need for additional revenues is critical because the roads are in such bad shape. He said he was well aware of the reasons why this was a bad plan – even a terrible one – but added that the only thing worse would be to do nothing. Conan Smith pointed out that because all of the board seats are up for election this year, residents will have a way to weigh in on this decision, albeit indirectly. “This is the most defensible moment that we have” to levy a tax that doesn’t require voter approval, he said.

The May 21 meeting also included a public hearing on the possible levy. And the board heard from people on the topic during general public commentary. In total, seven people spoke about the road funding issue. Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman, who is an Ann Arbor resident, argued against levying the tax, while former state Rep. Rick Olson of York Township urged commissioners to levy the full 1-mill amount allowed under Act 283. Another resident argued against any tax that isn’t approved by voters, calling it taxation without representation.

After the tax levy resolution was rejected, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought forward a resolution to create a seven-member road funding committee that would explore options – including Act 283, as well as other possible revenue sources like bonding or a voter-approved tax. The initial vote to form the committee passed on a 6-2 split, over dissent from Conan Smith and Dan Smith. A final vote is expected on June 4. If approved, members would be appointed at a later date, with the direction to provide a road funding plan to the board in the fall.

Commissioners also weighed in to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county, prompted by a company’s permit application to the state to drill in Scio Township. The vote was 7-1, over dissent from Dan Smith. Two residents spoke during public commentary,urging the board to oppose oil drilling.

During deliberations, Dan Smith argued that the issue was outside of the county’s purview, because the county can’t regulate oil drilling. He noted that the easiest way to prevent oil drilling is for property owners not to sign leases with companies that seek to drill on their land. Other commissioners supported the resolution, citing environmental and public health concerns, including the proposed drilling location’s proximity to the Huron River.

In other action on May 21, commissioners took initial steps to: (1) put a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations tax renewal on the Nov. 4 ballot, at 0.2353 mills; (2) create a board of health that would give advice on public health issues; and (3) approve an application for a $940,000 federal grant that the county would make on behalf of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Funds would be used to help redevelop the former General Motors Willow Run Powertrain plant in Ypsilanti Township for use as a connected vehicle testing facility.

Given final approval on May 21 was this year’s allocation to local nonprofits through the coordinated funding process, in which the county participates.

The board also approved a process that will determine how the $3.9 million budget surplus from 2013 will be allocated. Conan Smith said he felt “personally let down” by the approach, because the county administrator has already recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves. He thought it was “turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.” Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading this process, stressed that commissioners will be discussing and making the final decision – which might differ from the administration’s recommendation.

Road Tax

The May 21 agenda included a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax could be levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval. The board also held a public hearing on the issue, and heard from several people during public commentary.

Barb Fuller, one of three road commissioners, attended the May 21 meeting of the county board.

Prompted in part by what many view as a chronic underfunding of roads in Michigan – combined with a particularly harsh winter – county commissioners have been discussing for months how to generate more revenues to repair the county’s road network.

At the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, Dan Smith (R-District 2) brought forward a resolution that would have authorized a 1-mill tax to be levied December 2014 – under Act 283. A 1-mill tax would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

On May 7, the board debated the issue at length but ultimately voted to postpone the resolution until May 21 over dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

On May 21, Dan Smith brought forward a revised resolution that addressed some concerns raised by corporation counsel Curtis Hedger during the May 7 meeting. The new resolution proposed an 0.4-mill levy and included a list of specific projects that the tax revenues would fund. [.pdf of May 21 resolution]

The resolved clauses stated:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the authorization of Public Act 283 of 1909 (MCLA 224.20), the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approves a millage of 0.4 mills to be levied against all real property in the County, which will generate approximately $5,—,— to be collected in December, 2014, for use in calendar years 2014 and 2015 to keep existing Washtenaw County public roads, streets, paths, bridges and culverts in reasonable repair, and in condition reasonably safe and fit for public travel; and that this levy be exempt from capture by TIF Districts or TIFAs to the greatest extent allowed by law.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners agrees with Washtenaw County Road Commission’s initial determination, as attached hereto and made a part hereof, and levies said millage for the purposes therein.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Road Commissioners is invited to present a revised determination in accordance with Act 283 of 1909 to the Board of Commissioners at its annual meeting on September 17, 2014 for an additional levy not to exceed 0.6 mills.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 17, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

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

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Road Tax: Public Commentary

During the first opportunity for public commentary – at the board’s ways & means committee meeting – committee chair Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) announced that the device used to time the speaking turns was broken. Instead, time would be marked by holding up handwritten cards, she said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) kept time manually for public commentary, as the boardroom’s timing device was broken.

Former county commissioner Barbara Bergman – a Democrat from Ann Arbor – urged commissioners not to levy a tax for roads. If they do, they’re sending a message to Lansing “that we are rich enough to take care of ourselves,” she said, and that the state doesn’t need to help meet the needs of its vulnerable citizens. But this is patently untrue, she said. There are huge unmet needs in Washtenaw County – for food, shelter, services for children and for adults who are returning to the community after incarceration.

Beyond the ethical considerations, Bergman said, the county doesn’t need to do this because “roads have very loud voices.” Officials at the local and state levels want to be re-elected, she noted, and she bet that funds could be found to repair the roads to ensure that motorists are happy. One way is for state legislators to adopt an equitable, progressive tax code for Michigan, she said. If that doesn’t happen, then local millages should be used to support those who are often invisible, she said. Mental health funds are about to be cut 30%, she noted, which means that services for 240 customers of the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) will be cut. Affordable housing and health insurance are also needed, Bergman said. “A millage to meet human services needs could pass a test with ethics,” she said. “A millage for roads cannot.”

Thomas Partridge spoke generally about the need to support the county’s most vulnerable, including affordable housing, public transportation, education and health care. Everyone needs adequate roads, he added, and if it’s left to Lansing, “we are left with potholes.” He also supported a progressive tax to generate more funds for local governments.

Rick Olson introduced himself as a York Township resident and former state representative of District 55. In 2011 he became very interested in transportation, he said, and generated a report on how much money would need to be spent to repair Michigan’s roads and bridges – $1.4 billion at that time. That was a figure used by the governor’s workgroup on infrastructure, on which Olson served. It led to a series of bipartisan bills that were introduced in January 2012, with the idea that $1.2 billion would be raised at the state level, he said, and the remainder raised through an optional county vehicle registration fee. Unfortunately, Olson said, the legislation wasn’t enacted. He said the amount needed has now been updated to just under $2.4 billion. Even if the legislature comes up with additional funding for roads, it likely won’t be enough, he said. Olson told commissioners that the county needs to invest a considerable amount, in addition to whatever the legislature does. He fully supported an Act 283 millage at the full 1-mill level.

Former state representative Rick Olson and county commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

A man who didn’t give his name said he opposed the road millage, especially if it were levied without a public vote. “Citing some law from 1909 doesn’t change the fact that this is taxation without representation,” he said. He told commissioners that 40% of county residents aren’t property owners, and wouldn’t pay the tax. “So once again, government is picking on a select group of people to pay for the benefit of all,” he said. “There is no word to describe this other than unfair.” Washtenaw County already has the highest average property tax in Michigan, he said. Prices are increasing, and people have to adjust their budgets accordingly. “We don’t have a golden pocket to reach into.” Yet government feels entitled to take more from its residents. He said he’s tired of his government telling him what they’re going to take, instead of listening to him tell them what they can have. “So I will organize, I will educate, I will motivate, and I will vote,” he said, so that government will be accountable for its budget and debts, just as the government holds him accountable.

Jim Bates of Ann Arbor Township asked if it would be possible for the county to assess a gas tax. He said he was just curious about that. [In Michigan, county governments don't have authority to levy a gas tax.]

Victor Dobrin said he’s been an Ypsilanti Township resident 23 years. [Dobrin is also a candidate for the District 5 seat on the county board.] The proposed road millage isn’t popular, he said. Government doesn’t always do what’s popular, but they look for the common good. He respected Olson’s opinion, however he thinks that solving any problem in society begins by defining the root cause. Government should take an engineering approach to problem solving. What is the root cause? Why are our roads crumbling? Is the proper work being done when roads are constructed or fixed? He noted that right now, you can see workers throwing shovels of asphalt into potholes, but that’s not going to solve the problem. It will result in wasting lots of money. The root cause is in the way that roads are engineered and built, he said.

Road Tax: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) responded to public commentary by thanking Barbara Bergman, noting that her comments reflect his own opinion. He also said the issue isn’t one of taxation without representation, as residents are represented by the county commissioners.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he wouldn’t support a road tax. About a year ago, he said, he and Ken Schwartz – who was then a road commissioner – tried to get a group together to work on this issue, but Sizemore didn’t think that had happened. So he didn’t think enough work went into the current proposal, and he’d like to take more time to work on it.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) told commissioners he had modified his original resolution to address concerns that the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, had laid out in a confidential memo to the board. The proposed millage is now 0.4 mills, rather than the full 1 mill. The resolution includes a list of proposed projects, and notes that this process is starting earlier than the board’s annual meeting because of the harsh winter.

Smith then formally withdrew his earlier resolution from May 7, and moved the new modified resolution for consideration.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Smith for his work on this proposal. LaBarre echoed that thanks, but said he wanted to wait a bit to see what the state legislature does regarding road funding. The process required by Act 283 gives the board some breathing room, he said, “and hopefully it’s a moot issue.”

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed with Sizemore that the issue needed to be studied further. More funding is expected from the state, and a community in his district – Scio Township – recently approved a special assessment for roads, he noted. If the county levies a road tax, it would be a bit hard on those taxpayers, he added.

Martinez-Kratz wondered if Hedger had time to review Smith’s new resolution, to see if there were any concerns. Based on the previous memo from Hedger, levying an Act 283 millage wasn’t legal, Martinez-Kratz said. [The memo from Hedger was not released to the public.]

Regarding the list of projects from the road commission, Martinez-Kratz said not all communities would get funding, so some of his constituents think that’s inequitable.

Dan Smith (R-District 2), standing, consults with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger while Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office looks on.

Sizemore said that as the board’s liaison to the road commission, he’d be happy to work with county commissioners and road commissioners to come up with a plan. He didn’t think they could count on the state.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) reminded the public that this effort was driven by the road commission, not by the county board – though he noted that Dan Smith has been an advocate for road funding.

Peterson said all local communities have the ability to address these road issues, and he wanted to work with communities within the county to help address their needs. But it’s the road commission that has responsibility, he said.

There isn’t any urgency to levy a tax now, Peterson continued. The board needs to be patient and see what comes out of Lansing, he said.

Peterson also noted that Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, which he represents, already have high taxes. What’s more, the boards of Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools are considering levying tax increases this summer of 2.8 mills and 1.2 mills, respectively. The state passed legislation that enables school districts to levy millages for capital improvement debt retirement without voter approval – which Peterson called a ridiculous law.

In addition, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township will have another new millage, along with Ann Arbor, that was passed by voters earlier in May for public transit. In total, it’s “a huge increase in new taxes,” Peterson said. “And believe me – I’m no rock star conservative on taxes. I believe you pay for what you get.” However, Peterson said the communities that he represents – Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township – would be hard-pressed to handle yet another tax increase for roads.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson indicated that he’d be interested in exploring the option of bonding to fund roads.

Dan Smith argued that there are few funding options available to the county to pay for road repair, and that the need for additional revenues is critical because the roads are in such bad shape. The proposed millage is only for 0.4 mills, he stressed – not the full 1 mill.

The easiest option is to do nothing, Smith said – to do more studies and plans, or wait for Lansing. “The reality is that the roads are terrible,” he said. Even if Lansing provides more funding – and he wasn’t hopeful about that – it won’t be enough for Washtenaw County. Smith pointed out that this would be an annual levy, and if there’s no need for it in 2015, the county wouldn’t levy it.

Smith also noted that the millage is tied to the road commission’s plan, which is similar to one that the road commission brought forward in the fall of 2013. There’s nothing surprising about it, he said.

Many communities don’t have the taxing ability to pay for maintenance of the county’s major roads that run through their jurisdiction, Smith said. The best example is the six miles of Austin Road in Bridgewater Township. It’s a major road in a township with the lowest taxable values in the county. So some communities just don’t have the capacity to deal with these major roads, he said.

Smith also didn’t think it was fair to require, for example, Northfield Township, Webster Township and Ann Arbor Township to take care of roads like Newport, North Territorial and Pontiac Trail – “roads that the much broader community uses,” he said. Some of these roads, like Newport, cross multiple jurisdictions. For these reasons, major roads should be taken care of by the county, Smith argued.

“This is a bad plan, for lots and lots of reasons,” Smith continued. “I would even say it might even be a terrible plan. The only thing that might be worse than this bad plan is to continue doing what we’ve been doing, which is absolutely nothing. The roads are crumbling underneath us.” There will not be a perfect plan, no matter how long they talk about it, he said.

Roy Townsend, managing director of the Washtenaw County road commission.

There are two problems with a voter-approved levy, Smith said. First, it wouldn’t be on the ballot until November. Second, it would likely be for a larger amount and a longer period – like a half-mill for four years or more. The other problem is one that Conan Smith had raised during the May 7 discussion, Dan Smith noted – competing interests for millages that might go on the ballot. He pointed out that the parks & recreation operations millage renewal will be on the November 2014 ballot. Former commissioner Barbara Bergman had mentioned other possibilities for millages, he noted, such as funding for human services.

An Act 283 millage would be at a lower rate for only one year, Smith said. Even though he didn’t like it, “it is the least-bad option I think we have right now.”

Sizemore expressed frustration at not doing anything, then proposed sitting down with road commissioners and managing director Roy Townsend to figure out what to do.

Martinez-Kratz replied to Smith’s comments, saying that if it’s a bad or even terrible plan, then “it’s not worth spending taxpayers’ money on.”

Peterson asked if communities would have the ability to opt-out of an Act 283 levy. Hedger replied that there is no opt-out option.

Peterson then asked if any other local leaders – from city councils or township boards – had contacted the county in support of an Act 283 millage. He felt that if other elected officials were supportive, they’d be there tonight. All of the communication he’d received was urging him not to support an Act 283 millage, Peterson said. It’s difficult for him, especially during an election year, to take responsibility for a road tax when other elected officials aren’t also supporting it.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked how short the road commission was in terms of funding related to winter road maintenance. Townsend replied that the county had received some additional funding from the state to cover some of the winter overages, like salt usage, diesel fuel and overtime costs. “But what they didn’t really give us money for is to fix the roads,” he said.

Road conditions have continued to decline, Townsend said. He pointed to a handout he’d provided to commissioners, showing that Michigan ranks last among all 50 states in state highway expenditures per capita. The data was from 2011, but since then the state hasn’t increased its funding, he noted. Most states are putting in at least double the amount of per-capita funding for roads. For example, Pennsylvania’s per-capita spending was $557 compared to $135 in Michigan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Townsend said the county’s infrastructure was in poor condition prior to this harsh winter, with deep freezes and thaws that made things even worse. Generally, the road commission uses about 400 tons of cold patch. This year, the commission used 1,400 tons – enough to fill about 300,000 potholes. These are temporary fixes, Townsend said.

Some of the projects on the plan that the road commission has presented to the board this year have been on previous plans presented since 2011, Townsend said – like work on North Territorial and Scio Church roads, among others. The plan would improve 44 miles of road, used by over 100,000 people every day. “So I think 100,000 people would probably appreciate that you could fix those 44 miles of road,” he said. The tax for an average $200,000 home would be just $40, he noted.

Townsend said that any state legislative action likely wouldn’t result in funding until 2015, so the roads would go through another winter. “And god help us what it’s going to look like next spring,” he said. There’s a short window for construction, he noted.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said the upshot is that the roads are terrible, and they won’t get better as the county waits for legislative action from Lansing or for voters to weigh in this November. There’s an opportunity now, he said, with only a modest hit to taxpayers and an immediate benefit to the community.

C. Smith also responded to the public commentary about taxation without representation. That phrase emerged in a different context, he said. The people are represented in this process, he noted. The elected county commissioners have a duty to represent the interests of their constituents, to listen carefully to their needs. “This is a representative process by design,” he said.

Regarding the road tax issue, both sides have been well-articulated, C. Smith said. If there’s any time to do something like this without a vote of the people, it’s now – just a short time before an election. Because all of the board seats are up for election this year, Smith said, residents will have a way to weigh in on this decision, albeit indirectly. “This is the most defensible moment that we have” to levy a tax that doesn’t require voter approval, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) spoke next, noting that the levy couldn’t occur until December, so there’s time to figure out what their other options are. She wants to take that time.

C. Smith asked Townsend how the finances would work with an Act 283 tax. Townsend explained that the road commission would want some kind of contractual agreement with the county before it bid out work this summer. It would be similar to how townships contract with the road commission, and then later reimburse the road commission for the work. It’s a legal question to be determined if Act 283 funds can be used for reimbursement, Townsend noted.

Dan Smith made a distinction between “funding” and “financing.” The funding mechanism would be through Act 283. If the board passed the road tax resolution that night, it would be a commitment to provide that funding when the tax is levied in December.

At this point, Dan Smith distributed another resolution – dated Oct. 15, 2014. According to Hedger, the board’s official vote to levy an Act 283 tax must occur in the fall, Smith noted. The draft resolution he distributed would ratify the funding decision regarding the 0.4 mills. The draft resolution also would give the board the option of levying an additional 0.6 mills. [.pdf of Oct. 15, 2014 draft resolution]

These decisions about funding are separate from how the county actually handles the financing, D. Smith explained. Sometimes the county issues tax anticipation notes – that’s what this would be, he said. There might be other options, like using the general fund’s fund balance or short-term borrowing. But the funding would still come through the Act 283 levy in December.

D. Smith also addressed Peterson’s comments about the lack of any other local leaders at the May 21 meeting. He said that one reason is because townships have no authority or responsibility for roads. It’s the county board that has the tools for funding and fixing the roads countywide. He acknowledged that some townships have been very aggressive in their road programs, and some municipalities have vastly better roads as a result.

At this point, Rabhi called the question – a procedural move designed to end discussion and move toward a vote. Commissioners unanimously approved calling the question.

Outcome on main resolution to levy an 0.4-mill tax under Act 283: The resolution failed on a 2-6 vote, with support only from Dan Smith and Conan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent.

Road Tax: Roads Funding Committee

Yousef Rabhi then proposed a resolution to create a roads funding committee. He read aloud the resolution that he’d written by hand during the previous deliberations.

An excerpt from Yousef Rabhi’s handwritten resolution regarding a roads funding committee.

The committee would consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public.

The county administrator would help provide administrative support to the committee. The resolution also stated that the road commission could present a road funding plan at the board’s annual meeting in the fall “as Act 283 of 1909 provides.”

Conan Smith said he appreciated the sentiment, but wouldn’t support it. The board just received recommendations from a previous committee that had worked on road commission issues, he noted – that happened on May 7, 2014. He noted that leaders of local government “made it abundantly clear at that point that they don’t think the county board of commissioners had a role to play in their road funding situation.”

There was a specific opportunity this year to intervene in funding, C. Smith said, because of the harsh winter. But he didn’t believe that road maintenance should be a higher priority than other things, like public safety, human services, public health and environmental health.

The board had just voted not to get involved by not levying an Act 283 tax, he said. “I think that should be the end of the conversation.”

Ronnie Peterson asked for an explanation about what the board had just voted on, and what Rabhi had subsequently proposed. Felicia Brabec explained that the board had rejected a resolution to levy the Act 283 tax. Now they were considering a proposal to form a road funding committee. Peterson said he just wanted the public to be clear about what had happened.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Andy LaBarre said that to him, the Act 283 issue was one of timing. None of these options are good, he added: “We’re choosing to pursue bad or less bad.” He felt the state legislature had the potential to shock everyone and do something proactive. If that doesn’t happen, it would be possible to consider the Act 283 levy this fall, he noted. If they do eventually levy the millage, it would help but wouldn’t be a comprehensive solution, LaBarre said.

Dan Smith noted that there are few mechanisms available for road funding – either levy a property tax under Act 283, or take a bond or millage proposal to the voters. The county can’t institute a gas tax or vehicle registration fee, he said. The board can spend the next six months talking about their options, but “barring some extraordinary action from Lansing, our options in six months are going to be exactly what they are now,” D. Smith said. And levying Act 283 in the fall “isn’t going to be any nicer than it is right now.”

Clearly frustrated, D. Smith said that instead of acting, the board is doing what government always does – forming yet another committee to study it more. The issue has already been studied, he said. “Nobody wants to touch this hot potato.”

Conan Smith observed that the county could issue general obligation bonds, which wouldn’t require a voter referendum.

Peterson noted that levying Act 283 was difficult for him during an election cycle. He said he was progressive so he didn’t worry about winning over conservatives, but he was interested in saving people’s tax dollars. Citizens haven’t brought forward this proposal, he said, nor has the request come from local community leaders.

Outcome: The resolution creating a roads funding committee was given initial approval a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith and Conan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Road Tax: Public Hearing

Later in the evening – after the road tax resolution was defeated – the board held a public hearing on the issue, which had been set at the May 7 meeting. Two people spoke.

Thomas Partridge said it was important to find funding for road repair. No business wants to locate in a county that doesn’t maintain its roads. Voters need to be educated about the importance of this issue, as well as other concerns like affordable health care, public transportation, and affordable housing. The state legislature backs away from supporting these critical needs. Partridge supported Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, saying that Schauer would support these issues.

Sandra Carolan told commissioners that she pays the taxes for her parents’ property in Chelsea. She was thankful for the discussion, but she can’t ask her 91-year-old mother who’s on a fixed income to support an increased millage “for a solution that really is just a band-aid.” New technology needs to be used on the roads. She said if she goes to the store to buy a blouse and only finds bad blouses, she doesn’t buy one at all.

Parks Millage Renewal

Voters will be asked to renew a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations millage in November. On May 21, commissioners were asked initial approval to put the request on the Nov. 4 ballot.

During the May 21 county board meeting, Bob Tetens – director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation – sat next to the daughter of county commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & recreation annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

Comments were brief before the May 21 vote. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said the parks staff do wonderful work. He thanked everyone who serves on the parks & recreation commission.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to put the millage renewal on the November ballot. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Board of Health

On May 21, commissioners were asked to take an initial step to create a board of health, an entity that would prove advice on public health issues for the county.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the May 21 resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the May 21 meeting but did not formally address the board. There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Initial approval was given on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Alicia Ping was absent. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Oil Drilling

Commissioners considered a resolution to oppose oil exploration and drilling in the county. The resolution was brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) of Ann Arbor, working with Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). Rabhi had alerted the board about his plans at the previous meeting on May 7. He said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. West Bay Exploration has applied to the state for a drilling permit in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit.

The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

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

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

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

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

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

Oil Drilling: Public Commentary

Two people spoke on the topic during public commentary. Gus Teschke from the advocacy group Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards thanked Yousef Rabhi and Kent Martinez-Kratz for their work on the resolution opposing oil exploration and drilling in Washtenaw County. Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards was formed because of a proposed well at Miller and West Delhi, he said. If the company finds oil, then there could be a lot of oil wells in that area. That could impact individual residential wells as well as the Huron River, which provides 85% of Ann Arbor’s drinking water. Accidents can happen, and people are concerned about that, he said. About 1,200 people live within a mile of the proposed oil well, and are concerned about their health, noise and other issues. He hoped commissioners would support the resolution.

Brian Herron, a Scio Township resident, spoke during public commentary to oppose drilling in the county.

During the final opportunity for public commentary, Brian Herron introduced himself as a business owner in Ann Arbor and resident of Scio Township. Residents there find it very concerning that there’s a proposal to drill so close to residential properties. The proposed drilling would be less than a mile from the Huron River, he noted. It seemed inappropriate to allow drilling in a residential area. It doesn’t make sense, and he urged commissioners to support the resolution that opposes drilling.

Oil Drilling: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said that for him, this is a fundamental issue of protecting the environment in Washtenaw County, making sure the air, water and soil stayed healthy for generations to come. It’s time to take a stand, even though the county doesn’t have the ability to stop it outright, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he normally supports economic development so that residents have opportunities for jobs. But he’s in total opposition to drilling in this county. He wondered if there were any supporters of drilling at that night’s meeting, or any company representatives to talk about how the county would benefit from drilling. [No one came forward.] It seemed like they’d want to present their case to the public, he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), who represents an area that includes Scio Township, said he had attended a public forum about the proposed drilling. Someone had suggested being proactive regarding oil rights, rather than waiting for oil companies to secure them. He liked the idea, which entails having a community group purchase the oil rights and hold them in trust.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she’d visited the Irish Hills area near Jackson, where there’s been an increase in oil exploration. So she’s seen firsthand the economic, health and environmental impacts on a community. It’s very harmful, she said, and people there were distraught. It’s also frustrating, she added, because communities have little recourse and authority over these issues.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) characterized it as “a total NIMBY issue.” The problem is that no one in Lansing will listen to this resolution, he said, but he supported it. They also need to find ways to communicate with the state legislature, which he said has robbed local communities of their ability to make decisions regarding oil drilling.

Rabhi agreed that the issue was one of local control – and not just for oil drilling, but also for natural gas extraction. That’s the campaign that needs to be waged, he said. “We need legislators who respect local control.” The state should set a baseline standard for environmental health, but each community should have the right to set even stricter standards for cleaner air, water and other aspects of the environment, he said.

Martinez-Kratz agreed that it might be a NIMBY issue, but he argued that almost anything could be called NIMBY – like zoning and noise ordinances. The drilling proposal to him is alarming because it’s within a mile of the tributary that leads to Ann Arbor’s drinking water supply. He pointed to the 2010 oil spill in the Kalamazoo River that’s still not completely cleaned up. Even though there’s very little that the county government can do about this proposal, the board needs to take a stand, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) opposed the resolution, noting that it does nothing and addresses an issue that’s outside of the board’s purview. The law is extraordinarily clear, he noted – that a county can’t control or regulate drilling. They might all wish that it was within their purview, and the concerns about drilling are valid, he said. “I certainly don’t want an oil well in my backyard either.” Concerns over environmental impacts are legitimate too. “Unfortunately, the oil is where it is, and there’s nothing any of us can do to move where the oil is located,” he said.

Smith said the oil has been untouched for years, but has finally become economically feasible to extract. That’s unfortunate, but it’s not under the county’s control, he stressed. There’s a very simple way to shut down all the drilling in the county, Smith added. “The property owners can simply refuse to lease their land to the oil companies. Problem solved.” But these property owners have signed leases with oil companies, and are getting money for that, he noted. They can put that money toward paying for their house, or a college education, or buying things or going out to eat. So there’s an economic benefit to Washtenaw County in that way, Smith said.

Smith reported that he’s recently heard about a Michigan chapter of a national service organization that had received over $500,000 annually from oil revenues, which in turn support local programs. This is an extremely complicated issue, he said, with lots of pros and cons. If commissioners don’t like the current law, they can take their case to Lansing, Smith added. There are six state legislators representing Washtenaw County, he added, including some that are “extraordinary close to members of this body.” [That was a reference to state Sen. Rebekah Warren, who is married to commissioner Conan Smith.]

D. Smith said he didn’t vote against a similar resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township, because the county parks & recreation commission is interested purchasing that property – so there was an option that the county could pursue. [Smith stated "present" during that vote, which took place on March 19, 2014.]

But in this case, the resolution serves no purpose and wastes and extraordinary amount of time, D. Smith said. “I really wish we would stop campaigning from the board table,” he concluded, saying there are much more effective ways to advocate for change.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that Smith had been remarkably consistent in his position regarding these kinds of resolutions, which don’t have the force of law. Given that track record, it would be great to have Smith on board with this resolution, LaBarre said. “I think it would add an extra amount of credence to this.” It’s an issue of significance that they can all find ways to dislike, he said, and to express their displeasure. He hoped Smith would consider bending on this.

Rabhi also thanked Smith for his consistency, noting that Smith’s opposition wasn’t about the content of the issue, but rather about the county’s purview. But Rabhi said he had no problem campaigning from the board table, adding that he was campaigning for public health, the environment, and the welfare of county residents. He thought the county did have a role to play, as local governments are allowed to submit comments through the MDEQ’s public process. “It’s not for political gain – it’s for the community,” Rabhi said.

Outcome: The resolution passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith. Alicia Ping was absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was not in the room when the vote was taken.

2014 Budget Calendar

The board considered a resolution setting a timeline for budget work in 2014. [.pdf of budget calendar resolution] Highlights are:

• July 24, 2013: Board approved budget priorities. (That document was subsequently amended on Aug. 7, 2013.)
• May 7, 2014: Board authorized county administrator to seek consultant for work on budget priorities. The review and selection process for that consultant is underway.
• June 5, 2014: Budget discussion on the board’s working session agenda, to discuss the status of any general fund surplus or shortfall.
• July 9, 2014: County administrator presents recommendation for using surplus or addressing shortfall, based on board priorities. Board to take initial vote on recommendation.
• Aug. 6, 2014: Final vote set for surplus/shortfall recommendation.

The county had a 2013 general fund surplus of $3.9 million. County administrator Verna McDaniel has recommended to keep that amount in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves, to meet the county’s goal of having reserves that total 20% of the general fund budget.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the discussion by saying there were some foundational problems with this approach. One of those problems is that the county administrator has made a recommendation in advance of discussing this issue with the board, he said. The disposition of taxpayer dollars should be made by people elected to make those decisions, Smith said.

In fact, Smith added, since McDaniel has already made a recommendation, much of the work outlined in the timeline isn’t necessary. They should just discuss her recommendation at the board’s June meeting, and take a final vote in July.

Smith didn’t think the board had created an open and transparent process for the community or for county staff to give input on priorities and programs. The timeline also doesn’t give direction to the board about how commissioners can effectively engage in setting priorities for allocating surplus revenues. He expressed frustration that this process “is actually turning out to be little more than a rubber stamp of a decision that’s already been proposed by the administration.”

“I feel personally let down,” Smith continued. Part of his support for a four-year budget had been based on taking this process seriously, he said, and to “engage holistically” with the community in determining how to spend a budget surplus. “I feel personally frustrated because I was a huge part of developing the budgets that resulted in these surpluses,” Smith said. He added that he’d talked to department heads who were asked to make cuts, and had told them there would be discussion about how to get back some of that money if there were surpluses. But now it sounded like the decision has already been made, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) – chair of the ways & means committee, who has been leading this process – replied that she sees things differently, and she was sorry that Smith was frustrated. She thought the process did take into account all of the things that Smith wanted to see. Hiring a consultant would help make that happen, she said, by engaging commissioners, staff and the community in moving the needle on their priorities.

Brabec said that McDaniel has shared her recommendation, and now it’s time for the board to discuss it in a very public way. It’s probably not happening as quickly as Smith would like, she noted, and she’d also like to move more quickly, but they’re doing it as quickly as they can.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he agreed with some of Smith’s comments. He asked about a handout that Smith had provided to commissioners. [It had not been distributed to the public.] Smith replied that it was part of an email that he’d sent to commissioners in early May. [.pdf of Smith's email]

Smith asked if there was any expectation that the $3.9 million surplus would be used for any purpose other than the fund balance. Brabec said her expectation is that McDaniel’s recommendation will be discussed. “I don’t know what the fruits of that discussion will be,” she said.

Outcome: Earlier in the meeting – prior to this discussion – the resolution had been approved unanimously as part of the board’s consent agenda.

SPARK Grant

Commissioners were asked to approve an application for a $940,000 federal grant that the county would make on behalf of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Funds would be used to help redevelop the former General Motors Willow Run Powertrain plant in Ypsilanti Township for use as a connected vehicle testing facility.

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is available through the National Infrastructure Investments Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation. SPARK asked that the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED) act as the lead applicant and fiscal agent. OCED already submitted the grant application – on April 25, 2014. According to a staff memo, “due to the grant application deadline, it was not possible to bring the matter before the [board of commissioners] for approval prior to application submission.”

The project is a partnership with SPARK, the University of Michigan, the redevelopment firm Walbridge Aldinger and Ypsilanti Township, among others. According to a staff memo, the facility could lead to the creation of up to 7,800 new jobs in the skilled trades and research sectors. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Initial approval for the grant application was approved unanimously. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Coordinated Funding

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to allocate funding to local nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders. Initial approval had been granted at the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting, when the board had heard from several nonprofit and community leaders on this topic.

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

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

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

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

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation will now be an additional funder in this process.

There was no discussion of this item.

Outcome: Final approval to the coordinated funding allocations was unanimous.

Appointments

The board took action on one appointment: Nicole Sandberg to the food policy council. Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) brought the nomination forward. He reported that three applications had been received and reviewed by the council, who had recommended the selection of Sandberg.

The May 21 agenda originally included a slot to appoint someone to the board of public works, but Rabhi pulled the item, saying he wanted to solicit input from existing members of the board of public works.

Outcome: Nicole Sandberg was appointed to the food policy council.

Millage Rate

Washtenaw County commissioners were asked to take the first step in setting the county’s 2014 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate.

Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (for operations at 0.2353 mills and capital improvements at 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate levied in July to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2013. [.pdf of staff memo]

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes. 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.

The rates will be included on the July tax bills for property owners in Washtenaw County.

A public hearing on the millage rates is set for June 4.

Outcome: Commissioners took a unanimous initial vote to set the millage rate. A final vote is expected on June 4.

Proclamations

There were four resolutions honoring individuals or organizations: (1) a resolution of appreciation for Nancy Wheeler, the first African American woman to serve as a Washtenaw County trial court judge and who is retiring this year (she is the aunt of county commissioner Conan Smith); (2) a resolution of appreciation for Lynn Kneer, who is retiring after working as a judicial coordinator for judge Francis Wheeler; (3) a resolution proclaiming June 2014 as Relay for Life Month in Washtenaw County; and (4) a resolution honoring the 20th anniversary of the Interfaith Round Table of Washtenaw County.

Outcome: All resolutions were passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

During the May 21 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: Success by Six

Ypsilanti Township resident Shannon Novara, program manager at Washtenaw Success by Six Great Start Collaborative, thanked the board for its leadership in supporting the youngest members of the county. The nonprofit’s mission is to make sure every child in Washtenaw County enters kindergarten ready to succeed. She described the services that the nonprofit offers, and thanked its partners. Specifically, she thanked the county for its support of the annual Touch a Truck fundraiser that was held on May 10 at Ypsilanti Community High School. At least 1,250 children and their families participated, she said. She thanked commissioners and staff for their help, giving special recognition to Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) for his work.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 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!

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the May 21 resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually.

Commissioners will likely to take a final vote at their June 4 meeting. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at 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!

The project is estimated to cost $1.5 million, using funds from the public health Medicaid liability account ($814,786), the public health fund balance ($663,015) and Washtenaw Health Plan ($50,000). According to the county’s public health staff, 58,000 county residents either don’t have dental insurance or on Medicaid dental insurance. However, only a few private dentists accept Medicaid. When up and running, the dental clinic is expected to serve 6,000 patients annually, including residents with income at up to 200% of the poverty level.

It’s expected that federal matching funds would supplement Medicaid reimbursement rates to provide a sustainable long-term cash flow, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The resolution authorizes contract negotiations with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost.

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

The project is estimated to cost $1.5 million, using funds from the public health Medicaid liability account ($814,786), the public health fund balance ($663,015) and Washtenaw Health Plan ($50,000). According to the county’s public health staff, 58,000 county residents either don’t have dental insurance or on Medicaid dental insurance. However, only a few private dentists accept Medicaid. When up and running, the dental clinic is expected to serve 6,000 patients annually, including residents with income at up to 200% of the poverty level.

It’s expected that federal matching funds would supplement Medicaid reimbursement rates to provide a sustainable long-term cash flow, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

If give final approval, the resolution authorizes contract negotiations with the nonprofit Michigan Community Dental Clinics Inc. to run the clinic and with St. Joseph Mercy Health System, which would contribute space at its Haab Building in Ypsilanti at little to no cost.

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]

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec before the county board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

They ultimately gave initial approval to a notice of intent to form a PACE program. If created, the program would allow commercial property owners in Washtenaw County to fund energy improvements by securing financing from lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments.

The county’s proposal entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, was on hand during the Dec. 4 meeting to field questions. Levin – son of U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin and nephew of U.S. Sen. Carl Levin – was head of the Michigan Dept. of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration, when the PACE legislation was enacted.

Also attending the Dec. 4 meeting was state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who spoke briefly during public commentary to support the county’s initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan. Warren is married to county commissioner Conan Smith, a co-founder of the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which is a partner in Lean & Green Michigan.

A final vote on the notice of intent is now scheduled for the board’s first meeting next year – on Jan. 8, 2014. A public hearing on this issue has been set for the board’s Jan. 22 meeting. That’s because the board would need to take an additional vote to actually create the PACE district. No date for that vote to create the district has been set.

In other action, commissioners accepted a $150,000 state grant to establish the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Peacemaking Court. Timothy Connors, a 22nd circuit court judge who’s leading this initiative, attended the Dec. 4 meeting and told the board that this project will explore and determine what, if any, tribal court philosophies or procedures might have applicability in Michigan’s courts. Participation in the peacemaking court will be voluntary.

The board also made a raft of appointments, including appointing the county’s water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt, as director of public works. That vote came over dissent from commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. The board of public works had raised a question about the appointment’s potential conflict-of-interest, given that Pratt holds an elected office as water resources commissioner. The county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, prepared a legal opinion on the issue, stating that the appointment would not be prohibited by the state’s Incompatible Public Offices Act.

No appointment was made to the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – is not seeking reappointment. During the Dec. 4 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated that there’s some uncertainty about when Murphy’s one-year term actually ends, and he was sorting that out with state and RTA officials. Because RTA board members weren’t sworn in until April of 2013, some state and RTA officials believe the term extends until April – even though appointments for Washtenaw County’s two slots were made by the previous county board chair, Conan Smith, in late 2012.

The application process is still open for the RTA, with a new deadline of Jan. 12. That same deadline applies to openings on the county’s food policy council and parks & recreation commission. Applicants can submit material online, or get more information by contacting the county clerk’s office at 734-222-6655 or appointments@ewashtenaw.org.

Countywide PACE Program

On Dec. 4, commissioners were asked to take an initial step to create a countywide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

The goal of PACE is to help commercial property owners finance energy improvements by securing financing from lenders and repaying the loan through voluntary special assessments. In Michigan, the legislation that enables this approach (Public Act 210) was enacted in late 2010, at the end of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s last term in office.

The proposal being considered by the county entails joining the Lean & Green Michigan coalition and contracting with Levin Energy Partners to manage the PACE program. Andy Levin, who’s spearheading the PACE program statewide through Lean & Green, was on hand during the Dec. 4 meeting to field questions. He described his role as “matchmaker,” helping the property owners find energy contractors and lenders.

The law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone is a partner in Lean & Green, and would act as legal counsel for any deal done through the county’s PACE program. Several other counties are part of Lean & Green, according to the group’s website. Other partners listed on the site include the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which was co-founded by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith is married to State Sen. Rebekah Warren, who also spoke briefly during public commentary on Dec. 4 to support the initiative. She was instrumental in passing the state enabling legislation to allow such programs in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor was one of the first Michigan communities to establish a PACE program, which it did in 2011. The city used a federal grant that paid for the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition to develop the city’s program. Its first projects moved forward earlier this year, when the city sold over $500,000 in PACE bonds through Ann Arbor State Bank, making it the first city in Michigan to complete a PACE bond sale. The financing funded projects at four locations: Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, Big Boy Restaurant, the Goodyear Building, and Kerrytown Market & Shops.

The county’s PACE program would differ from the one set up by the city of Ann Arbor – which created a loan loss pool to reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. Washtenaw County does not plan to set up its own loan loss reserve, and no county funds would be used for the program, according to Levin.

However, a reserve fund is mentioned in documentation that describes the program:

8. Reserve Fund

In the event Washtenaw County decides to issue bonds to provide financing for a PACE Program, Washtenaw County can determine at that time to fund a bond reserve account from any legally available funds, including funds from the proceeds of bonds.

By participating in LAGM [Lean & Green Michigan], Washtenaw County assists its constituent property owners in taking advantage of any and all appropriate loan loss reserve and gap financing programs of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (“MEDC”). Such financing mechanism can similarly be used to finance a reserve fund.

[.pdf of PACE program documentation] [.pdf of PACE cover memo] [.pdf PACE resolution]

Commissioners discussed the topic for about an hour, with most of that time centered on questions they asked of Levin.

The state statute requires a three-step process to create a PACE program. On Dec. 4, the board was being asked to take the first step – approving a resolution of intent to notify the public that the board intends to move forward with creating a PACE district. The statute lays out the information that the county must include in notifying the public – including different types of financing options.

The next step would be to hold a public hearing. The final step would be a resolution that actually creates the countywide PACE district. That last step would likely come before the board in late January or early February.

Countywide PACE Program: Public Commentary

Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor resident and state senator (D-District 18), spoke during public commentary. She said she was there to lend support to the resolution regarding PACE. She noted that she had introduced the bill when she served in the state House of Representatives, and helped shepherd it through in a bipartisan package of bills that passed the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate at the time. Jeff Irwin, who served on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners then, also helped advocate for the legislation, she said. [Irwin, also an Ann Arbor Democrat, was subsequently elected to the state House of Representatives, representing District 53.]

Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor resident and state senator representing District 18. She is married to county commissioner Conan Smith.

Warren described energy efficiency as a “little forgotten piece of our energy work.” It’s “not quite as sexy as some other things we do,” she said, “but the cheapest energy form out there is energy never used.” So why don’t more people invest in energy-efficiency improvements? It’s expensive on the front end, Warren noted, and sometimes the paybacks are long, so people need help with the financing.

Such improvements are great for the environment, Warren said. The more that people can rely on renewable energy sources, the better it is for the planet. It’s also great for property values, she argued – energy-efficiency upgrades to commercial or residential properties makes them more attractive for resale. It also helps the financial bottom line for homeowners and businesses. It’s a win-win for the community, for citizens, and for the planet, she said.

The PACE program in Michigan was born in Washtenaw County, Warren noted, and it would be fantastic to see the county board move forward on this policy to do the kind of work that needs to be done here. She said she’d be happy to make herself available as a resource, and to support the program as it moves forward.

In responding to Warren’s commentary, commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9) – who is married to Warren – said he was excited that the board would be considering the first step in establishing a PACE program. He noted that the board wouldn’t be creating the program that night, but rather would be voting on a resolution of intent to tell the public that they were considering such a program. He said he would have preferred a faster process than what the legislation laid out.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – How It Works

Conan Smith (D-District 9) began the discussion by apologizing for not attending the board’s Nov. 7 working session that included a briefing on the PACE program. He hoped that everyone’s questions would get answered, and he hoped to get board approval at both the initial ways & means meeting and at the regular board meeting that same night. [Typically, a resolution is given initial approval at a ways & means meeting, then is moved to the board agenda two weeks later. In December, however, there was only one meeting scheduled.] He said that the resolution of intent doesn’t obligate the county to do anything. “It just starts the process,” he said.

Smith suggested setting a public hearing for a board meeting in January 2014. That would give the public ample opportunity to read through the program before giving feedback, he said. Then the board could take action to actually create the PACE program at its meeting in early February. It’s a long timeline to get the program going, Smith said. There’s some urgency, he added, because there’s a property owner in Washtenaw County who wants to do a substantial project that could cost millions of dollars and create up to 20 jobs. It’s a project that’s in his Ann Arbor district, Smith noted, and he hoped to get that kind of economic activity moving.

He again asked the board to pass both the initial and final approval for the resolution of intent that night, then get into the “meaty debate on public policy in January and February.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said in concept it seemed like a good thing. But she questioned one of the resolved clauses:

3. The Board of Commissioners formally states its intention to provide a property owner based method of financing and funds for energy projects, including from the sale of bonds or notes which shall not be a general obligation of the County, amounts advanced by the County from any other source permitted by law, or from owner-arranged financing from a commercial lender, which funds and financing shall be secured and repaid by assessments on the property benefited, with the agreement of the record owners, such that no County moneys, general County taxes or County credit of any kind whatsoever shall be pledged, committed or used in connection with any project as required by and subject to Act 270.

It seemed to be stating that the county would help finance projects, she said, but also that no county money would be used to do that. If it’s such a great program, she asked, why would the county have to put up any money?

Conan Smith responded, explaining that the county doesn’t need to put up any money for this program, although it could. He noted that the city of Ann Arbor decided to use some taxpayer dollars for its program, but it’s not necessary for the county to do that.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council created a PACE program and established an energy financing district over two years ago, at its Oct. 3, 2011 meeting. Several months earlier – in March 2011 – the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the program, using an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

C. Smith said that ideally, institutions like the county government can set up a program to be supportive of third-party financing – making sure that banks and credit unions are participating. He described how the program would work if he owned a business. He’d go to a bank to get financing for an energy efficiency project. Instead of refinancing his mortgage to do it, one option would be to go through the PACE program. It allows the business owner, the lender, and the county to enter into a contractual agreement. If the business owner pays the lender, the county isn’t involved. But if the business owner doesn’t pay, then the county starts its normal foreclosure process, C. Smith said. So it’s really just using the county’s foreclosure process to secure the business owner’s loan, he said, and no county dollars are involved.

In that case, Ping replied, why couldn’t the lender start the foreclosure process instead?

Andy Levin of Lean & Green Michigan explained that the language in the board’s resolution, which Ping had highlighted, mirrors exactly the language in the state enabling legislation – that’s why it’s included. But the mechanism that people are using is private lending, he said.

Energy efficiency improvements require an upfront investment that results in a payoff, he explained, but it typically takes several years to break even. Commercial loans are usually for a shorter period than the break-even point of such investments, Levin said, and that’s the problem that PACE sets out to solve.

The program draws on the special assessment power that each local unit of government holds. That way, the lender is the beneficiary of a property tax obligation. That’s different from a typical loan, in that it must be repaid before any other commercial loan. More significantly, he said, it runs with the land. So if the property is sold, the new owner is responsible for the PACE loan obligation. In turn, that means that the lenders are willing to make longer-term loans related to the useful life of the energy improvements – typically 10-20 years.

Levin pointed out that since 2008, PACE has been adopted by 31 states and the District of Columbia. And the states that are adopting this program aren’t just the stereotype “blue” states you might assume, he noted. The most recent state to adopt PACE was Texas, signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. “It’s totally apolitical – it just works for business,” Levin said.

A typical lender doesn’t have the risk profile or ability to make a loan like this for 20 years, Levin said, so a lot of lenders for energy improvements are private equity companies. There are three funds that exist for no other purpose than to make PACE loans, he said, and they’re all in Michigan.

Ping then asked about what happens when the property is sold, but the new owner isn’t a good credit risk. Does someone else have to approve the transfer of the PACE loan, given that it runs with the property? No, Levin replied – the PACE lender would not have any power over that sale.

The reason that lenders offer PACE loans is that it’s a long-term, secured, debt-based investment, Levin said. A lot of big organizations – like pension funds and insurance companies – need to have that kind of investment in their portfolios. And ultimately, the property is the collateral, he noted.

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

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) thanked Levin and asked him to thank Levin’s dad for the work he does in D.C. [Levin's father is U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin and his uncle is U.S. Sen. Carl Levin.]

LaBarre wondered what would be the worst possible scenario for Washtenaw County, under the program. Levin described a scenario in which a PACE loan is made for a property, but then the property owner defaults and goes into foreclosure, and the property can’t be sold or is sold for less than the taxes owed. The PACE lien is equal to any other taxes owed on the property, Levin explained. That’s the only way any government entity could lose money, he said.

LaBarre wondered if Levin was seeing success with the program in Michigan. Were mainstream lenders participating, or just boutique investors? Levin described Michigan as an “infant” regarding PACE. So far, four counties and two cities had joined Lean & Green Michigan, he said. [The website lists the counties of Huron, Ingham, Macomb and Saginaw, and the cities of Rochester Hills and Southfield. The following day, on Dec. 5, the Wayne County commission voted to create a PACE program and join Lean & Green Michigan.]

Nationally, the PACE market has been roughly doubling every year, Levin said, and he projected that 2014 would be “the breakout year.” The biggest deal so far was for a Century City Hilton in Los Angeles, he said. In Michigan, a project in Southfield is getting consent for a PACE loan from Comerica, which holds the property’s mortgage, Levin said. He described it as a big step, because the lender who holds the mortgage on a property must give consent “or we cannot do the project.” That is a requirement of Michigan’s PACE legislation, which he said he fully supports.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wanted Levin to provide examples from other counties – “the good stuff and the bad stuff.” Levin replied that he couldn’t yet provide examples from Michigan, but he could bring examples from other states.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) pointed to the cover memo statement that indicated the contractor doing work on any PACE project of $250,000 or higher must guarantee the energy saving on that project. How is that possible? she asked. Levin replied that the state statute doesn’t specify how that’s done, but just states that it must be done. It was put into the legislation by large companies like Johnson Controls and Siemens because that’s a guarantee they can make, he added, and they thought it would give them a competitive advantage over smaller firms. The guarantee is usually based on an energy audit. If the energy company doing the work doesn’t have the wherewithal to guarantee the energy savings, it would have to get insurance to cover that, Levin said.

Responding to another question from Brabec, Levin said that legally, the county is creating a countywide PACE district. So a company based in Wayne County couldn’t use Washtenaw County’s PACE program. But by joining Lean & Green Michigan, all of the local governments participating in Lean & Green would be using the same processes and application, he said. So if a company has multiple properties throughout Michigan, the company would have just one process to follow if it worked through Lean & Green Michigan. That’s the advantage of local governments joining the Lean & Green coalition, he said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Ann Arbor’s PACE

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how the city of Ann Arbor handles the administration of its PACE program. Levin called it an “open question.” The city had paid a private nonprofit to create and run its PACE program, Levin explained, but that contract ended in March of 2013. Levin contrasted that program with Lean & Green Michigan, saying that Lean & Green is a market model as opposed to a publicly-funded program.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Conan Smith further explained that the city had hired the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition to create the PACE program, saying that no one else had done it in the state before that. It was anticipated that a lot of the CEC’s work – including legal documentation – would be leveraged by other communities across Michigan to build their own programs, he said. The city used federal grant funding to pay for CEC’s work, Smith added. He noted that CEC itself had been created by the city. It was previously called the city’s Clean Cities program before spinning off into a separate entity, he said, so there’s been a long relationship between CEC and the city.

By way of additional background, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – told The Chronicle during a phone interview that the city doesn’t currently have the same level of staffing for its PACE program that it did during the CEC contract. However, Nate Geisler was recently hired as a full-time employee to staff the city’s energy program, and Naud indicated that Geisler would likely be working on PACE as part of that job.

So far, there has been one round of financing through the city’s PACE program. At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the city council authorized issuing up to $1 million in PACE bonds, to be secured through special assessment revenues and the city’s reserve fund. The city ultimately sold $560,000 in PACE bonds through Ann Arbor State Bank and was the first city in Michigan to complete a PACE bond sale. The money funded projects at four locations: Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, Big Boy Restaurant, the Goodyear Building, and Kerrytown Market & Shops. A fifth project – at the building on South State where Bivouac is located – was planned, but ultimately fell through, because the building’s owner would not sign off on the project, according to Naud. He reported that all the projects are completed except for the work at Arrowwood.

Some of the differences between the city’s approach and the one proposed by Levin relate to timing and interest rates. Naud noted that there are no administrative fees for the city, and interest rates are lower than what Lean & Green Michigan projects will likely secure on the commercial market. According to a press release issued by the city earlier this year, property owners involved in Ann Arbor’s first round of PACE financing have 10 years to repay PACE assessments at 4.75% interest.

Related to timing, Naud noted that because the city deals with smaller projects, it might take more time to line up enough projects to bundle into a bond offering.

Naud said he didn’t foresee that the city would end its PACE program unless a decision were made to not spend any staff time on it. He noted that there are strong economic development arguments to be made for energy-efficiency improvements that PACE supports, and that it also helps achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which calls for an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, compared to 2000 levels.

During the county board’s deliberations on Dec. 4, Brabec asked whether an Ann Arbor company would need to use the Ann Arbor PACE district or the county’s. Levin replied that it would be the company’s choice. Levin said that if a company’s project is over $350,000, it couldn’t go through Ann Arbor’s PACE program because the city can’t accommodate larger projects. He said he was totally supportive of Ann Arbor’s PACE program, and called the city a pioneer in the effort.

However, Levin said it’s impractical for every city and township to create its own PACE program. It makes more sense for the county to do it, he said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Other Administrators?

LaBarre said he’s spoken about this program with the county treasurer [Catherine McClary]. He said she seemed supportive, although she wanted to know more about it. He asked for Levin to describe the process for a business owner who was interested in the PACE program. Would they talk to the county, or to Levin’s organization, or a bank?

Levin explained that if the county decides to create a PACE program by joining Lean & Green Michigan, then Levin would become the county’s PACE administrator. Most local governments in Michigan don’t have the money to hire new staff to handle the administration, he noted. The only thing that the county does is to have a designated official who signs the special assessment agreements with property owners.

A property owner would come to Lean & Green Michigan, Levin said – there’s an application on its website. He noted that a mall owner in Ann Arbor who’s interested in PACE found out about it because an executive met Levin at a national PACE retreat. The company doesn’t want to use the city of Ann Arbor’s PACE program, he said, because the project is too big for the city and the company doesn’t want to use public funds. That property owner would have the ability to approach Lean & Green Michigan with everything in order, he said, including the energy audit and financing.

But smaller property owners might not have that ability. So part of his role is to “play matchmaker,” Levin said, helping the property owner find an energy contractor and a lender.

From left: Corporation counsel Curt Hedger and commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) asked about the administrative fees that Levin would be charging. Levin replied that the fees for Miller Canfield, the law firm that’s a partner in this venture, would vary depending on the deal. It could range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands, depending on the size of the project. The fees for his firm, Levin Energy Partners, are generally 2% of the deal upfront.

Yousef Rabhi followed up on that question, asking for more details about how Levin would get paid. Levin clarified that his fees could be paid by the contractor, or it could be part of the closing costs. He noted that other costs associated with the project include a mandatory energy audit. The statute also requires a plan for ongoing monitoring and verification of those energy improvements.

Levin explained that the point of setting up Lean & Green Michigan was as an alternative to each local government paying a substantial amount of money to create and run its own PACE program. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay anything, and the entire process can be market-driven, Levin said.

Rabhi asked whether the program that Levin is proposing for Washtenaw County means that anyone who wants to do a PACE project through the county must work with Levin’s firm. Yes, Levin said. The county would be naming Levin as the third-party administrator for its PACE program. Levin pointed out that the county could actually create multiple PACE programs, if it wanted to. The county board can also end the program at any time, he said.

Rabhi asked if there are other options for entities to administer the county’s PACE program. Not in Michigan, Levin said. He described himself as part of a “brother and sisterhood of PACE pioneers” – about 30-40 people nationwide. Levin noted that he was head of the Michigan Dept. of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG) during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration, when the PACE legislation was enacted.

When he left that position, he realized there was an issue with administering the program, because local governments don’t want to pay for administering their own PACE program or issue bonds that would be paid off through a special assessment. He also talked with representatives from large corporations, who told him that they weren’t interested in dealing with different rules and regulations that would be set up if each local government had its own PACE program.

That’s what led him to the idea of having one statewide PACE market, Levin said, and that’s why he created Lean & Green Michigan. Any county or city can join for free, he said, and after that, the local governments don’t have to do much. Every deal involves a property owner, an energy contractor and a lender. All three of those parties prefer the idea of one big Michigan market, instead of a lot of smaller programs, he said.

Indicating that he hoped Levin wouldn’t take offense, Rabhi said it was important to review all of the county’s options and ensure that they were proceeding in the right way.

County commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Levin replied that “it’s a huge entrepreneurial risk on my part, I mean, to be honest.” He’s doing a lot of setup that could take years, Levin said, and until projects start coming in, there’s no funding. “Not many people are willing to do that.”

Conan Smith told Rabhi that the short answer to the question of whether there is some other provider besides Lean & Green is “No.” Essentially, Lean & Green Michigan is a sole source provider of this service in the state, he said. As evidence, he pointed to an RFP (request for proposals) process that Wayne County undertook for a PACE administrator. There was one response, he said – from Lean & Green Michigan. “No one else wants to do this work,” Smith said. Washtenaw County could go through that same RFP process, he added, but he didn’t think there was anyone else who would respond.

In response to another query from Rabhi, Levin said that Lean & Green Michigan is the name of a program that Levin Energy Partners administers. He considers the Miller Canfield law firm to be an important partner too. Rabhi asked if the county was locking itself into using Miller Canfield on the legal side, under this proposal. Yes, Levin replied, to the extent that any outside counsel is needed.

Levin said he’s not just looking to get some energy projects done. “I’m looking at how Michigan can be the most innovative state in driving down the costs of these projects for property owners.”

Ronnie Peterson said he’d be supporting this proposal. It’s similar to other partnerships the county has in order to provide services to citizens, he said, giving Ann Arbor SPARK as an example. [SPARK is a nonprofit entity that provides economic development services, and receives appropriations from the county to help support that work.] Peterson said it didn’t cost the county one dime, and it will help Washtenaw County businesses function in a changing climate. The county can opt out of its arrangement with Levin at any time, he noted.

Peterson said he knew Levin on a personal basis, and that as a Harvard Law School graduate, Levin had more options than taking on this program. Peterson said he was grateful that Levin is giving back to the state with his talents and relationships that he’s built over the years. “I trust Andy Levin, and that does make a difference to me,” Peterson said.

Countywide PACE Program: Board Discussion – Next Steps

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether it would be a “done deal” if commissioners approved the proposal at their board meeting that night, following the ways & means meeting. If not, why were commissioners pushing it through to be voted on at the board meeting?

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that the state statute requires a three-step process to create a PACE program. The board is being asked to take the first step – approving a resolution of intent. It notifies the public that the board intends to move forward with creating a PACE district. The statute lays out the information that the county must include in notifying the public – including different types of financing.

The next step would be to hold a public hearing. The last and most important step, Hedger explained, will be a resolution that actually creates the countywide PACE district. That would likely come before the board in late January or early February, he said.

Sizemore asked if there was a way to stipulate that labor for these projects would come from the county. Ronnie Peterson replied that Andy Levin is very respected in the labor community, and had been involved with the AFL-CIO on a national level. Sizemore said he didn’t need an answer that night, but it was an important issue that he wanted to address.

Conan Smith offered an amendment to the resolution, to set a public hearing on the proposal for Jan. 22.

Outcome on Smith’s amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners passed the amendment to set the public hearing date for Jan. 22. Rolland Sizemore Jr. dissented.

The board then discussed whether to take both an initial vote that night at its ways & means committee meeting, plus a final vote at the board meeting immediately following it that same night. [Typically, items receive initial approval at ways & means, then are brought to the regular board meeting two weeks later. However, there was only one board meeting in December – on Dec. 4.]

Yousef Rabhi wondered why the board couldn’t take a final vote at its first meeting in 2014, on Jan. 8. He noted that commissioners could still hold the public hearing on Jan. 22. Conan Smith noted that the first meeting of the year typically includes only organizational items, like officer elections, but he supported doing regular business then, too.

Ronnie Peterson didn’t have a problem giving the item final approval later that night, noting that the proposal doesn’t cost the county any money. Felicia Brabec pointed out that some commissioners had additional questions, and that it wouldn’t change the timeline to have a final vote for the notice of intent on Jan. 8, given that the hearing was already set for Jan. 22.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to a notice of intent to form a PACE district. A final vote on the notice of intent is expected on Jan. 8, with a public hearing on Jan. 22. A vote to establish the PACE district itself will come in late January or early February.

Peacemaking Court

At their Dec. 4 meeting, commissioners were asked to authorize acceptance of a $150,000 grant to establish the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s Peacemaking Court. The grant, awarded by the State Court Administrator’s Office, is for funding from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The state grants are intended to support creative approaches in the court system. The Peacemaking Court is described in a staff memo:

Like tribal peacemaking programs and restorative justice programs, the Peacemaking Court will provide a great benefit to youth and the community in juvenile cases by reducing recidivism and giving youth a diversionary option to avoid a record that can preclude future educational and employment opportunities. Domestic relations and other family cases will benefit from more durable and tailored solutions that result from a clearer understanding of the different perspectives or “truths” of all those involved. This, in turn, will enable the healing of important relationships, in contrast to the harm and polarization that too often results for families through the adversarial process.

The Peacemaking Court will allow the parties and those most affected by the conflict to talk about the event, its impact on them, and to look at the whole conflict in a comprehensive context that leads to understanding and meaningful solutions that address the needs of all those involved. When participants are respected and the individuals responsible for causing the problem are part of the decision process and take responsibility for their actions in a meaningful way, the resolutions are more comprehensive and address the needs of everyone involved, as well as the issues that underlie the problem. An important difference between the traditional system and the peacemaking court process is that the resolution is determined WITH the court not BY the court.

Key members involved in this project are 22nd Circuit Court judge Timothy Connors, 14A District Court judge Cedric Simpson, project director Susan Butterwick, and Robert Carbeck, who is 22nd Circuit Court deputy court administrator and budget director. [.pdf of grant application]

Connors, who has spearheaded this initiative, was on hand at the Dec. 4 meeting to describe the project and answer questions. Carbeck also attended but did not formally address the board.

Peacemaking Court: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) invited judge Timothy Connors to the podium to describe the grant.

Timothy Connors, 22nd circuit court judge.

Connors said he knew commissioners wanted to know about funding. He told them the program not only doesn’t cost anything for the county, but it’s money coming in from the state. The only role for the county would be in administering the funds, he said.

The grant is to explore and determine what, if any, tribal court philosophies or procedures might have applicability in Michigan’s courts, Connors explained. These are things that can be borrowed from the more than 500 tribal nations across the country, he noted, including some of the tribal courts in Michigan that are leaders in the country. He’s been working with these courts and came to the conclusion that there’s a lot to learn.

Peacemaking courts are being held overseas, most notably by two communities in England, Connors reported, saying he’s met with representatives from those communities. Their approach is borrowed from New Zealand’s indigenous culture.

Connors noted that a lot of this work is based on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings held during Nelson Mandela’s presidency. “So I can’t imagine anybody really being threatened by it,” he said. Only people who want to participate will use this approach, he explained – saying it’s not imposed on anyone. It’s designed to offer an alternative way to resolve differences. After 23 years on the bench, he said, he’s learned that the court system often addresses the symptom, but seldom talks about the disease.

Judge Cedric Simpson will be participating from the 14A District Court. Connors said the approach is already being offered in the domestic relations and family court, and there’s interest in it from business-related cases and in the probate court. “It is my commitment to spend the rest of my career with you working and trying to do the best I can in my final 11 years,” he said. [Judges are elected to six-year terms, and Connors' current term expires in January 2019. He was likely referring to the statutory age limit – judges must be under 70 years old at the time of their election.] Connors said he hoped the county took advantage of the grant, and that he’d keep the board informed of the educational sessions that will be held about the peacemaking court.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thanked Connors for his work. He said he’s been involved in alternative dispute resolution with the court, and was a small claims mediator, so “I know the power that conversations can have.” Learning from what other cultures have done is a great idea, Smith said, and he’s proud of the county and grateful to Connors and the team that pulled this together.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed those sentiments, saying he was glad to have a small role in this project. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) also thanked Connors, and recalled a conversation they’d had recently about former judge Francis O’Brien. Peterson noted that O’Brien had been well-known across the state and country for advanced programs and treatment models for juveniles. He was pleased to see that Connors was making sure that the legacy of O’Brien continued.

Peterson also said he was pleased that the wall between the county board and the court is coming down. He hoped the dialogue would result in additional innovative programs, but he joked that the initiative had to come from the judges: “We dare not to mess with you in robes, because of the power that you possess,” Peterson quipped.

Connors responded, saying he didn’t see those walls and that such walls between the county administration and the court would be “ridiculous.” He said he intended to involve the county’s detention center in the decision-making, and indicated that the goal for everyone is to help the children.

Infrastructure Projects

Two infrastructure projects – in Dexter Township and Freedom Township – were on the board’s Dec. 4 agenda for approval.

The board was asked to authorize issuing up to $460,000 in bonds for the Copper Meadows drain project in Dexter Township, northwest of Ann Arbor. The drain is located in the Copper Meadows subdivision off of North Territorial Road, near the Dexter town hall. The bonds would be repaid with special assessments on Dexter Township, Washtenaw County, and property owners in the drainage district. The first assessment would be levied in December 2014. [.pdf of staff memo on Copper Meadows project]

The board also was asked to pass a resolution that directs the county’s board of public works to undertake a lake improvement project at Pleasant Lake in Freedom Township, located southwest of Ann Arbor. The township’s board of trustees has passed a resolution asking for the county’s assistance in implementing and financing of a project to control invasive and nuisance species at the lake. The proposed five-year project would require special assessments on property owners that would benefit from the work.

Outcome: Both infrastructure projects received unanimous final approval by the board.

Appointments

Over 30 appointments to various county boards, committees and commissions were on the Dec. 4 agenda for approval. [.pdf of appointments]

Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt was appointed as the county’s director of public works.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) read aloud his list of nominations, making a few additional comments along the way. He noted that an application for an opening on the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee had been received after the deadline, so he’d be bringing a nomination forward in January for that.

There were several unfilled positions on the local emergency planning committee, he noted, for slots that require certain types of representation – to represent hospitals, agriculture, and several other specific areas, for example. In total, the county needed to fill 23 positions, but only nine nominations were brought forward on Dec. 4.

An opening on the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission that resulted from the retirement this month of long-time commissioner Nelson Meade will not be immediately filled, to allow for the opening to be publicized.

Openings for most positions had been publicized in October and November. An appointments caucus was held on Nov. 21 to discuss the openings and applications. That caucus drew only two commissioners, however – Rabhi and Conan Smith (D-District 9), who both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

The deadline had been extended until Dec. 1 for openings on three entities: the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA); the Washtenaw County historic district commission; and the Washtenaw County food policy council. As a result of the extension, additional positions were filled on the HDC (Alec Jerome) and the food policy council (Markell Miller and Caitlin Joseph).

Also, no appointment was made to the RTA. Richard Murphy – one of two RTA board members from Washtenaw County – is not seeking reappointment. During the Dec. 4 meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated that there’s some uncertainty about when Murphy’s one-year term actually ends, and that needs to be sorted out with state and RTA officials. Because RTA board members weren’t sworn in until April of 2013, some state and RTA officials believe the term extends until April – even though appointments for Washtenaw County’s two slots were made by the previous county board chair, Conan Smith, in late 2012.

Rabhi said he planned to re-open the application process, with a new deadline to be determined, after these issues are clarified.

Outcome: Appointments were approved unanimously.

Later in the month, the application process was re-opened for the RTA, with a new deadline of Jan. 12. That same deadline applies to openings on the county’s food policy council and parks & recreation commission. Applicants can submit material online, or get more information by contacting Peter Simms of the county clerk’s office at 734-222-6655 or appointments@ewashtenaw.org.

Appointments: Director of Public Works

In addition to the other appointments, the board was asked to appoint Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, as director of public works, effective Jan. 1, 2014. The current director of public works is Daniel R. Myers. According to a staff memo, the board of public works had raised a question about potential conflict-of-interest with this appointment. From the memo:

Since Evan is currently the elected Water Resources Commissioner for the County, the Board of Public Works wanted to assure themselves that it was not a conflict for the person serving as the Water Resources Commissioner to also be appointed the Director of Public Works. With the assistance of Corporation Counsel they researched this issue and it was determined that it would not be a conflict of interest. Additionally, the current organizational structure of Public Works places the Director under the management direction of the Water Resources Commissioner so there is already direct involvement in Director of Public Works activities. [.pdf of corporation counsel opinion]

Earlier this year, Dan Smith (R-District 2) had asked the corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to weigh in on a separate issue – about the constitutionality of levying taxes based on pre-Headlee state laws. During deliberations at the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, Hedger said he would never put a legal opinion in a cover memo unless he’s directed by the board to do so. The board is his client – not individual commissioners, he told them, adding that he writes legal opinions under the board’s direction.

In the case of the opinion produced for the appointment of Pratt, Hedger indicated that the board leadership had asked for the opinion, on behalf of the entire board, as did the county administrator and the outgoing public works director.

Outcome: The appointment was approved on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. He did not publicly state his reason for voting against this appointment.

Recognitions

Commissioners voted on resolutions of appreciation at their Dec. 4 meeting to honor two men who have served the county for decades: Dick Fleece and Nelson Meade.

Outgoing county health officer Dick Fleece and Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer.

Fleece has worked for the county for 38 years in the field of public and environmental health, and is retiring at the end of 2013. He was appointed the county’s environmental health director in 1994, and has served as the health officer since 2009. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation for Fleece] Fleece received a standing ovation from commissioners and staff.

At the county board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, commissioners had appointed Ellen Rabinowitz as interim health officer.

Also on Dec. 4, commissioners honored Nelson Meade, who is stepping down from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission after serving for over 40 years. [.pdf of resolution of appreciation for Meade] He was an administrator at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and had served in various roles in city government, including two terms on the Ann Arbor city council. His departure from WCPARC was announced at its Nov. 12, 2013 meeting.

Meade did not attend the Dec. 4 meeting, but was given the framed resolution at a reception later in the week. And at the Dec. 10 WCPARC meeting, it was announced that County Farm Park will be renamed in Meade’s honor, as the Nelson Meade County Farm Park. The 141-acre park is located on Ann Arbor’s east side, at the southwest corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Platt Road.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Public Health

At the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, Ellen Rabinowitz was appointed as interim health officer for the county, because the county’s current health officer, Dick Fleece, was retiring. As they’d done in the past, at that meeting both Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) advocated for the county to create a board of public health. From The Chronicle’s Nov. 6 meeting report:

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

…

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

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

At the board’s Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, Rabinowitz told commissioners that she’d been working with the county administrator to develop a document that she planned to present to the board on Dec. 4. The document would lay out all the issues that need to be explored in reestablishing the board of public health, she said, including budget impacts, potential composition, and how it would relate to other existing boards.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

On Dec. 4, Rabinowitz told the board that she knew Peterson had wanted a resolution on this issue to come forward at that meeting. However, she said she wasn’t ready yet because she’s still doing the due diligence and gathering information that’s needed to reestablish a board of public health. She was meeting the next day with the director of local public health services at the Michigan Dept. of Community Health to sort out why such a board is optional and what authority it would have. She’s also pulling together information about all the different ways that the county’s public health department currently receives public input, “because clearly that is one key role for a board of health,” she said.

Rabinowitz reported that she’ll also be meeting in January with the dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the associate dean for public health practice to get their input. Her intent is to bring forward a resolution in the first quarter of 2014.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked Rabinowitz, saying that he knew she wanted to do what’s best for the county, what’s legal under the state statute, and what’s best in terms of engaging citizens. He noted that the county public health department already works with about 10 different citizen boards and commissions that are working on specific areas, like environmental health. He wanted to look at elevating the voice of people who sometimes don’t have input, and he looked forward to the proposal she’d be bringing forward next year.

Peterson said his desire to have a board of public health would not go away. The county has a parks & recreation commission, a board of public works, a drain board and a road commission, he noted, and a board of public health is just as important. He expected an update from the county administrator in January regarding the status of such a board. He argued that the county board needs to appoint people to a public health board who could advocate on behalf of children and other vulnerable citizens.

Conan Smith said he also was committed to putting a board of public health in place to guide commissioners. However, he added, he also understands the need for time to figure it out and do it right. He didn’t want to delay it with the intention of killing it, but thought it was worthwhile to get it done right.

Rabhi said he didn’t see the additional time as a delaying tactic, and he appreciated the time that staff was putting into it.

On a different topic, Alicia Ping said she hoped Rabinowitz could serve as a resource. Ping had recently received an email from the Saline mayor, reporting that there had been another heroin overdose in that city. The mayor is coordinating a response with the Saline police department and school system, she said, and has asked Ping to reach out to the county to see what resources are available.

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary during the evening. He introduced himself as a recent candidate for Ann Arbor city council, as well as a previous candidate for other offices. He urged the board to do more for the community’s most disadvantaged residents, finding ways to provide better access to health care, housing, transportation and education. He asked commissioners to work during their vacation period to help those in need. He argued that Gov. Rick Snyder and the state legislature had neglected and bullied the most vulnerable citizens on Michigan, as well as middle-class residents.

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, Jan. 8, 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014-2017 County Budget

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

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

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

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

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

2014-2017 County Budget: Initial Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: No formal action was taken on this proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County administrator Verna McDaniel and board chair Yousef Rabhi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County sheriff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014-2017 County Budget: Board Discussion – Final Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014-2017 County Budget: Final Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Third-Quarter Budget Update

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

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

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

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

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

Third-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

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

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 88 Tax Hike & Policy: Public Commentary

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

Bill McMaster of Taxpayers United.

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

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

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

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

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Move to Table

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

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

Act 88 Tax Hike: Board Discussion – Constitutional?

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

The law states:

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

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

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

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

MCL 49.155 states:

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

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

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

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

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 88 Policy: Board Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act 88 Policy: Request for Legal Opinion

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

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

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

Outcome: The motion died for lack of a second.

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA

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

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

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

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

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

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

Pittsfield Township State Street CIA: Board Discussion

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

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

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

Coordinated Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinated Funding: Board Discussion – Community Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platt Road Advisory Committee

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

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chelsea Milling Brownfield Status

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

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

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

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

There was no board discussion on this item.

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

Interim Public Health Officer

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

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

The appointment is spurred by the retirement of current health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28. The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commissioners gave Fleece a round of applause.

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

Public Hearings Set

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax for Indigent Veterans Services

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

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

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

Outcome: The amendment passed unanimously, without discussion.

Proposal to Rescind “Stand Your Ground” Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater/Asset Management Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no discussion on this item.

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

Emergency Management Performance Grant

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Delonis Center, Barrier Busters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: 1,4 Dioxane

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

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

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

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

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The appointment is spurred by the retirement of current health officer Dick Fleece, effective Dec. 28. The position is mandated by the state, and requires a graduate degree and 5 years of full-time public health administration. Responsibilities include overseeing the county’s public health department.

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

Before the Nov. 6 vote, commissioners praised both Rabinowitz and Fleece for their service.

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

CSTS is a county department employing about 300 people, but receives most of its funding from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. WCHO contracts for services through CSTS. Although staffing has remained fairly constant in the last five years, demand for services has increased by about 40%. These jobs are being created to provide the capacity to meet that demand.

The new jobs include client service managers, support coordinators, mental health professionals, mental health nurses, management analysts, administrators and a staff psychiatrist. All of the reclassified positions are client service managers. Of the 39 new positions, 30 of them are union jobs, represented by AFSCME.

According to a staff memo, the changes will add $14,255,535 to the CSTS 2012-2013 budget, bringing the budget total to $41,822,489. Of that, WCHO is providing $38,692,815, including revenues from grant pass-throughs. Other revenues include $165,190 from the Haarer bequest and $246,846 from a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

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]