Logo for The Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 22, the board had announced that it was suspending operations of the professional theater company after determining that the theater ”is not currently financially viable.” In early June, the board issued a letter stating that the theater did not have resources to pay its staff, actors and vendors in a timely manner, and to make debt payments.

Subsequently, a group of PNT supporters – including former staff – made a proposal to re-open the theater with a smaller staff, dramatically reduced budget, and plan for reaching financial solvency. That proposal was made to the board on June 18.

The June 19 press release from the board states: ”Due to the sensitive nature of negotiations with funders and investors, the sealed bid was delivered confidentially, along with other proposals, to the Board of Directors of the Performance Network Theatre. … In making this announcement Ron Maurer, President of the Board, indicated that there are a lot of hurdles facing the Theatre in the next several weeks. Manfredi and the Board will be working hard to honor commitments to Theatre patrons, donors and vendors. Maurer cautioned that it will take time, but that the Board believes the new production model being implemented is the best option to ensure the long-term sustainability of a professional theater in downtown Ann Arbor.”

The press release describes Manfredi as the owner of Etico Productions LLC, a Michigan theatrical consulting and production company. Manfredi has served as education coordinator of the Creative Arts Center of North Oakland County; and as Managing Director of the Jewish Ensemble Theatre and The Theatre Ensemble at Meadow Brook Theatre.

Performance Network Theatre was founded in 1981 and is currently located in the ground floor of 120 E. Huron St., at the southwest corner of Huron and Fourth Avenue. The building also includes Courthouse Square senior apartments.

In recent years the theater has struggled financially. In April of 2009, the theater announced that it needed $40,000 or it would close – an appeal that resulted in a rush of donations.

Since 1996, biomedical engineering has been a department in the College of Engineering. The restructuring creates a joint department with the Medical School, with the intent of creating a closer collaboration between the two UM units and strengthening the academic and research efforts. Faculty from both the College of Engineering and Medical School voted to approve the change earlier this year.

This brief was filed from the Michigan Union’s Rogel ballroom, where the board held its July meeting.

The program, formed in 1952, houses several other programs – in Arab American studies, Native American studies, Latina/Latino studies, and Asian/Pacific Islander American studies. According to a staff memo, the departmental status of American culture will clarify its relationships with these other programs, and bring it into equivalent structural status with similar units, including women’s studies, which became a department in 2007, and Afroamerican and African studies, which received departmental status in 2010. The change will take effect Sept. 1, 2012.

This brief was filed from the Michigan Union’s Rogel ballroom, where the board held its July meeting.

Map 1. Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard's plan is to protect the city from fires with three stations (red helmets): Station 1, Station 2, and Station 5. Closed would be Station 3, Station 6 and Station 4 (gray helmets). Station 2 is currently not used and would need to be re-opened. The light blue area is the part of the city that is reachable by at least four fighters within four minutes. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade. (Map is de-skewed from the original one provided by the city, with additional labels by The Chronicle. Image links to higher resolution file.)

The reactivated station would be Station 2 (south), located near Packard and Stadium. Also remaining active would be Station 1 (center), located at Fifth and Huron in downtown Ann Arbor, as well as Station 5 (north), located on Beal off of Plymouth Road in the northern part of the city.

Closed would be Station 6 (located in the southern part of the city, in the Briarwood Mall area), Station 3 (on Jackson, in the western part of the city) and Station 4 (in the eastern part of the city, south of Washtenaw Avenue on Huron Parkway).

Hubbard contends that the proposal will significantly improve response times for most of the geographic area of the city. Hubbard’s guiding metric for response time is the geographic area that is reachable by at least four firefighters in less than four minutes – a “four-in-four” standard. Four firefighters is the minimum number that must be on scene in order to enter a burning building – to conform with an OSHA “two-in/two-out” regulation.

The existing configuration would provide shorter arrival times for a first-arriving vehicle, but would not provide  a complement of four firefighters on that vehicle. Shifting to a focus of four-in-four – from the current configuration that optimizes fastest first-arrival – reflects a prioritization of fire protection over emergency medical response.

The council was shown a video at the work session that presented results of an April 2010 study done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that investigated the effect of crew size on task performance. Firefighting responses were studied in controlled conditions by sending four crews at a time to the scene of a structure built for that purpose. The study varied the size of the crews among two-person, three-person, four-person and five-person crews – for a total of 8, 12, 16 and 20 firefighters on scene. The study showed that a responding force composed of four-person crews (16 firefighters on scene) was clearly superior to one composed of three-person crews (12 firefighters on scene) – 25% faster overall.

But with one exception, the new Ann Arbor proposal would not increase the crew size for a given vehicle from the current level (three) to four firefighters. The exception would be for the ladder truck at Station 5, which would have a crew complement of four. At a briefing for the press held earlier in the day, Hubbard described part of the advantage of his proposal as allowing for two trucks to arrive together, departing from the same station, to coordinate their activity at the fire scene. In terms of the study presented in the video, this is called “stagger.”

The NIST study showed an improvement in performance by crews arriving spaced more closely together (close stagger) compared to crews that arrived with longer intervals (far stagger). However, the improvement in firefighting performance due to close stagger was not nearly as large as the improvements based on crew size.

During the council’s discussion, it emerged that the restructuring was not motivated by cost-savings, and that no decrease from the current number of budgeted firefighters – 82 – is expected. The station model does not require formal city council approval, but councilmembers will be considering approval of a recently negotiated contract with the firefighters union at their March 19 meeting. The contract includes operational changes that would allow for more effective deployment of Hubbard’s plan. It provides for firefighters to work more hours, in part by reducing the frequency of a mandatory “code day” when firefighters are not scheduled.

After the jump, we take a look at: (1) some additional maps The Chronicle has created; (2) how the maps fit into the overall response-time picture; and (3) councilmember reaction to Hubbard’s proposal.

Response-Time Maps

The maps presented in the digital information packet presented by the city were graphically skewed – stretched east-to-west. The Chronicle has de-skewed the maps and used image processing to combine information from different maps onto one image. First, we present some background on the standards that underlie the maps.

Response-Time Maps: Four Firefighters in Four Minutes

The key response-time metric driving fire chief Chuck Hubbard’s planned station model is an ability to get a minimum of four fighters to a fire scene within four minutes. The number of firefighters stems from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) revised respiratory protection standard [29 CFR 1910.134]. It’s a “two-in/two-out” rule, for a total of four firefighters:

1910.134(g)(4) Procedures for interior structural firefighting. In addition to the requirements set forth under paragraph (g)(3), in interior structural fires, the employer shall ensure that:
(i) At least two employees enter the IDLH [immediately dangerous to life or health] atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times;
(ii) At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and
(iii) All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs (self-contained breathing apparatus).

Note 1 to paragraph (g): One of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.

Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled.

The time of four minutes (240 seconds) is the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 for first-arriving companies – a time that is supposed to be met for 90% of fires. From the NFPA standard:

5.2.4 Deployment.
5.2.4.1 Initial Arriving Company.
5.2.4.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within a 240-second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.

The NFPA standard characterizes minimum staffing levels in terms of “companies,” setting a minimum of four personnel per company, which is consistent with the OSHA two-in/two-out standard. The NFPA 1710 standards allow for the possibility of a company arriving on two different vehicles (apparatus).

A.3.3.13 Company.
For fire suppression and other emergency operations, in some jurisdictions, the response capability of the initial arriving company is configured with two apparatus operating together. This can be a result of apparatus not being configured with seated and belted positions for four personnel, therefore requiring a second vehicle to carry additional personnel. It can also be the result of the fire department’s SOPs [standard operating procedures], which require two apparatus operating together to complete the operational procedures. The objective is to ensure that a minimum of four personnel are assigned to and deployed as a company. …

Getting at least four firefighters to a fire scene using two different vehicles is part of Ann Arbor’s current strategy and will be a part of Hubbard’s proposed station model.

What’s different about Hubbard’s approach, compared to the current configuration of stations, is that the initially-responding trucks delivering firefighters to the scene will come from the same, not different, stations. And the location of those stations is optimized to provide better four-in-four coverage than the current system, or than in the immediate past. The maps demonstrate the improved four-in-four coverage.

Travel-Time Response Maps

Map 1 shows in light blue the four-in-four coverage provided by the three-station configuration in Hubbard’s proposal. The wider colored bands show the coverage for five-minute, six-minute, seven-minute and eight-minute responses. It’s based on an assumption of two three-person crews at Station 1 and at Station 2, but one four-person crew at Station 5. So the light blue area is the sum of areas around each station corresponding to four-minute travel time from that station.

Map 1. The light blue area is the part of the city that is reachable by at least four firefighters within four minutes. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade. (Map is de-skewed from the original one provided by the city, with additional labels by The Chronicle. Image links to higher resolution file.)

Currently, Station 2 is not active, having been closed in the early 2000s. [link to .pdf of June 13, 2004 Ann Arbor News article: "Fire Station Quietly Closed"] The Ann Arbor fire department staffs a crew at each of the other five stations. With three-person crews, computing the area of four-in-four coverage requires considering the intersections (overlaps) of the four-minute travel time area around each station.

Overlaying the city’s current-coverage map with the planned-coverage map shows the improvement, presented in Map 2. The darker blue area (not quite completely inside the lighter blue area) is the current four-in-four coverage:

Map 2. The darker blue area is the part of the city that is currently reachable by at least four firefighters within four minutes. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade. (Map is de-skewed from the original one provided by the city, with additional labels by The Chronicle. Image links to higher resolution file.)

In Map 2, the darker blue area in the south of the city is the overlap of the areas for Station 6 and Station 4. The patch of darker blue in the vicinity of Station 2 is the overlap of the coverage area for Station 1 and Station 4. The largest chunk of darker blue is the combination of overlaps of Station 1 with Station 6, Station 3 and Station 5.

In the past, Station 1 was consistently staffed with two three-person crews, for a total of six crews across five stations. Even when the department was budgeted for six more firefighters than it has now, it was a struggle to maintain staffing for those six crews. Former fire chief Dominick Lanza had told the city council last year at a February 2011 work session that he’d had to start implementing rolling station closures – as a strategy for having only five crews on some days. Station 1 was staffed with two crews under the rolling closure plan. Lanza characterized it as a situation where the fire department had checks but no money to write them.

When the city council’s FY 2012 budget dropped the number of positions to 82, newly-appointed fire chief Chuck Hubbard opted to keep the five fire stations open, but to staff the second company at Station 1 (the tower truck crew) only when personnel are available.

So it’s worth considering what the four-in-four coverage for the city looked like in the recent past, when two companies staffed the downtown Station 1. That coverage is presented in Map 3 in very dark blue. With Station 1 itself able to send at least four firefighters (on two different vehicles), the entire area reachable from Station 1 in four minutes would count as four-in-four coverage area, with no need to consider overlaps from other stations. Any overlaps between stations other than Station 1 would also need to be added in as part of this coverage area. The coverage area for Station 1 was taken from the set of maps previously provided to The Chronicle by the city of Ann Arbor.

Map 3. The very dark blue area is the part of the city that was reachable in the past by at least four firefighters within four minutes. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade. The Chronicle did not attend to count the dots on the maps, reflected in the ??? on the legend. (Map is de-skewed from the original one provided by the city, with additional labels by The Chronicle. Image links to higher resolution file.)

So even when compared to the immediate past, when the fire department was able to staff two crews at the downtown Station 1, Hubbard’s proposal reflects an improvement in four-in-four coverage. [Here's an animated .gif that cycles through the three maps: fire coverage images]

Response Time: A More Complete Picture

The ability to deliver at least four firefighters to a fire scene within four minutes is only one consideration in Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard’s proposed station model. The study conducted by NIST, for example, did not look at the performance of single crews in isolation. Rather, the study investigated the performance at fire scenes of a four-crew assignment. In the study, it was the performances of four two-person crews, four three-person crews, four four-person crews, and four five-person crews that were compared. [.pdf of NIST study]

Response Time: Full-Alarm Assignment

The four crews in the NIST study correspond to the NFPA standard of a “full-alarm assignment” – that is, not just the minimum four firefighters. For a full-alarm assignment, the NFPA deployment standard states that resources should be deployed such that 90% of the time, a full-alarm assignment can travel to the scene within eight minutes:

5.2.4.2 Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability.
5.2.4.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initial full alarm assignment within a 480-second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.

For a full-alarm assignment, the station model proposed by Hubbard reflects an improvement in full-alarm response. In Map 4, the future eight-minute full-alarm coverage area (lighter pink plus darker pink) is combined on the same map with the current eight-minute full-alarm coverage (just the darker pink):

Map 4. The darker pink shows the current area of coverage within eight minutes for a full-alarm response (not just the minimum four firefighters). The lighter pink area, including the darker pink area, is the coverage area for an eight-minute full-alarm response under Hubbard's planned station model. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade. (Map is de-skewed from the original one provided by the city, with additional labels by The Chronicle. Image links to higher resolution file.)

Response Time: Other Components Besides Travel Time

Hubbard’s proposed station model changes the geographic distribution of fire protection resources throughout the city, so it’s natural that it will affect the time it takes firefighters to travel to a fire. Hubbard’s proposal is optimized for travel time to deliver four firefighters to a fire scene in under four minutes. The four minutes in question is travel time – the maps were generated based on distance and speed limits.

But travel time is only one component of the fire department’s total response time, starting from the time a call is placed to 911. Huron Valley Ambulance (HVA) handles the fire dispatching for Ann Arbor’s fire department. And HVA’s computer-aided dispatch system (CAD) allows for recording of distinct time points for each vehicle during the fire department response. The National Fire Protection Association sets forth a standard that is supposed to be met 90% of the time for each of the time intervals in the response. The times given below are for the NFPA 90% standard.

Timepoint 1: The time when the emergency alarm is received by the public safety operator.
Interval: 1-2 [Dispatch Time (or Call Processing Time)] 60 seconds
Timepoint 2: The time when sufficient information is known to the dispatcher, and the relevant fire station is notified of the emergency.
Interval: 2-3 [Turnout Time] 60 seconds
Timepoint 3: The time at which a fire truck is en route to the emergency incident.
Interval: 3-4 [Response Time] 240 seconds (4 minutes), 480 seconds for full-alarm assignment of vehicles and personnel.
Timepoint 4: The time when a fire truck arrives at the scene.

The Chronicle has previously reported some of the challenges in using just the data stored in the CAD system or just the official AAFD reports for analysis of Ann Arbor fire department response times. The CAD data contains regular inconsistencies, which are nonetheless explainable. For example, it’s not uncommon to find time points recorded that result in a 3-4 second interval – not plausible as accurate for any of the phases of the fire department response.

The regular interval could be explained by a fire dispatcher receiving an “on scene” radio report from a vehicle that had not previously been coded as having been dispatched or having responded – the dispatcher would code the previous time points as completed before coding the arrival time, in rapid sequence. [Link to a Google spreadsheet summarizing prior Chronicle analysis: AAFD fire response data]

The recent International City/County Management Association (ICMA) report on Ann Arbor’s fire department summarizes response time data for the period of March 1, 2010, to Feb. 28, 2011. [.pdf of ICMA Ann Arbor Fire Department Study]

Based on the data provided in that study, The Chronicle has generated the charts below. For some of the charts, similar versions are included in the ICMA study report. For all charts, the emergency medical response calls are included along with the fire calls. The data are for the first-arriving unit.

Chart 1. AAFD dispatch (blue), turnout (red) and travel (yellow) time averages, by hour of the day. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Chart 2. AAFD response time averages for turnout (red), travel (yellow) and total response (blue) time by time of day, compared to the NFPA 90% standard. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Chart 3. AAFD average time gap to NFPA standard for dispatch (blue), turnout (red) and travel (yellow) by time of day. Bars below zero reflect times slower than the NFPA 90% standard. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The average travel time of the first arriving unit is within the NFPA standard, while the turnout time and dispatch times are not. So if the actual performance of AAFD in reaching fire scenes with a fire engine is within the four-minute standard, why is Hubbard proposing to change the station model? It’s because that first-arriving engine, with its three-person crew, is not currently delivering four firefighters to the fire scene, which is required by the two-in/two-out rule.

In Charts 1-3, it’s apparent that the two non-travel phases of response are typically slower from 9 p.m. through 6 a.m. than they are at other times of the day. The difference in performance is not attributable to different personnel working that time of day, because AAFD firefighters work 24-hour shifts.

Of the two phases of response that appear to be outside the NFPA 90% standard, it’s turnout time that is immediately under AAFD control. Dispatch time is under the control of Huron Valley Ambulance.

At the press briefing held earlier in the day on March 12, Hubbard seemed essentially dismissive of the turnout time analysis, saying that the only way for ICMA to have measured it was by standing and timing firefighters with a stopwatch. He noted that getting into their gear is something that firefighters train for on a regular basis.

Response Time: Stagger

During councilmember deliberations, Hubbard stressed more than once that his revised station model provides better four-in-four coverage – but not because it puts four firefighters on a single truck (except for Station 5). The minimum four firefighters would arrive on two trucks, arriving on the fire scene together, having departed from the same station. The advantage of the station model highlighted by Hubbard is one of increased four-in-four coverage area.

Another advantage identified in the NIST study comes from reduced spacing between arrival times of the four vehicles sent to a fire – that is, reduced “stagger.” A station model that plans for vehicles to arrive together, like Hubbard’s does, reduces stagger. Recall that the NIST study measured the performance of firefighting forces on scene with 8, 12, 16 and 20 firefighters, which correspond to four crews of 2, 3, 4 and 5 firefighters each. One of the variables measured was the spacing between arrival times of the crews making up the on-scene force. Close stagger was defined as one minute between arriving crews. Far stagger was defined as two minutes between arriving crews.

In Chart 4 below from the NIST report, the set of four bars on the left shows results for the “close stagger” crews, while the four bars on the right show results for “far stagger.”

Chart 4. From the NIST study, the impact of stagger and crew size on overall time to complete tasks at the fire scene. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

From Chart 4 it’s clear that while the advantage of the closely staggered crews is statistically significant, the amount of the advantage due to stagger is not nearly as great as the advantage due to crew size. Changing to Hubbard’s new station model from the current model corresponds to a contrast between the 3-person close stagger (20:30) and 3-person far stagger (21:17). Moving to four-person crews for all Ann Arbor fire trucks (which Hubbard explained at the work session would require adding 30 additional firefighters) would give the department around a five-minute advantage in on-scene task time.

Council Deliberations

Councilmembers had several questions for Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard at the March 12 work session. At the press briefing earlier in the day, Hubbard had made clear that he was taking responsibility for the station model, saying that he had developed it himself. This report of the council’s discussion is organized thematically.

Council Deliberations: What’s a “Standard”?

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted to know how many communities meet the NFPA 1710 standards – for responding to 90% of calls within four minutes. Hubbard stated that all departments have a goal to achieve those standards. However, he said he didn’t personally know of any departments that meet all of the NFPA 1710 standards – that’s difficult to do. Hohnke characterized it as an agreed-on industry standard, an appropriate target, but it’s not a standard in terms of something that most communities meet.

Hubbard confirmed that the distinction Hohnke was drawing is accurate – between a standard as something that’s a goal, and a standard that’s the usual state of affairs for most communities. Hubbard stressed again that the issue is not just getting a truck to the scene, but also getting the four personnel to the scene.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Hubbard whether the cities that Ann Arbor compares itself to meet the NFPA 1710 standards. Hubbard said that to his knowledge they do not. It’s difficult to do, given the current economic state, he said.

Council Deliberations: Geography of Hubbard’s Station Model

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted the map shows that the three-station model Hubbard was proposing gives better coverage in the high-risk areas. He asked why Station 2 was closed initially. Hubbard said he did not know why it was closed – it had happened several years ago when he was a lieutenant and he was not part of that decision-making. Hubbard said Station 2 is in a prime location, because it can go in all directions.

Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard at the March 12, 2012 city council working session.

Derezinski wondered what the impact of the East Stadium bridges construction had on Station 2. Hubbard allowed that the current closure of the bridges does hinder the ability of Station 2 trucks to get to the western part of the city. He said he went out and drove it himself. Getting to Station 3′s current area from Station 2 would use the Stadium bridges as the route, he said, if it weren’t closed. But that area would also have trucks coming from Station 1.

Derezinski told Hubbard that the proposal was really “pulling the rabbit out of the hat” by improving coverage with fewer stations. He said he expected that the new station model would be monitored closely for actual response times.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that under Hubbard’s station model, no stations would be located in the western part of town. She also wondered about fire protection coverage on football Saturdays – with the associated traffic congestion. She wondered if Hubbard would look at a different deployment for football Saturdays to provide better coverage. Hubbard allowed that would be an option. In the past, AAFD had staffed differently on high-volume days, he said.

Higgins described some “pretty horrendous fires” in the last few years in the vicinity of where Station 6 is now, giving Lake Village and Meadowbrook as examples. Those areas are no longer in the four-in-four response time area, Higgins contended.

Hubbard told her those areas are still in the four-minute zone. The area Higgins was trying to describe, she said, is in the five-minute response area. Given the importance of even a minute, she was concerned about that. Hubbard allowed that response time is important, but it’s a question of what you have when you get there. Getting a truck to the scene is not the goal, but rather getting the truck plus the personnel to the scene is what’s important, he said.

Council Deliberations: Crew Size, Staffing Levels

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said there’ll be some people who see the video presentation and become concerned because the Ann Arbor fire department doesn’t have four people on a truck. But she said her understanding was that the fire department always has had a four-person-on-scene strategy – two-in/two-out. Hubbard confirmed that the OSHA requirement was two-in/two-out and characterized it as a law. Do we follow the OSHA law? Briere asked. Hubbard confirmed that the Ann Arbor fire department does follow the OSHA requirement, but “in a slower pace.” The proposal, Hubbard said, is to get the four firefighters to the scene faster.

Briere confirmed with Hubbard that the fire department has never had a situation where two firefighters by themselves were fighting a fire. She wanted that to be clear. Mayor John Hieftje followed up by confirming with Hubbard that Ann Arbor’s fire department currently has three-person crews and they get two trucks to the scene, to get the four firefighters needed for the two-in/two-out standard.

At the left is Paul Ganz, DTE Energy regional manager, who attended the city council's March 12 work session, which included the topic of the clean up of the MichCon site near the Broadway bridges. Councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is not alarmed that she lacks any neckwear to rival Ganz's.

Later in the session, Briere said she’d looked at the maps ahead of time and had reviewed the ICMA study. She reminded Hubbard that as the two had previously talked about the proposal, they’d agreed that fire protection is like insurance – nobody wants it and everybody has to pay for it, and if you do without it you feel like you’re in danger. A few years ago, she said, the council was asked to look at a more limited response from more than one station – two firefighters from Station 1 and two firefighters from Station 3 and everything would be covered, the council was told.

Looking at the maps, Briere said, that description did not seem to her as “clean” as she would have liked it to be. Briere asked if information had changed, or if he was just looking at staffing differently. Hubbard said the information hasn’t changed. What he’s done, Hubbard said, is to consolidate resources. By having trucks respond together, they can get to the areas quicker and at the same time.

One engine pulling up by itself brings three firefighters, Hubbard said. The two maps show the same kind of information, Hubbard said – the four-in-four coverage provided by two trucks. [See Map 2 for the contrast displayed in one map.] But by consolidating resources, a lot more area is covered, he said. Briere concluded that it’s not so much a matter of the number of stations, but the effect of the number of crews at each station, which Hubbard confirmed.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that people who live inside the new light-blue coverage area will take some comfort in that. The people who live outside of that area might have previously at least had the comfort of living near a fire station. Are there areas that have a decrease in the four-in-four coverage? Taylor asked. No, said Hubbard. He then ticked through the significance of the different color bands outside the light-blue area, which indicate longer four-in-four response times.

Taylor concluded from the maps that for someone who lives near a station that is closing, the four-in-four response time would still improve.

Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard, left, and councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked Hubbard what his ideal “magic, perfect” number of firefighters would be, noting that the outgoing police chief, Barnett Jones, had been asked the same question with respect to sworn officers – Jones had said 150. Hubbard said that it would be 88 firefighters. [There are currently 82 firefighters employed budgeted by the city.] Lumm confirmed with Hubbard that he was factoring in the tower truck at Station 1 with the figure of 88 firefighters.

Lumm noted that the move to three stations is based on current staffing levels and she applauded Hubbard’s efforts to optimize the resources he had. She went on to say that she felt a more appropriate question that the community and the city council should ask is: What is the appropriate level of resources needed to meet or exceed the standards? She asked for Hubbard’s thoughts on the idea of determining the amount of resources required, as opposed to simply optimizing what he currently had.

Hubbard understood Lumm’s question to be essentially: What would it take to achieve the four-in-four coverage without closing any stations? He told her he’d have to hire at least 30 additional firefighters. Mayor John Hieftje then questioned whether that approach would actually deliver better service than Hubbard’s proposal. Hubbard’s answer: Yes, absolutely. Lumm said she felt the video showed that a five-person crew was ideal in terms of industry standards.

Later during the work session Lumm followed up on the same point. Lumm wanted to know if the same kind of coverage could be achieved by keeping all five current stations open and adding a three-person crew to Station 1 to make sure the tower truck was always staffed. No, said Hubbard, each truck at the other four stations would need to be staffed with four firefighters per truck, which would require 30 additional firefighters. [What Lumm had in mind appears to correspond to Map 3.]

Lumm wanted to know why Hubbard thought it was good enough, under his proposed station model, to meet the standard only 70% of the time [490 out of 681 fire locations]. Hubbard said, “It’s not that I think it’s good enough,” but rather that staffing levels dictate this approach. He said he was working within his means.

During her initial remarks, Lumm said she realized that response to fire calls is important, but said that response to medical emergencies is important as well.

Council Deliberations: EMS Response

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for data on emergency medical response times. Hubbard told her that EMS responses by the Ann Arbor fire department average about 5 minutes in the current setup. Jerry Zapolnik, chief operating officer with Huron Valley Ambulance, stepped to the podium and confirmed the 5-minute average EMS response time by the fire department. HVA is about 6.1 or 6.2 minutes on average.

Lumm said she’d visited Station 5 and learned during her visit that when AAFD and HVA both respond to a call, HVA needs backup from the AAFD, because HVA might not have access to a facility. She gave Cranbrook Towers as a possible example. Zapolnik confirmed that is the case. Currently, some of the structures have a “Knox Box,” which is only available to the fire department to gain access to the building and to the apartments within a building. It’s a security issue, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked what other communities in Michigan were adopting the model of a four-person crew with multiple trucks arriving on the scene. Hubbard clarified that his proposal is not to put four firefighters on a single truck. His proposal will still require getting two trucks to the scene, he said, it’s just that those trucks will come from the same station and arrive at the same time. Kunselman concluded that AAFD would still be doing EMS runs – how would that be handled? Would two trucks be sent on EMS runs? No, replied Hubbard, only one fire truck would be sent on an EMS run, just like AAFD currently does.

Council Deliberations: Tall Buildings, Tower Truck

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that in the media there’s been a lot of conversation about the condition of the tower truck and some of the ladder trucks. She noted that Hubbard had not addressed that issue. She asked for confirmation that one ladder truck and the tower truck are currently out for repair. No, Hubbard said, Ladder Truck 5 is back in service. The tower is currently out of service. Briere asked what the plan for the tower truck is – replace or repair?

Hubbard told Briere the plan for the tower truck is to replace it. He’s currently working on the request for proposals (RFP) that needs to be put out to bidders, he said. He’s met with the city’s fleet manager, he said, and AAFD will be purchasing a new tower truck. Later mayor John Hieftje drew out the fact that an already-built truck could be purchased and acquired much more rapidly than ordering one built specifically to match Ann Arbor’s requirements.  AAFD appears ready to pursue acquisition of an already-built truck.

In the meantime, Briere asked, what would AAFD do if it needed a tower truck to fight a fire? Hubbard explained that AAFD would need to call Pittsfield Township or the city of Ypsilanti. Briere wanted to know how long that would take to get from those two communities to an Ann Arbor fire. Hubbard indicated that he’d have to check into that for an exact answer – it would depend on a variety of factors. But it would take longer than if the AAFD had its own, he said.

Briere said she’d been asked about the safety of tall buildings. She said her recollection was that a tower truck only reaches about 100 feet up. Hubbard confirmed that the height of the tower is 100 feet, but when you take into consideration the position of the truck away from the building, the angle of inclination knocks some of that height off. Briere drew out the fact that the tower would only reach about seven or eight stories. Some of the buildings in downtown Ann Arbor that have either been approved or already been built exceed that height.

How can fire safety be assured for those buildings? asked Briere. If they’re above the eighth floor, Hubbard said, “We have to go in and get ‘em.” The bucket from the tower won’t reach them, he said. Briere asked if buildings are equipped with fire-suppression systems and asked how those systems work. Hubbard indicated that all new construction would be equipped with fire suppression. There may be a few older buildings that don’t have such systems, Hubbard allowed.

Briere wanted to know how well a building’s built-in fire-suppression system would work, compared to a ladder truck getting water onto a fire on the seventh floor. Hubbard said such systems work pretty well – they put out a lot of water. If the fire is caught at the right stage, the systems can really slow down the fire, he said.

Map 5. Age. This map was generated by the city's GIS staff showing election turnout (green dots) overlaid with median age from 2000 census data. Though a decade old, the map tends to support Stephen Kunselman's point about emergency medical response – many older residents (the darker brown shades) live away from the center of the city. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that Hubbard had described the new strategy as going from an EMS-based strategy to a firefighting strategy. Kunselman asked Hubbard to elaborate on that. The point, Hubbard replied, is that EMS will not be the fire department’s primary function. Instead, the primary function will be fire protection. AAFD will still respond to EMS calls as first-responders, Hubbard said, but the EMS primary function would be handled by HVA. Kunselman asked what that would mean for someone who lives out by Packard and Platt and would be seeing Station 4 close. Will it take longer to get to a heart-attack victim? Hubbard said that depends on where the HVA ambulance is.

Zapolnik stated that HVA’s response time would not change under the new station model proposed by Hubbard. So it would be around 6.1-6.2 minutes. He described the dynamic deployment model used for parking ambulances in different locations at different times – depending on call volume, available resources and traffic patterns – to optimize the HVA response time.

Kunselman concluded from the faster AAFD average response time (5 minutes) compared to HVA (6.1-6.2 minutes) that under the current configuration, AAFD arrives first on the scene more often than HVA. So Kunselman concluded that this would change – HVA would get there first more often. Zapolnik indicated that currently it’s about 50-50 as far as AAFD and HVA arriving first on scene. [The ICMA fire report gives 1,724 cases of HVA arriving before AAFD and 2,020 cases of AAFD arriving before HVA.]

Zapolnik indicated it’s a matter of where the ambulances are stationed. He also pointed out that for cardiac arrest scenarios, “getting electricity to the individual” is paramount in ensuring survivability. So he pointed out that Ann Arbor police officers also carry automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in their vehicles as part of the response chain.

Kunselman asked what the likelihood is of HVA stepping up to add another vehicle to the mix. Zapolnik indicated that as demand increases and response requirements increase, and the population gets older, HVA would add resources to meet those demands, he said.

Kunselman allowed that fire protection is important, but noted that more of the city’s older population lives away from the central part of the city. So he’s concerned about that issue.

Council Deliberations: Budget

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified with Hubbard that his proposal is not driven by a cost-savings motive, but rather to enhance fire protection. Taylor allowed that there’d be some cost to bring Station 2 back into shape for fire service. At the press briefing earlier in the day, Hubbard had characterized those costs as initially nominal, but allowed that the building might need a new roof.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) referred to a fire department budget analysis that had been given before the labor contract was recently settled. And she figured the new station model would have some impact. She wondered when the council would have information relevant to the budget that it will have to approve in May. City administrator Steve Powers noted that the collective bargaining agreement with the firefighters union would be on the March 19 agenda and the impact of that contract would be provided by then.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, described the contract, which has been ratified by the union. It will have a slight increase in cost of about a couple hundred thousand dollars, he said. But what came with that contract are some changes in scheduling and other operational changes that Hubbard wanted. Those changes would allow for more effective deployment of Hubbard’s plan. The contract provides for firefighters working more hours, in part by reducing the frequency of a mandatory “code day” when firefighters are not scheduled. A weekly effort will increase from 50.4 hours to 54 hours.

At the press briefing earlier in the day, Powers had described the changes in the labor contract as helpful to Hubbard’s plan, but it did not rely on those changes for its implementation. Crawford noted that the city’s two-year budget plan had called for the reduction of the current staff level of 82 firefighters to 77 – eliminating five position. The new contract would allow a recommendation of maintaining the 82 positions.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that 88 was Hubbard’s dream staffing size, so Kunselman wondered what it would take to get to that point from a budget perspective. Crawford said that something he’s watching is the level of state grants to communities that have public institutions requiring fire protection, but that do not pay property taxes. [For Ann Arbor, it's the University of Michigan that requires substantial fire protection resources, for which the city receives no property taxes.]

Crawford noted that the level of those grants has not been fully funded for years, but the city’s lobbyist in Lansing was working hard on Ann Arbor’s behalf. [The city employs Governmental Consultant Services Inc. as a lobbyist. GCSI's Kirk Profit is the city's point person in Lansing.] Crawford said he didn’t know how sustainable increases in those state grants might be. Other than that, Crawford said, he’d continue to work to identify the key needs and priorities and work on those. Kunselman noted that according to the new maps, UM would have better coverage, so that information should be made available to the city’s lobbyist.

Council Deliberations: Fatalities, Staffing Levels

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) then brought up the issue of fire fatalities in the city, characterizing them as fortunately very few and episodic.

City councilmember Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

Those deaths have taken place in the context of a challenged economic environment that has affected the fire department in terms of the number of staff, Taylor said. He asked if in Hubbard’s professional opinion the fatalities and staffing levels were linked. Hubbard indicated that for the cases he was familiar with, the two were not linked.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) followed up on Taylor’s question about fatalities by describing an opinion column [written by Stephen Ranzini] published in AnnArbor.com that claimed a “tight statistical correlation” between fatalities in fires and reduced staffing levels in Ann Arbor’s fire department. [The total fatalities over the 20-year span from 1992 to 2011 were presented in the column as totaling 15, with 12 of them coming since 2006.]

Hohnke told Hubbard that he was glad to hear that from Hubbard’s perspective there was not a relationship between the two sets of data. Hohnke then alluded to his credentials as the holder of a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by describing himself as the “last rehabilitated scientist” on the council. He went on to describe the statistical relationship between those data sets as “absolutely insignificant.” He allowed that the city faces some significant challenges in how to structure the fire department. But that discussion, he said, is not helped by the kind of “blatant misinformation” in the column. He went on to say he “was a little bit surprised that AnnArbor.com didn’t do a better job of editing that.”

Council Deliberations: Implementation

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked how the new station model would be measured for effectiveness, and if it would be possible to reverse course if it proved not to be effective. City administrator Steve Powers noted there’s no plan to dispose of the closed stations. They’d remain as part of the city’s inventory. Fire chief Chuck Hubbard said the AAFD would keep an eye on several things – responses to fires and whether they’re putting fires out more safely. He’d mainly focus on measuring fire suppression responses – emergency medical responses would not be the focus, he said. If it looks like fires are getting bigger and the fire department is not getting there fast enough, then it’s possible to go back or try something else.

The station model does not require a formal city council approval.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of of public entities like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the Ann Arbor city council. 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: Jenna Bacolor of the county's public health department, Michaelle Rehmann, Farm to Table director for the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), and Al Connor of the Michigan Farmers Union. All are involved in helping create the Washtenaw Food Policy Council. (Photos by the writer.)

Two items touched directly on salary and compensation. The board gave final approval to an administrative restructuring that’s estimated to save $326,422 annually, and result in the net reduction of four full-time jobs, which are currently vacant. As he did for the initial vote on Feb. 15, commissioner Ronnie Peterson voted against the restructuring, objecting to a 4% increase that will be given to four top managers in a new cross-lateral team, as a result of their job reclassification. Though the county uniformly gives a 4% raise when any job is reclassified, Peterson argued that the county’s leadership should set an example and that the raises will make it more difficult to ask for concessions in future union negotiations in 2014-15.

Also related to upcoming budgets, commissioner Dan Smith presented a draft proposal that would cut compensation for commissioners in 2013-2014. Overall, the proposal would cut total compensation (salary and benefits) by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063. He plans to present a formal resolution at the April 4 meeting. The timing would allow the board to make a decision before the May 15 filing deadline for county board candidates.

Another budget-related item came from the public health department, which proposed fee increases to treat sexually transmitted diseases – one of the mandated services provided by the county. The changes, which were approved unanimously, are being made in response to federal funding cuts and an increase in charges for state services. Though he voted in favor of the increases, Peterson raised concerns about the impact on low-income residents. Dick Fleece, director of the public health department, assured the board that no one would be refused treatment because of the inability to pay.

Public health staff also presented an item with almost no budget impact: A proposal to create the Washtenaw Food Policy Council, with the goal of supporting and coordinating activities in the county’s food system. Partners who’ve been working on this initiative include the Y of Ann Arbor, Growing Hope, Food Gatherers, the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), Slow Food Huron Valley, Eat Local/Eat Natural, Michigan Farmers Union, and the Ypsilanti Food Coop. A final vote is expected on March 21.

The board also acted on items related to public safety. They voted to accept a $177,500 state grant from the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP), which provides incentives for local governments to collaborate and combine operations. The grant will help pay for work related to dispatch consolidation between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor.

And in a vote to clear up a procedural move, the board authorized a merger of its countywide 800 megahertz (MHz) emergency communications system with the Michigan Public Safety Communication System. The county’s 800 MHz system is paid for through a 10-year, 0.20-mill tax that Washtenaw County voters approved in May 2006. At the time, the plan called for eventually merging with the statewide system.

During the opportunity for commissioners to raise items of discussion, Wes Prater noted that at the Ann Arbor city council’s March 5 meeting, a four-party agreement to establish a framework for a possible countywide transit system was approved. Prater urged the board to begin discussing the issue, too. [In addition to Ann Arbor, the four parties include the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Ann Arbor city council was the first entity to approve the accord, doing so after postponing action on it three times and deliberating for over 3.5 hours at Monday's meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council OKs Transit Agreement"]

A working session for commissioners to address the four-party agreement has been set for Thursday, March 22.

Prater also wondered why the board hadn’t received any reports from the county treasurer recently. The treasurer, Catherine McClary, gave a 2010 annual treasurer’s report to commissioners early last year, at their Feb. 16, 2011 meeting, but has not yet submitted the 2011 annual report. Board chair Conan Smith asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to contact the treasurer’s office and request a report.

Administrative Restructuring

Commissioners were asked to sign off on a restructuring of support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes are estimated to save the county $326,422 annually, and result in the net reduction of four full-time jobs, which are currently vacant. Initial approval had been given at the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting.

The changes include creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations. Their jobs are being reclassified, so the four positions are among those getting a 4% raise, capped at $126,099. Because of the cap, Heidt’s current salary of $126,098 will remain unchanged. The salaries of the other three managers will increase from $116,758 to $121,437.

The proposal also calls for putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another 11 positions will be eliminated, while nine jobs will be created. A total of seven jobs will be reclassified, and will receive a salary increase. [.pdf of staff memo, resolution and job descriptions]

At the Feb. 15 meeting, commissioner Ronnie Peterson had voted against the restructuring, objecting to the 4% increase that will be given to the cross-lateral team as a result of their job reclassification.

The board had been briefed about this proposal by county administrator Verna McDaniel at its Feb. 2, 2012 working session. At that meeting, McDaniel also outlined plans to seek broader restructuring of the county operations, in the wake of more than 100 county employees retiring at the end of 2011.

Administrative Restructuring: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 7) said she had talked to some union employees and had gotten feedback that there are concerns about the 4% increases, given that unions had made concessions in the most recent round of contract negotiations. People think the cross-lateral team is a great idea, but are bothered by the compensation – Brabec said she could understand that reaction. She asked McDaniel to restate the policy.

As she had done at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, McDaniel explained that a reclassification is not a promotion. Rather, she said, it reflects an increase of responsibilities within someone’s existing job. In accordance with board policy, she said, reclassifications are handled the same for both union and non-union employees. In both cases, a reclassification results in an automatic 4% salary increase.

Brabec said what she was hearing from McDaniel is that there’s parity between union and non-union employees. She clarified with McDaniel that McDaniel’s original proposal is no longer on the table. That’s correct, McDaniel replied. [Last fall, McDaniel had initially presented a plan that called for each cross-lateral team member to receive a $15,000 stipend. A resolution to that effect had appeared on the Sept. 21, 2011 draft agenda, but McDaniel withdrew it before that meeting after several commissioners objected to the stipend.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel talks with commissioner Rob Turner (R-District 1) before the start of the March 7, 2012 meeting.

Brabec asked what happens if an employee believes their job should be reclassified. McDaniel described a reclassification request form that an employee can fill out and turn in to their supervisor. After the supervisor reviews it, the request is passed along to the county’s human resources staff for another review. Communication occurs with the employee’s bargaining unit, and the request is negotiated. A similar process exists for non-union employees, she said, although no bargaining unit is involved.

Although requests can be made at any time, McDaniel said they try to handle reclassifications during contract negotiations as part of the budget process, or if there’s a broader departmental restructuring.

Wes Prater (D-District 4) said he felt it’s time to reconsider the policy of giving an automatic 4% increase for job reclassifications. It seems like something the board should chew on, he said. The county has asked employees to make sacrifices, and will likely need to do so again – it could be three or four years before the county gets “squared around,” he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) emphasized that everyone in the organization made concessions, including the people whose jobs are being reclassified now. This is a policy, and the board needs to follow through on it. He said he did a quick calculation of other jobs changes in the administrator’s proposal, and two of the union positions are getting nearly 6% and 8% increases, respectively. He said he just wanted to put that information out there.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) then spoke at length. He reminded other commissioners that he had voted against this proposal initially, and planned to do so again. He hadn’t intended on speaking about it, he said, because the people involved are highly professional and skilled, and he’s pleased they are staying with the organization. However, he had some concerns. Although everyone made concessions, employees at the lower end of the pay scale feel more pain.

Peterson wondered why employees who are now doing the jobs of two or three people aren’t getting reclassified. He wanted to look at the entire workforce, to see how many people’s jobs should be reclassified. When the administration asks employees to make more concessions in the 2014-15 budget cycle, he said, employees won’t likely be willing to make sacrifices again.

Peterson concluded by saying that the leaders of the organization and those who have the highest compensation should set an example and make greater sacrifices.

Outcome: The proposal was given final approval on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Ronnie Peterson.

Commissioner Compensation

A draft proposal that would cut compensation and benefits for Washtenaw County commissioners in 2013 and 2014 was distributed by commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) at the county board’s March 7 meeting. [.pdf of Smith's proposal]

Currently, commissioners are paid an annual base salary of $15,500 plus $1,163 (7.5% of their salary) that the county contributes to their pension. [Officers of the board receive higher salaries: $18,500 for the board chair (Conan Smith, D-District 10), $16,000 for the board vice chair (Alicia Ping, R-District 3), $16,500 for the Ways & Means Committee chair (Rolland Sizemore Jr., D-District 5) and the working session chair (Yousef Rabhi, D-District 11).] In addition, each commissioner has a $3,550 “flex” account, which they can tap for mileage and per diem. [.pdf of 2011 flex account expenditures]

Dan Smith’s proposal calls for an increased base salary of $16,250 per commissioner, but the county’s pension contribution would be eliminated. Each commissioner would also receive $2,813 in optional benefits, including a county pension match of $813 (5% of their salary), $1,000 for education and training, and $1,000 for stipends to replace mileage and per diem payments.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Overall, the proposal would cut total compensation by 5.7% per commissioner – from the current $20,213 to a proposed $19,063.

Due to redistricting, the number of board seats will shrink from the current 11 commissioners to 9 commissioners, as of Jan. 1, 2013. Combining the proposed compensation cuts with the reduced number of commissioners, Smith calculated that compensation for the entire board would drop from $222,338 to $171,583 – a 22.8% decrease. These calculations do not factor in the higher salaries for board officers.

Smith noted that county employees have been asked to pay a portion of their pension contributions, and that his proposal would do the same for commissioners. Also, having stipends instead of flex accounts would make the paperwork simpler, he said – stipends could be calculated annually, based on each commissioner’s committee assignments.

The goal is to bring forward a formal proposal at the April 4 meeting for discussion and an initial vote. Any changes would need to be approved by the board before the end of 2012, Smith noted, but his intent is for the board to make a decision before the May 15 filing deadline for county board candidates.

He said he hoped to get feedback on the proposal from commissioners between now and April 4. There were no comments made by other commissioners during the meeting.

Food Policy Council

Creation of a food policy council – with the goal of supporting and coordinating activities in the county’s local food system – was on the March 7 agenda for  initial approval. The board had been updated on this effort at a Feb. 16 working session, and is expected to take a final vote on March 21.

According to a staff memo, the Washtenaw Food Policy Council would support local “small and mid-sized farmers by fostering policies that encourage local food purchasing and production.” Among other activities, the council could also: recommend policy changes at the local, state and national levels; provide a forum for discussing food issues; encourage coordination among different sectors of the local food system; evaluate, educate, and influence policy; and launch or support programs and services that address local food needs.

Partners who have been working on this initiative include the Y of Ann Arbor, Growing Hope, Food Gatherers, the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP), Slow Food Huron Valley, Eat Local/Eat Natural, Michigan Farmers Union, Ypsilanti Food Coop, and the Washtenaw County public health department.

The resolution calls for a 15-seat membership roster, with members drawn from the following sectors: agriculture, nutrition, education, emergency food system, health care, food services, food manufacturers and distributors, waste management, planning or transportation, retail/business or economic development, human services, faith-based organizations, local governments (board of commissioners), public health, and at large community member(s). The county public health department will be responsible for recruiting members. A draft set of bylaws also was provided to the board for review. [.pdf of of food policy council draft bylaws]

If final approval is given by the board, the council will convene its first meeting later this spring using grant funds from the Michigan Dept. of Community Health, passed through to the Washtenaw County public health department. The council eventually expects to secure financial support from private grants and philanthropic funds. The project will also seek significant in-kind and volunteer support, according to a staff memo.

This is not the county’s only effort related to the local food system. At its Nov. 2, 2011 meeting, the county board voted to create a task force that is developing a pilot training program for agribusiness jobs in Ypsilanti, including support for entrepreneurs in food-related businesses. The project – called ”Seeds for Change: Growing Prosperity in Ypsilanti” – is intended to provide job training and placement to unemployed workers interested in agricultural employment, and to offer shared commercial kitchen space and business support to local agri-business entrepreneurs.

And in 2010 the county board approved an ordinance change to allow the county parks and recreation department, through its natural areas preservation program (NAPP), to include farmland in its land preservation efforts. At the board’s Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, commissioner Yousef Rabhi – who also serves on the county’s agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC) – reported that the committee is recommending the purchase of development rights on six parcels of farmland.

Food Policy Council: Board Discussion

Wes Prater (D-District 4) described the food policy council as one of the best initiatives he’s seen in a long time. It was great to see the effort involve the process from the farm to the table – “and I’m stopping there,” he joked.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) also praised the proposal. As the county works to become self-sufficient and sustainable, the food system is an essential piece of that puzzle, he said. When a community is dependent on the global food economy, “we are a prisoner to that system.” Quality and dependability is much greater from local food sources, he said. Rabhi also cited the economic advantages of developing a local food system, rather than relying on multinational corporations in other countries to fulfill this basic need.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why the initiative couldn’t be handled within the county’s public health department – why does a separate entity need to exist? Sharon Sheldon, a manager in the public health department who is administering this project, noted that there are many different food initiatives throughout the county. This council was envisioned as convening representatives from all of these projects and programs, improving communication and coordinating efforts when appropriate.

Organizers looked at similar councils nationwide, she said, and got advice that this structure was the best approach. Being created by an authority like the county board of commissioners gives the council some weight, she said.

Sizemore asked for more information about how the council would be funded. Sheldon replied that initially, funds will be used from a grant that the county received from the state Dept. of Community Health. She said the grant is expected to be renewed in September. [Sheldon later clarified for The Chronicle that $7,000 of the $25,000 state grant will be used for the food policy council.] Aside from that funding, the council is intended to be a volunteer organization, Sheldon said, and other food-related organizations have committed to providing some staff time to support it.

Sizemore said he didn’t like the fact that the council’s membership, as described in the bylaws, would include people who work in the county, but don’t necessarily live here. He said he doesn’t like the idea of people from outside the community telling the county what to do, but that he would support the effort.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to give initial approval to the formation of the Washtenaw Food Policy Council. A final vote is expected on March 21.

Fees for Public Health Services

An increase in fees to treat sexually transmitted diseases – one of the mandated services provided by the county’s public health department – was on the agenda for initial approval. The changes are being made in response to federal funding cuts and an increase in charges for state services.

The board also was asked to approve changes at the medical examiner’s office, including fees for organ procurement services provided to the Michigan Gift of Life program, and a new late payment policy. According to a staff memo, about 10% of revenues are not realized because of non-payment. [.pdf of revised fee schedule]

Dick Fleece, director of the county's public health department, and Jennifer Brassow, the department's finance director.

By way of background, the adult clinic – which treats sexually transmitted diseases – is a mandated service that has relied on federal funding administered by the state. In mid-2011, the county was notified that federal funding for this program, which the state passed through to local health departments, would be cut by 33%. Since then, the Washtenaw County public health department has been notified that it will receive just half of its expected appropriation for this program. At the same time, the department was notified that the Michigan Dept. of Community Health (MDCH) would be increasing its testing fees for gonorrhea and chlamydia from $36 to $78 in January of 2012. It’s in this context that the fee increases are being proposed.

There will be a sliding fee scale for low-income residents, and a commitment that no one will be denied services, according to county staff. In order to verify income, as well as to handle the billing and collection process, the public health department will be buying ePrescribing software at a cost of $28,000. Most of that – $21,500 – will be covered by a federal incentive program.

Fees for Public Health Services: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for a more detailed explanation of these new fees, saying it would affect the county’s most vulnerable population. Often, these people can’t afford to go to a doctor, he said, and only come to the public health department when they’re in crisis. The county needs to be clear that these services won’t be discontinued, Peterson said. The changes should have been presented to the board a long time ago, he said.

Dick Fleece, director of the public health department, assured Peterson that no one would be refused treatment because of the inability to pay. Fleece reviewed the financial issues that are driving this decision, and noted that the fee changes relate specifically to tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Jennifer Brassow, the public health department’s finance director, told commissioners that the sliding scale will be based on federal wage rates. The proposed fees are based on standard Medicaid rates, and the county intends to bill Medicaid for those charges. People who aren’t eligible for Medicaid and can’t pay, she added, won’t be charged.

Peterson again cautioned against limiting access, saying that for some people, the emergency room and the public health clinics are the only places they can get medical care. He said he’d hate to see a reduction in services.

Fleece replied that the reason his department is seeking approval for these fees is so that people who can afford to pay – either personally, or through Medicaid – actually do pay. That way, the department gets the resources it needs to provide services to those who can’t pay, he explained.

Peterson said he understood the need to find revenue, but he restated his concern for the county’s most vulnerable population. The problem of health care coverage is increasing, not decreasing, he said. He asked that the department’s staff return with a report on how they plan to address the need for more funding of health care for low-income residents. The community isn’t aware of this situation, Peterson said, and the board hadn’t been aware of it until that night.

Barbara Bergman (D-District 8), who also serves on the board of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, reported that the WCHO’s chief of staff, Hazelette Robinson, has been coordinating with the sheriff’s office to do outreach and sign up as many county residents as possible for Medicaid. That relieves pressure on the general fund, she said, because the county is then reimbursed for the health care that those people receive.

She noted that the county’s public health department isn’t the only entity serving low-income residents. Packard Health Clinic, Hope Clinic and others are doing the similar work. ”You’re an important piece of the puzzle,” she told Fleece, “but you’re not the only piece of the puzzle.”

Bergman also reminded commissioners that the Washtenaw Health Initiative, which was launched last year, is also working on ways to serve the low-income population. [Earlier that day, the WHI issued a press release estimating that about 6,400 county residents are eligible for Medicaid, but are not enrolled in the federal program. WHI also estimates that as many as 25,000 residents could become newly eligible if the federal health care reform act remains in place. Since last year, the WHI has helped about 700 residents sign up for or retain Medicaid coverage, according to the release. (.pdf of full WHI press release)]

Bergman concluded her comments by saying that ”the situation is dire, but none of us here in the county are sitting on our hands.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the fee changes. A final vote is expected at the board’s March 21 meeting.

State Grant for Dispatch Operations

A resolution accepting a $177,500 state grant to help pay for work related to dispatch consolidation between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor was on the March 7 meeting agenda. The grant was significantly less than the $698,625 that had been requested. Part of the amount that was denied was a $500,000 request related to transition costs for the city of Ann Arbor. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford confirmed that the $500,000 had not been assumed for budgeting purposes for the coming year.

The award came from the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP), which provides incentives for local governments to collaborate and combine operations. The county board had approved the dispatch consolidation at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting. The proposal had previously been authorized by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 5, 2011. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

Five requests had been made to the EVIP program related to this consolidation. The state denied a $500,000 request from the city of Ann Arbor for transition costs related to paying out leave banks, pension, VEBA and associated costs for terminated employees. Also denied was a $21,125 request from the sheriff’s office to cover 25% of the current dispatch manager’s annual salary and benefits, for time spent handling the transition.

The state did award three other requests from the sheriff’s office: (1) $65,000 for a metro dispatch project manager (an outside consultant); $37,500 to cover the cost of newly created dispatch coordinator jobs for three months, before the contract with Ann Arbor takes effect; and (3) $75,000 to pay for an instructional design consultant who is redesigning the sheriff’s Communications Training Officer (CTO) program for dispatch. That $75,000 will also cover a portion of employee wages for time spent cross-training.

The board’s resolution accepting the award also amended the previously approved county general fund budget for 2012. The line item for state revenue was amended from the original $4,810,249 to 4,987,749 – reflecting the additional $177,500 state grant. The total 2012 general fund budget is now $99,419,930.

State Grant for Dispatch Operations: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 10) noted that the EVIP grants were created by the state in lieu of revenue sharing with local communities, with the aim of recognizing outstanding collaboration efforts at the local level. Sheriff Jerry Clayton and his team deserve congratulations for pulling off a project that’s been discussed for more than two decades, Smith said.

He also proposed a friendly amendment – the signatory on the grant should be the county administrator, he said, not the board chair.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved receipt of the EVIP grant.

Merger with State Communications System

To clear up a procedural move, the board was asked to authorize the merger of its countywide 800 megahertz (MHz) emergency communications system with the Michigan Public Safety Communication System (MPSCS).

The merger had been approved in August of 2011 by the county’s 800 MHz project oversight committee. However, the state attorney general’s office informed the county that authorization needed to be given by the county board. The authorization covered three areas: (1) an integration agreement, (2) a co-location license agreement, and (3) a memorandum of agreement.

The county’s 800 MHz system is paid for through a 10-year, 0.20-mill tax that Washtenaw County voters approved in May 2006. At the time, the plan called for eventually merging the county system with the MPSCS, in exchange for $5 million in state credits to be used for future maintenance costs.

Merger with State Communications System: Board Discussion

Two representatives of the Washtenaw County 800 MHz Consortium – Jack Ceo, former deputy police chief for the city of Saline, and Craig Swenson of the Pittsfield Township public safety department, who’s project manager for the MPSCS merger – were on hand to answer questions.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 7) asked for an explanation about how the system worked. Ceo said the merger allows the county’s emergency responders to communicate throughout the state, because the county’s 800 MHz system integrates with the state’s system. It’s also a “two-way handshake,” he added, because the local system must abide by the state’s regulations – specifying things like the amount of fuel that must be kept on hand for the system’s emergency generators, for example. The state also provides certain services to the county, including technical support.

Swenson noted that in the past, responders often had to use their cell phones to communicate with responders from other agencies, or when they traveled outside of their jurisdictions.

Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) observed that the new system also addressed the problem of dead zones – spots where cell phone coverage isn’t available. Swenson reported that the 800 MHz system uses seven towers throughout the county, and now there are rarely complaints about coverage.

By way of background, the locations of those towers were included in a 2010 working session presentation to the board. Those locations are:

• Jackson Avenue west of Baker Road, in Scio Township
• Sunset Road, at the city of Ann Arbor’s water treatment plant
• Dixboro Road south of Pontiac Trail, in Northfield Township
• WEMU radio station tower at the corner of LeForge and Clark, in Superior Township
• Bemis Road, east of the state Forensic Center in York Township
• Manchester Public Schools property, at the corner of Hibbard and Geiske
• Werkner Road north of Waterloo Road in Lyndon Township, at the Chelsea landfill

Rob Turner (R-District 1) asked about the costs to comply with the MPSCS regulations. Ceo replied that those requirements were factored in from the beginning, and were part of the local system’s upfront costs.

Turner also asked whether this project, which involves collaboration among multiple jurisdictions in the county, would be eligible for the state’s Economic Vitality Incentive program (EVIP). Probably not, Swenson replied, because many counties in the state are doing similar projects.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), a former Saline city councilmember, thanked Ceo for his ongoing work on the project, even though he retired from the Saline police department last year. She noted that sheriff Jerry Clayton had told her that without Ceo’s help, the project would have taken much longer to complete.

Stefani Carter, the attorney who’s filling in while corporation counsel Curtis Hedger is on medical leave, told the board that the only reason they were being asked to pass this resolution is because the action was specifically required by the state attorney general’s office.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve merging the countywide 800 MHz emergency communications system with the Michigan Public Safety Communication System.

Communications and Public Commentary

During the March 7 meeting there were several opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary.

Communications: Packard Health Clinic

At the start of the meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel welcomed Nancy Allcroft, the new executive director for the Packard Health Clinic. Allcroft spoke briefly to commissioners, telling them that Packard Health is the biggest, best-kept secret in Washtenaw County. The clinic provides health services both to those who can pay, as well as those who otherwise couldn’t afford health care, she said. It’s a truly integrated organization, she said, with partners in the public and private sectors.

Communications: Four-Party Countywide Transit

Wes Prater (D-District 4) noted that at the Ann Arbor city council’s March 5 meeting, a four-party agreement related to a possible countywide transit system was approved. [In addition to Ann Arbor, the four parties include the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The Ann Arbor city council was the first entity to approve the accord, doing so after postponing action on it three times and deliberating for over 3.5 hours at Monday's meeting. The agreement lays out a framework for a transition to a new transit governance structure provided under Act 196 of 1986 instead of the state statute under which the AATA is currently incorporated – Act 55 of 1963. See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council OKs Transit Agreement"]

Prater wondered when the board would see a copy of the agreement. Board chair Conan Smith (D-District 10) said the agreement had been emailed out to commissioners on Tuesday, but that he’d make sure everyone had a paper copy, too.

Rebecca Head, former Washtenaw County director of public health, talks with county commissioner Conan Smith prior to the start of the March 7 board meeting. Head serves on the Ann Arbor District Library board, and attended the meeting with her daughter, a Skyline High School student who was completing a class assignment.

Prater said he had received the report from the financial advisory group that’s been working on recommendations for possible mechanisms to fund countywide transit. He hadn’t had the chance to fully digest it, he said, but it does raise some questions. The board needs to be discussing these documents, he said, as well as the articles of incorporation.

One concern Prater cited relates to the 15-member board for a new Act 196 authority. That board would have very little accountability, he said. It doesn’t report to any other entity, he noted, and that’s a concern.

Yousef Rabhi gave some background on the issue, saying that he’s been attending the meetings of the U196 board. [By way of background, the 11-member unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) started meeting in late 2011. Rabhi is not a member, but the meetings are open to the public. Assuming that the authority’s articles of incorporation are approved by the county board and that the four-party agreement is also approved by all parties, the U196 board will finish a report on a five-year transit improvement program, then request that the county clerk file articles of incorporation for a countywide transit authority.]

At the U196 board’s last meeting, Rabhi reported, former county administrator Bob Guenzel attended and briefed the board about the report of the financial advisory group, which Guenzel co-chairs. [.pdf of financial advisory group's draft report – see Chronicle coverage: "AATA Financial Group: Let's Continue"] Rabhi said the group initially identified a funding gap of about $60 million, between existing funding and what would be needed to fund the first five years of expanded services. Then, the group extracted services that have other funding sources, such as federal and state grants. That left a roughly $32 million funding gap for remaining services, he said. The group identified a possible millage amount to cover the gap, he said, but made no recommendations at this point.

Prater raised the issue of a possible regional transit authority (RTA) in southeast Michigan, and noted that Smith had participated in discussions. Smith replied that the meetings he was involved with ended several months ago, and state legislation that would enable formation of an RTA was introduced in January 2012. A state senate committee had held hearings on the legislation, Smith said, and action was expected on the package of bills next week.

Leah Gunn (D-District 9) noted that state Rep. Jeff Irwin – “who used to be one of us,” she said, referring to his former tenure on the county board – had attended Monday’s city council meeting. He had said that this community shouldn’t depend on the RTA, she reported, and should move ahead with the proposed five-year plan for countywide transit. Even if the RTA happens, she added, it would just be a regional overlay. “I’ll take his advice, and hopefully you will too,” she told her board colleagues.

Prater replied by saying that the co-chairs of the financial advisory group – Guenzel and McKinley CEO Albert Berriz – had recommended putting the project on hold until the state acts on the RTA legislation. Smith clarified that Guenzel and Berriz were referring to different legislation separate from the RTA. A bill is being considered that would allow counties to use a different funding mechanism for transit – a vehicle registration fee – rather than a millage. He said when the legislature acts on that bill, then the financial advisory group is expected to reconvene and make its recommendations.

Gunn observed there’s been so much information about the proposal that seems conflicting, and the board wouldn’t resolve those issues that night. Prater noted that they’ll have to talk about it at some point, and Rabhi – who chairs the board’s working sessions – indicated that he would schedule a session on that topic. The session has subsequently been set for March 22.

Communications: Treasurer’s Report

Prater also asked why the board hasn’t received a monthly report recently from the county treasurer, Catherine McClary – it’s required that such reports are submitted, he contended. When board chair Conan Smith replied that McClary does send the reports quarterly, via email, Gunn said she agreed with Prater – she hasn’t received a treasurer’s report in months.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Jason Brooks of the county administrator’s office said the county’s corporation counsel verified that the treasurer does not have a requirement under state statute to provide a monthly report. However, counsel noted that powers outlined in MCL 46.11(k) give the board the authority to compel the treasurer to make a regular report. That section states:

46.11 Powers of county board of commissioners.
Sec. 11. A county board of commissioners, at a lawfully held meeting, may do 1 or more of the following:
…
(k) Require a county officer whose salary or compensation is paid by the county to make a report under oath to the county board of commissioners on any subject connected with the duties of that office and require the officer to give a bond reasonable or necessary for the faithful performance of the duties of the office. An officer who neglects or refuses either to make a report or give a bond within a reasonable time after being required to do so may be removed from office by the board by a vote of 2/3 of the members elected or appointed, and the office declared vacant. The board may fill the vacancy for the unexpired portion of the term for which the officer was elected or appointed. If an election occurs before the expiration of the unexpired term, and if the office is elective, the vacancy shall be filled at that election. The board shall give reasonable notice of the election to fill the vacancy.

McClary gave a 2010 annual treasurer’s report to commissioners early last year, at their Feb. 16, 2011 meeting, but has not yet submitted the 2011 annual report. Annual reports from the treasurer for the years 2006 through 2010 are posted online. A page on the treasurer’s website – “Safeguarding the Public’s Money” – included a “Monthly Treasurer’s Report” link, but the link was no longer functioning. When this link was pointed out to McClary later in the week, she said she had been unaware that the link existed. She then directed her staff to remove it, because the treasurer’s office was not using it to post reports.

On Friday, McClary also sent The Chronicle two recent treasurer’s reports: (1) for the month ending Dec. 31, 2011, and (2) for the month ending Feb. 29, 2012. She indicated that the report from the end of 2011 will provide the basis for her annual treasurer’s report, and includes information on the amounts and yields of various investments, including certificates of deposit, municipal bonds and treasury notes.

At the March 7 meeting, Smith requested that county administrator Verna McDaniel communicate with the treasurer’s office and establish a schedule for regular reports.

Communications: Public Commentary

The only speaker during public commentary was Thomas Partridge, who spoke at both opportunities during the evening. He called on everyone to recognize the anniversary of the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, and to renew the quest for civil rights. County residents need vital services such as affordable, accessible countywide transportation, he said, including transportation for senior citizens and the disabled. The county needs to help the homeless people living in “Camp Take No Notice,” he said. [The name of the enclave is Camp Take Notice.] People there need immediate help, he said.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 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. [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 changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations. The proposal also calls for putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another 11 positions will be eliminated, while nine jobs will be created. A total of seven jobs will be reclassified, and will receive a salary increase. [.pdf of staff memo, resolution and job descriptions]

At the Feb. 15 meeting, commissioner Ronnie Peterson had voted against the restructuring. He again dissented on the March 7 final vote, objecting to a 4% increase that will be given to the cross-lateral team, as a result of their job reclassification. Their salaries will be capped at $126,099.

The board had been briefed about this proposal by county administrator Verna McDaniel at its Feb. 2, 2012 working session. At that meeting, McDaniel also outlined plans to seek broader restructuring of the county operations, in the wake of more than 100 county employees retiring at the end of 2011.

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

Mark Heusel, vice president of the board for the Humane Society of Huron Valley, with his daughter at the Feb. 15 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

After months of uncertainty and sometimes heated negotiations, the county approved an agreement with the Humane Society of Huron Valley through 2012, along with a strategy for a longer-term solution to the county’s animal control services.

A work group, led by the sheriff, is now tasked with determining the cost of animal control services. The work group will involve other jurisdictions in the county that have animal control ordinances – like the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – but do not currently make financial contributions to the county’s animal control services. The group will present a report to the board by Sept. 15 that recommends a final cost methodology and budget for 2013, based on an agreed-upon scope of services.

In an amendment to the resolution that was proposed from the floor, the board also created a separate task force to develop an animal control policy for the county. The policy will be used to guide the scope of services for a request-for-proposals (RFP). Meetings of the task force will be open to the public and to any commissioner who wants to participate. The task force will submit a preliminary report to the board by May 15, with a final report due by Oct. 15.

Following a lengthy discussion later in the meeting, the board also gave initial approval to an administrative restructuring proposal that included a net reduction of four positions, an estimated annual savings of $326,422, and creation of a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers. The issue of pay increases – given as a result job reclassifications – prompted debate about whether the county’s current policy treats employees equitably at the low end of the pay scale.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson voted against the restructuring. He objected to the 4% increase that will be given to the cross-lateral team, saying the raises aren’t justified in light of concessions that union employees gave in the most recent round of contract negotiations. A final vote on the proposal is expected at the board’s March 7 meeting.

In other board action, commissioners approved allocating $200,000 to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs) as part of funding for a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area. The funding comes out of revenues from the county’s accommodations tax. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) is developing a Pure Michigan pilot program, entitled “Sense of Place,” to combine support for tourism and economic development. The Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County area has been chosen as the first region to be featured as a partner in this program, which will include a $1 million national TV ad campaign.

The board approved several other items during the Feb. 15 meeting, including: (1) labor agreements with the final four of 17 bargaining units representing county employees; (2) a change in board rules allowing commissioners to abstain from voting; and (3) a Whitmore Lake improvement project.

Animal Control Services

At its Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners were asked to approve a $415,000 contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley that will provide animal control services for the county just through Dec. 31, 2012. The county’s previous contract with HSHV, for $500,000 annually, expired on Dec. 31, 2011. Since then, the two entities have been operating under a $29,000 month-by-month contract.

County officials said the new contract would provide time for ongoing talks to develop a longer-term solution to animal control services in Washtenaw County, including services that are mandated by the state. During the rest of 2012, the county will work with HSHV and other stakeholders to determine the cost of an “animal service unit” – that is, the itemized per-animal cost of providing animal control services. The county eventually will issue a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit bids for the next contract.

The budget approved by the county board for 2012 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although during last year’s budget deliberations commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials have said that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

The new $415,000 contract does not include the $180,000 that the county has budgeted for its own animal control officers. Instead, the county plans to allocate an additional $165,000 from its general fund balance, to be added to the previously budgeted $250,000 for animal control services in 2012.

Animal Control Services: Public Commentary

Mark Heusel, vice president of the board for the Humane Society of Huron Valley, said he wanted to communicate the HSHV board’s support for the resolution that the commissioners would be voting on. He noted that he had spoken to the board last fall, when the differences between the two entities had seemed very significant. [See Chronicle coverage: "Animal Issue Dominates County Budget Talks"]

The message then, Heusel said, was confidence that the county and HSHV could come together for the benefit of residents. With hard work and perhaps a little hand-wringing on both sides, he said, they’ve reached an agreement that can serve as a stepping stone for a new relationship. Heusel described the agreement as one that’s forward-thinking and based on mutual respect. He thanked the county administration, sheriff Jerry Clayton, and county board chair Conan Smith for their work, as well as commissioners who supported HSHV or kept an open mind during negotiations.

Heusel said he was confident they could strike a relationship that’s long-lasting and that moves beyond 2012. He urged support for the resolution that commissioners were considering that night, then joked that if his appeal didn’t work, he’d brought his young daughter to the meeting and she might be more persuasive.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion

Conan Smith kicked off the discussion by thanking Heusel and other HSHV representatives for their help in crafting the contract language. He also thanked commissioners for their input, saying they’d had some good conversations over the last few weeks, and thanked county administrator Verna McDaniel, sheriff Jerry Clayton, and Stefani Carter, who’s filling in as corporation counsel while Curtis Hedger is on medical leave. Smith said he was glad to have the rest of the year to investigate the public policy side of the issue.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion – Amendment

Leah Gunn then proposed an amendment to the resolution, saying it had nothing to do with the contract. Rather, she said, the amendment focused on the “internal machinations” of the county and how they’ll handle the process of developing a policy and RFP for future years.

The original resolution called for the creation of an animal services steering committee, led by the sheriff with members including the county administrator, four members of the board of commissioners, the county prosecutor and the county treasurer. That committee would have recommended a final cost methodology and animal control services budget for 2013, based on an agreed-upon scope of services.

Instead, Gunn’s amendment specifies a sheriff’s work group to determine cost, and a separate task force to develop an animal control policy [deletions in strike-through, additions in italics]:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Office of the Sheriff to develop a methodology to determine the cost of an Animal Service Unit (ASU) on behalf of the County. The Sheriff may choose the members of his work group, with the understanding that the Board of Commissioners will appoint Commissioner Rob Turner to act as a liaison. The work group’s report is due no later than September 15, 2012.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby establishes an Animal Services Steering Committee (ASSC) for the purpose of reviewing the findings of the Sheriff’s process and recommending a final cost methodology and animal control services budget for 2013 to the Board of Commissioners and establishes the membership of the ASSC as the County Administrator or her designee, four members of the Board of Commissioners, the County Sheriff or his designee, the County Prosecutor or his designee and the County Treasurer or her designee.  a Task Force on Animal Control Policy. This group will exist solely for the purpose of developing an animal control policy for the county. This policy will be reflected in the RFP for a scope of services that the county will purchase. Meetings will be posted. Membership is open to any Commissioner who wishes to attend, and the report will be submitted by May 15th. Once the data from the Sheriff’s work group is published, the RFP will go out forthwith.

Ronnie Peterson wanted clarification between the original resolution and the proposed amendment. He also expressed frustration about the time it’s taken to resolve the process.

Yousef Rabhi explained that the amended resolution would create two separate entities and processes. The sheriff’s work group would focus on identifying the cost of animal services, and would make a recommendation on that. Rob Turner would be a liaison, and report back to the board about the group’s work.

The second entity – the task force on animal control policy – would look at broad issues for setting policy as the county looks toward 2013 and beyond. Rabhi said he’s in favor of separating the two groups because the sheriff’s work group is objective – collecting and analyzing data – while the policy task force will be more subjective. The policy task force will submit a report to the board of commissioners that will be reviewed at a working session before being adopted, Rabhi said.

Noting that politics is the art of compromise, Gunn said this was a good compromise. She noted that the date of Sept. 15 was set at the sheriff’s request – she had originally set it earlier in the year, but moved it back because the sheriff felt it would take longer to collect the data. That’s a fair request, she added, especially since this is a task that the board is imposing on him. Gunn observed that the board of commissioners isn’t a fact-finding entity – it’s a policy-making board. That’s why she proposed the separate policy task force. And by posting the meetings in compliance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act, they don’t need to worry about how many commissioners attend, she said.

Conan Smith said it makes sense to shift the work of determining cost to the sheriff, while creating a separate policy task force. It’s a staff function to collect and analyze data, he said, and the work is in the sheriff’s purview. The findings of that group will come back to the board and guide its budget deliberations, he said.

Regarding the policy task force, its scope should include broader issues that go beyond developing the RFP, Smith said – issues like finding additional revenue sources.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion – Amendment (Timeline)

Conan Smith was concerned about the proposed May 15 deadline for the policy report. The policy should be informed by the data that the sheriff’s work group will be analyzing, he said, but the work group’s report won’t be done until Sept. 15, according to the proposed timeline. Smith didn’t feel the policy task force could develop an RFP without having a strong sense of the costs for animal control services. So his recommendation would be to have the policy task force report due on Oct. 15 instead – a month later than the sheriff’s work group report.

Smith also observed that without appointed leadership on the task force, he thinks that entity will struggle.

Gunn said she’d accepted the Oct. 15 date as a friendly amendment. But Barbara Bergman expressed concern about pushing back the date, saying she wouldn’t support it. She felt the policy should be determined earlier in the year.

Felicia Brabec asked for a description of the typical RFP timeline. Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, said the entire process – including issuing the RFP, soliciting responses, analyzing those responses, and developing a contract – can take two to three months. She noted that a new contract would need to be in place by Jan. 1, 2013.

From left: Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, and county commissioners Dan Smith and Barbara Bergman.

Dan Smith said he’d just looked at the board’s meeting scheduled for the remainder of the year. Commissioners have only one meeting in November and one in December, he noted. Their second meeting in October is Oct. 17 – only two days after the proposed Oct. 15 task force report would be due. The board needs to keep these constraints in mind, he said, so that they don’t end up in the same position they are now. He’d rather see them set dates earlier in the year.

Peterson then spoke at length about his frustrations with the project, saying he didn’t understand why the process took so long. He indicated that the board is responsible for making spending decisions, and commissioners should be involved in that. He wondered why the board was able to eliminate Head Start and cut funding for nonprofits in one night, but needed so long to deal with animal control issues. [As part of the 2012-2013 budget process, the board did vote to relinquish its involvement in Head Start. And commissioners also initially reduced funding to human services nonprofits, though that funding was subsequently restored. However, discussions on both of those issues took place at public meetings over a period of several months last year.]

The county has a strong partnership with HSHV, Peterson said, and holds the debt for the society’s new facility. The public wants this issue wrapped up tonight, he said, and he hoped the board would move aggressively.

Peterson also expressed surprise that a resolution of this kind would explicitly name a commissioner – Turner – for a particular role, but said he supported the idea of commissioners being involved.

Conan Smith said the reason he’s suggesting a longer timeline is out of respect for the time commitment required by stakeholders, including HSHV staff and board members, and other local jurisdictions that will be involved in the policy discussion and data collection. It’s not just the county staff and commissioners who’ll be working on this, he noted. The sheriff’s work group will need several months to collect sufficient data that can provide a fair analysis of cost. It doesn’t have to be complex, Smith said, but it does take time.

Rabhi pointed to a central question: Should the cost of animal control inform the county’s policy? Or should the policy be developed independently of cost? He said he doesn’t envision that the policy task force would dissolve after they issue a report on May 15, but it’s important to have a report earlier than October.

Rabhi then proposed keeping the May 15 deadline for the policy task force report, adding that they could issue a second report in mid-October.

Gunn proposed withdrawing the friendly amendment that would have pushed the deadline for the task force report from May 15 to Oct. 15. She moved to substitute this Resolved clause instead [changes from the original amendment in italics]:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby establishes a Task Force on Animal Control Policy. This group will exist solely for the purpose of developing an animal control policy for the county. This policy will be reflected in the RFP for a scope of services that the county will purchase. Meetings will be posted. Membership is open to any Commissioner who wishes to attend, and a preliminary report will be submitted by May 15th. Once the data from the Sheriff’s work group is published, the RFP will go out forthwith, and the final report of the task force will be published by Oct. 15.

Rob Turner expressed support for this amendment, saying it would put fire behind the effort and keep the task force focused on the work it needs to do.

Gunn then called the question on the amendment – a move aimed at ending discussion and forcing a vote. There was a fair amount of confusion about procedural issues at this point, but the board ultimately voted to call the question. They then took a vote on the amendment to the amendment.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved Gunn’s amendment to her original amendment, characterizing the May 15 task force report as preliminary, with a final report due by Oct. 15.

Conan Smith indicated he was still leery of the May 15 deadline, even for a preliminary report. For example, how the county funds cat-specific animal control issues is a substantive policy question, he said. [The county has contended that the state mandate for animal control does not apply to cats.] Until the county has data on the cost of providing animal control services for cats, commissioners might not be able to make a well-informed policy decision, he said.

Bergman said that many questions – like the county’s mission, mandate and types of services they want to spend money on – could be answered by May 15. It’s just a preliminary report, she said.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved Gunn’s amended amendment.

Animal Control Services: Final Board Discussion

Saying he’d support the resolution, Dan Smith added that he was concerned because this is the second time the county recently has dipped into its fund balance. The first time was in December, when the board voted to take $257,076 from the county’s general fund balance to restore funding it had previously cut to human services nonprofits in the 2012 and 2013 budget.

Smith noted that the county faces a projected deficit in its next two-year budget cycle – for 2014 and 2015 – and that’s troubling. He said he’s very interested in the data that will be collected to determine the cost of animal control services. He had supported the county administrator’s original proposal to cut HSHV funding to $250,000 annually because of historical payments the county had made – $214,119 in 2006, and $300,000 in 2007 and again in 2008. He said he’d be interested to see if the data regarding costs is closer to those amounts, or is vastly different.

HSHV has always been the preferred provider, Smith said, but the county is facing extreme financial constraints, and that factor should be at the forefront. He said he’s not entirely pleased with how this process has unfolded, but he’s glad to see a plan in place.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that another item on the board’s agenda that night – an initial vote to approve restructuring in the administration – indicated that the restructuring would result in annual savings of $326,000. He suggested using funds from those savings to pay the extra $165,000 for the 2012 contract with HSHV. He did not make a formal amendment to that effect, however.

Outcome: The resolution authorizing a new contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley and creating a work group and policy task force were unanimously approved by the board, as part of the consent agenda.

Administrative Restructuring

A restructuring of support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management was on the agenda for the Feb. 15 meeting. The changes are estimated to save the county $326,422 annually, and result in the net reduction of four full-time jobs – positions that are currently vacant.

The changes include creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations. The proposal also calls for putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another 11 positions will be eliminated, while nine jobs will be created. A total of seven jobs will be reclassified, and will receive a 4% salary increase. [.pdf of staff memo, resolution and job descriptions]

The four cross-lateral positions are among those getting a 4% raise, capped at $126,099. Because of the cap, Heidt’s current salary of $126,098 will remain unchanged. The salaries of the other three managers will increase from $116,758 to $121,437.

The board had been briefed about this proposal by county administrator Verna McDaniel at its Feb. 2, 2012 working session. At that meeting, McDaniel also outlined plans to seek broader restructuring of the county operations, in the wake of more than 100 county employees retiring at the end of 2011.

Administrative Restructuring: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec noted that some staff and constituents had raised concerns over salary increases that are part of the restructuring, and she asked McDaniel to comment on that.

McDaniel said she was aware of the concerns, but she noted that these are job reclassifications, with increases set at 4% – they aren’t moving to new pay grades. McDaniel told commissioners that she’s following their directive to restructure in the wake of 117 retirements at the end of 2011, including nine retirements in administrative services.

McDaniel said she’s very sensitive to the sacrifices that employees have made, and she did take into account the county’s financial situation. [To overcome a projected two-year deficit of $17.5 million in 2012-2013, the county administration had secured wage and benefit concessions from unions representing about 80% of the county's 1,360 employees.]

McDaniel reminded commissioners that the estimated structural savings from her proposal is $326,422. It will help the fund balance, she said, and shows that the administration is practicing what they’re preaching as they ask other departments to restructure in the coming months.

McDaniel contended that this move means that Washtenaw County is taking the lead among Michigan’s 83 county governments. She promised to return in six months with a report to the board about the impact of the restructuring, both its successes and pitfalls. She also passed out additional information in a handout – which she said she’d share with union leaders – that outlined responsibilities of the cross-lateral team in more detail.

At right, Diane Heidt, the county's director of human services and labor relations, talks with Kelly Belknap, director of finance. If restructuring is given final approval in March, the two administrators will be part of a four-member cross-lateral administrative team, splitting responsibilities formerly held by the deputy county administrator.

Each member of the cross-lateral team will oversee specific areas of the organization. Hedger will handle administration and support services. Belknap will be responsible for civic infrastructure. Dill will manage public safety and justice, as well as land use and environment areas, while Heidt will be in charge of health and human services, and community and economic development. They’ll meet with McDaniel once a week, with the goal of improving communications, providing additional resources for commissioners and other elected officials, and creating a “deep bench” of leadership.

Wes Prater said it’s hard to swallow change, but it’s necessary. He said he’d prefer to keep the deputy administrator position rather than the cross-lateral team, but he would yield to McDaniel and see how things work out. Prater also said there needs to be close scrutiny of the finance staff. The restructuring will decrease the number of accounts payable jobs from three to two, he noted, and the rationale given is that the change allows for better alignment of day-to-day finance operations with the rest of the organization. It makes you wonder what was happening before now, he said. Prater said he hopes it works.

Ronnie Peterson noted that two positions – the deputy county administrator, and a maintenance technician – are on “hold vacant” status, but not eliminated. They could be filled in the future. Those positions have a maximum salary of $144,000 and $52,000 respectively, he said, and if the positions are filled, that would wipe out about $200,000 of the projected $326,000 annual savings.

Saying he respects the individuals involved in this restructuring, Peterson expressed concern about the raises. The argument is that salaries are increasing because of increased responsibilities, he noted. But most people in the workforce are seeing increased responsibilities without a bump in wages. He said he believes in leading by example – if he takes his nieces and nephews to Dairy Queen, he doesn’t buy himself a bigger ice cream cone than theirs. That’s what you do as a team, he said.

Peterson noted that someone who was attending the meeting that night, a long-time county employee who he said he didn’t want to embarrass by naming, took a significant pay cut in order to keep her job. Knowing that, he said, it would be difficult for him to vote for this restructuring. The county is facing a projected deficit in 2014-2015, Peterson added, and he doesn’t know how they’ll be able to ask employees to make concessions again in two years when the union contracts are negotiated. It’s troubling to him, and his vote on this resolution would be no. His remarks received applause from a handful of employees in the audience.

Dan Smith said he also had some concerns about the raises, which he said he’d shared with the administration. That said, he added that he supports McDaniel. The board has hired her to handle day-to-day operations, and if she feels this is the best way to move forward, Smith said, he’ll support that. If the board wants to take a more active role, that’s their prerogative. But for now, she’s operating under the guidelines they’ve given her, Smith concluded.

Yousef Rabhi noted that when this proposal was initially floated, the plan had called for each cross-lateral team member to receive a $15,000 stipend. Now, the proposal was for a 4% raise. He asked for an explanation about how that 4% figure had been set. [A similar restructuring proposal had initially appeared on the Sept. 21, 2011 agenda, but McDaniel withdrew it before that meeting after several commissioners objected to the $15,000 stipend for the cross-lateral team.]

At McDaniel’s request, Heidt responded to the question. The county has policies and procedures in place regarding job changes – these are part of the union contracts, too, and relate to pay increases for temporary assignments, permanent reclassifications and other changes. If a job is reclassified, the salary increases by 4%. If someone is promoted, they’ll generally receive an 8% increase, she said. Temporary assignments – adding responsibilities on top of an existing job – also get an 8% increase. Lateral moves are generally kept at the same salary. These apply to union positions too, she said.

Rabhi clarified with Heidt that when any position is reclassified, it’s handled in the same way. Absolutely, Heidt said.

Conan Smith said he wanted to present a different perspective that he hoped might change Peterson’s mind. Every point that Peterson made is valid, Smith said. But equally important is the consistent application of good, fair policies. The board has operated with a set of policies with regard to job changes that help keep the peace, Smith said, to ensure that people are treated fairly. But there are some employees who are asked to take on more work, yet don’t get higher wages because their jobs aren’t officially reclassified. There’s a set of employees at the lower end of the pay scale who need a different set of protections and policies. But those protections and policies aren’t in place now, he said.

Until that issue is addressed, however, the county needs to implement its current policies, Smith continued. Changing horses midstream isn’t right. The board needs to have a robust policy conversation that they haven’t had to date, he said.

Peterson replied that he had raised the policy question months ago, when the administrative restructuring had first been proposed. He said restructuring happens for a reason – some people are “weeded in,” while others are “weeded out” – and he’s seen it happen over the years. Peterson also observed that it’s different if you’re talking about someone making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, compared to someone making over $100,000. The county must find a way to make a policy that’s more inclusive of all employees, he said. That responsibility rests with the board, he added, not the administration.

Conan Smith, appearing a bit frustrated, noted that the board approves job reclassifications regularly throughout the year. There were six reclassifications as part of the 2012-2013 budget that was passed by the board late last year, he said. It’s standard operating procedure, and the 4% increase is part of that – it’s consistently applied to all reclassifications. All of those reclassifications come to the board for approval, he observed, so it’s commissioners who are making these decisions.

Felicia Brabec asked whether it was possible to have a pay decrease following a reclassification. No, McDaniel said. If your job is reclassified, you get a 4% pay increase because a reclassification is an upgrade – that’s a policy that applies to any job. If you receive a involuntary demotion, she said, your pay remains the same. If you take a voluntary demotion, your pay decreases. If you are promoted, you receive an 8% increase. The county doesn’t have divisive policies, McDaniel said. These salary practices are part of union contracts and apply to non-union employees as well.

Is there any other situation that might result in a pay cut? Brabec asked. If you’re fired, McDaniel quipped. Or if there are concessions made as part of union contract negotiations. In response to a query from Barbara Bergman, McDaniel reiterated that temporary assignments get an 8% bump – for example, if you’re asked to take over the responsibilities of your boss for a limited time. You would return to your original salary when your temporary assignment ended.

Peterson said he hadn’t planned on this being a long conversation, but felt it was important to discuss these concerns. This has been the worst economic period in the county since the Depression, he said. Peterson contended that changes tend to affect minorities and women – who are often heads of households – more than others. The board shouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of county employees, he said.

Conan Smith said his understanding of Peterson’s position is that the county has a policy that creates equality, but not necessarily equity. At the top of the wage scale, concessions don’t hurt as much, compared to an employee who’s making far less. It’s a complicated issue, Smith said, and one he’d like to tackle collaboratively with labor leaders.

Rob Turner asked McDaniel what metrics she would use to measure the performance of the cross-lateral team. McDaniel cited better communications, work on broader organizational restructuring, improved customer service and program improvements as areas that she’ll be measuring. How will those areas be measured? Turner asked. One way is through cost savings, McDaniel said. But it’s not just about money, she added. It’s also about customer service and program improvements. She said she’d provide more details on that as they move forward.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to give initial approval for the proposed administrative restructuring, with dissent from Ronnie Peterson. A final vote is expected at the board’s March 7 meeting.

Pure Michigan Campaign

As part of funding for a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area, commissioners were asked to allocate $200,000 to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs), out of revenues from the county’s accommodations tax.

The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) is developing a Pure Michigan pilot program, entitled “Sense of Place,” to combine support for tourism and economic development. The Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County area has been chosen as the first region to be featured as a partner in this program.

The campaign will feature a $1 million national TV ad campaign. Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency, is contributing $70,000 toward the campaign, with $200,000 coming from the county, $230,000 from the two local CVBs, and $500,000 from the MEDC. Other elements of the pilot program might include an episode of HGTV’s “House Hunters” program that would focus on the Ann Arbor area, and a national digital ad campaign directing people to Ann Arbor SPARK’s website.

The $200,000 from the county will be paid from the accommodations ordinance administrative fund – an early payment that the county otherwise anticipated making in May of 2013. More than $350,000 is currently in that administrative fund, according to the county.

At the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, commissioners had voted to amend the contract for the distribution of the county’s accommodations tax. The county collects a 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, and bed & breakfasts, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. The contract calls for the county to retain 10% of that tax to defray the cost of collection and enforcement. (Until 2009, the county had only retained 5% for this purpose.) The remaining funds are split, with 75% going to the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and 25% going to the Ypsilanti Convention & Visitors Bureau.

The contract amendment made in September 2011 addressed the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county will continue to retain 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

Several representatives from the groups involved in this campaign attended the Feb. 15 county board meeting: Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor CVB; Debbie Locke-Daniel, executive director of the Ypsilanti CVB; Elizabeth Parkinson, MEDC senior vice president of marketing and communications; and Donna Doleman, Ann Arbor SPARK’s vice president of marketing, communications and talent.

The links between the MEDC and Ann Arbor region are strong. Several MEDC executives – including Parkinson and CEO Mike Finney – are former top staff at Ann Arbor SPARK, which Gov. Rick Snyder helped launch several years prior to his election.

Pure Michigan Campaign: Board Discussion

Several commissioners voiced support for the campaign. Ronnie Peterson said he’s hoped for years to see the joint promotion of tourism and economic development. Rolland Sizemore Jr. indicated that it might be possible to use some of these funds as matching funds for Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township’s participation in the Detroit Region Aerotropolis.

Barbara Bergman said if the funds were to be used for the aerotropolis, the board should get a report on that project. She said she wasn’t necessarily opposed to it, but thought it should be monitored.

By way of background, as of Feb. 18, a message on the website for the Detroit Region Aerotropolis stated that the site has been disabled. There have been no posts on the entity’s Facebook or Twitter accounts since April of 2011. Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Bryce Kelley of Wayne County EDGE – which is overseeing the project – said the site is being redeveloped, and that work on the aerotropolis is progressing. Washtenaw County joined the aerotropolis consortium in 2009, and received its last public briefing on the project at its April 21, 2010 meeting. It was more recently mentioned in a memo sent to the board in October of 2011 by Paul Tait, executive director for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Tait cited SEMCOG’s work on the aerotropolis as one justification for why the county should continue paying dues to SEMCOG. The 2012 and 2013 budget approved in November 2011 eliminated the county’s $125,000 annual SEMCOG membership.

Sizemore said he was simply trying to find ways to do things without spending additional money.

Leah Gunn said it had been smart of the accommodations ordinance commission to recommend setting aside funds for administration, but because it’s not needed for other purposes, the money should be used for an opportunity like this. Felicia Brabec expressed enthusiasm for the possibility of this area being featured on HGTV’s “House Hunters” program, saying that when she watches the show, she’s often interested in visiting the locations that are highlighted. [The Ann Arbor area has previously been featured on the show, most recently in 2009.]

Outcome: The board unanimously approved allocating $200,000 to the local convention and visitors bureaus for the Pure Michigan advertising campaign.

Labor Contracts

The county had previously reached labor agreements with all but four of the 17 bargaining units representing county employees. At the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, an agenda item was added during the meeting to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. When commissioners emerged, they added to the agenda two resolutions to approve collective bargaining agreements with the four remaining units.

These final four bargaining units represent a total of 36 employees – the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, and supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office. In total, the county employs about 1,360 workers, and more than 80% of them are represented by labor unions.

All four agreements considered on Feb. 15 were identical, covering a three-year period from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2014. Because these deals weren’t struck before the deadline to comply with Section 4 of the state’s Public Act 152 of 2011, also known as the 80/20 rule regarding health care costs, union members will pay 20% of their health care premiums.

There are some significant differences between these four agreements and the 13 other union agreements that were previously reached with the county. The other agreements are for two-year periods, ending Dec. 31, 2013. Medical costs for the other union-represented employees are lower, because those agreements were reached prior to the 80/20 deadline. However, because of a “me too” clause, the overall package of salaries and benefits is on par with other labor agreements, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. So while medical expenses are higher, the agreements with these four bargaining units do not include items like reductions in longevity pay, for example.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved the four labor agreements.

Board Rule Changes

A resolution that was tabled from the board’s Jan. 4, 2012 meeting was on the agenda for the Feb. 15 meeting.

The resolution, proposed by Dan Smith, changed the board rules to give commissioners the option of abstaining from a vote. His resolution amended the section on board resolutions, adding the following statement: “Members may abstain from voting on any resolution expressing support (or opposition), but otherwise taking no action.” During a brief discussion at the Jan. 4 meeting, some commissioners had objected to the change, and the board had tabled the item until the second meeting in February.

At the Jan. 4 meeting, Smith did not elaborate on his reasons for proposing the change, but the issue was relevant at the board’s final meeting in December 2011. A resolution brought forward at that time by Yousef Rabhi urged state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.” The state legislation, which was later signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, removed the ability of public employers to extend benefits to same-sex partners. During deliberations on that resolution, commissioners Dan Smith and Rob Turner had objected to bringing forward resolutions that were not focused on Washtenaw County issues – both commissioners ultimately voted against Rabhi’s resolution, though it passed with a majority of support from the rest of the board.

Prior to the Feb. 15 meeting, Dan Smith indicated to The Chronicle that he would withdraw the item if any other commissioner pulled it out of the consent agenda to be voted on separately. But that did not occur.

Outcome: Without discussion, the resolution passed, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Whitmore Lake

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a five-year, $460,000 project to study and improve conditions at Whitmore Lake. The lake is located in Washtenaw County’s Northfield Township and Livingston County’s Green Oak Township. An initial vote on the project had been taken at the board’s Feb. 1 meeting.

The effort – focusing on removal of invasive weeds – is a continuation of a project that began in 2003, and was renewed in 2007. It’s overseen by the county board of public works. The project’s cost will be recovered through special assessments on over 800 parcels near Whitmore Lake.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board voted to give final approval to the Whitmore Lake project.

Communications and Public Commentary

There are various opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary.

Communications: Congratulations to Joe Burke

Board chair Conan Smith congratulated Joe Burke on his appointment as judge to the 15th District Court in Ann Arbor. Burke’s appointment by Gov. Rick Snyder had been announced earlier in the day. Burke currently serves as the county’s chief assistant prosecuting attorney. Smith said that while the county is sorry to lose him, Burke will do justice as a member of the judiciary. And now, Smith joked, ”we should go bribe him.”

Communications: Road Commission, Court Renovations, VEBA

Commissioner Rob Turner gave several updates during the time set aside for liaison reports.

Washtenaw County commissioner Rob Turner.

He serves as the board’s liaison to the county road commission, and reported that revenues from the state transportation fund to the commission have increased 1.5%. It’s the first time since 2007 that there hasn’t been a decrease in state funding, he noted.

The mild winter has resulted in lower expenses for plowing and salt – $1.019 million, compared to $1.9 million a year ago. While that might seem like a windfall, Turner said, the flip side is that warmer weather means more potholes. So spending has shifted to road maintenance. Turner also indicated that the road commission is interested in working with townships to upgrade road conditions.

Turner reported that renovations at the downtown courthouse at Huron and Main are in their final phase. He said that usually by this point some surprises emerge – like unanticipated asbestos, for example – but nothing like that has arisen, and the project remains on schedule. The board had received a briefing on the project at their Feb. 2, 2012 working session.

Finally, Turner mentioned that requests for proposals (RFPs) are being developed to hire an actuary for the county’s VEBA (Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association) retirement fund. They’d need to wait until the actuarial report is complete, Turner said, but he’s concerned about the performance of the VEBA pension funds, which he said are not meeting projections.

Communications: Public Works, Head Start, Transit, Land Preservation

Yousef Rabhi also gave several liaison reports. Reporting from the most recent meeting of the county’s board of public works, Rabhi said that work on the new recycling facility being built the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority (WWRA) is moving ahead, he said. At its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, the board had approved issuing up to $2.7 million in bonds – backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to help pay for a $3.2 million facility, which will allow WWRA to handle single-stream recycling for communities on the county’s west side. Rob Turner noted that WWRA revenues increased by more than $400,000 in 2011. He knew that some commissioners were worried about the financial viability of WWRA and its ability to make bond payments, but the situation seemed good, he said.

Rabhi reported that the Head Start policy council is very interested in writing letters of support to federal officials, encouraging the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next grantee for the county’s Head Start program. The county is relinquishing management of the program later this year, after being the grantee for more than four decades.

In his report from the county’s agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC), Rabhi said the committee is recommending the purchase of development rights on six parcels of farmland. Because the county can secure federal funding for these PDRs, the local millage dollars will spread further, he said. ALPAC makes recommendations to the county park & recreation commission, which will make the final decision on these applications. A 10-year millage renewal to support the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) was approved by voters in November 2010, and a portion of millage proceeds can be used for farmland PDRs.

Rabhi said he had a great first meeting as chair of the Washtenaw Urban County last month, adding that he had big shoes to fill by following Leah Gunn, who previously served as chair. He noted that five new local jurisdictions have joined the group this year, adding to the previous 11 members. The Urban County is a consortium of local governments that receive federal funding for programs that serve low-income residents and neighborhoods.

Finally, Rabhi reported that he and Barbara Bergman – as board liaisons to Regional Partners Advocating Transit Here (R-PATH) – had attended a hearing in Lansing held by the Michigan senate’s transportation committee. Board chair Conan Smith had testified at the hearing, Rabhi said. Smith did a great job, “other than giving away one of our votes,” Rabhi joked.

The hearing related to a new regional transit authority (RTA) that’s described in legislation currently pending in the state legislature. The legislation would create a four-county region for the RTA that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. [For coverage of the proposed legislation, see "Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled"] The RTA legislation as introduced would give two seats on a 10-member board to Washtenaw County – with two seats for each of the other three counties, one for Detroit, and one non-voting ex-officio appointment made by the governor.

According to a report in the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS), Smith told the committee that he would be willing to give up one of those seats: “Washtenaw County Commissioner Conan Smith not only supported the bills, but expressed an openness to support giving up one of Washtenaw County’s appointments on the RTA to Detroit if ‘that’s what it took” to get the bills passed.’”

Smith’s wife, state Sen. Rebekah Warren, is one of the co-sponsors of the RTA legislation.

Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge said he applauded the board for approving the acceptance of a $299,821 federal grant to fund the county’s foster grandparent program, but criticized commissioners for the administrative restructuring because it eliminated jobs. He argued that the county needs to meet the challenge of diminishing resources by putting a Headlee override on the ballot and advocating for tax reforms that will do away with the county’s reliance on property taxes.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Alicia Ping.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 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. [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!

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel. (Photos by the writer)

McDaniel is asking departments to explore a “continuum of opportunities,” from cooperation on one end of the spectrum, to consolidation on the other end. As an example, she noted that the recent 911 dispatch consolidation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – an agreement at the county board approved at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting – began as cooperation, when county dispatchers co-located with Ann Arbor’s operations.

As an initial step, at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting McDaniel will be asking for approval to restructure support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers, and putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another nine positions will be eliminated, while eight jobs will be created. The restructuring will result in a net reduction of three full-time jobs, and estimated annual savings of $326,422.

Commissioners were generally supportive of her proposal, though some cautioned against creating the expectation that the county can provide the same or a better level of services with reduced resources. The county is facing projected deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015.

Also at the Feb. 2 working session, board chair Conan Smith gave an update on negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, saying he hopes to bring an agreement for board approval at their Feb. 15 meeting. The contract would cover animal control services for the remainder of 2012, with the intent of working toward a longer-term agreement for the coming years. The county plans to ask local municipalities that have animal control ordinances – including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – to help pay for services provided under contract with HSHV.

The board also got a brief update on the $1.3 million in renovations at the downtown county courthouse. The project, which started early last year when Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court vacated the courthouse to move to the city’s new Justice Center, will be wrapping up in mid-March.

The working session included an agenda briefing for the Feb. 15 meeting, but some commissioners expressed discontent at the new format, which had been implemented earlier this year. Wes Prater suggested that if the briefings do not include time for commissioners to ask questions, then the information might as well be emailed to them instead. “I believe all of us can read,” he said.

Humane Society Update

Toward the beginning of the working session, board chair Conan Smith announced that negotiations are continuing with the Humane Society of Huron Valley and that it’s his hope to bring a contract to the board’s Feb. 15 meeting for approval. Representatives from the county and HSHV have another meeting scheduled on Wednesday, Feb. 8, Smith said – he hopes to reach a resolution on outstanding issues at that meeting.

The contract would cover the remainder of 2012. HSHV’s previous contract for mandated animal control services expired at the end of 2011, and since then the county has been paying $29,000 per month for continued services.

Following the Feb. 2 working session, county administrator Verna McDaniel told The Chronicle that the county intends to form a study group with the HSHV and others to discuss a longer-term solution to the issue of countywide mandated animal control. The goal is to bring to the table other municipalities that have animal control ordinances – like the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – but that do not currently make financial contributions to the county’s animal control services.

In the previous two-year contract with HSHV, the county paid $500,000 annually for animal control – for services mandated by the state as well as additional work that did not fall under the mandate. The budget approved by the county board for 2012 cut that funding to $250,000, though commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. HSHV officials have said that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Plans for Restructuring

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an overview of restructuring plans that are underway, in response to both dwindling resources as well as a significant number of retirements at the end of 2011. She told commissioners that she wanted to provide the rationale and perspective for the restructuring effort, and to get their input as plans are developed.

McDaniel began by noting that 117 county employees retired last year, including 51 in the health and human services area and 35 in public safety and justice (including the trial court and sheriff’s office). It’s important to look at the areas where retirements occurred, she said, because some positions are supported by the general fund, while others are supported with non-general fund sources, such as grants. Restructuring efforts should consider whether there are savings to the general fund, she noted.

McDaniel then reviewed the current hiring process. The phrase “hiring freeze” is really a misnomer, she said. Human resources staff review all departmental requests to fill vacant jobs. Among other things, departments must submit a business plan and work plan related to the job, and answer a series of questions: (1) What’s the critical nature of the position to the department’s operation? (2) Can the vacant position be consolidated or reclassified with another position? (3) Do vacancies exist that can be put on “hold vacant” status or eliminated? (4) Can a temporary assignment offset the need to fill the position for a defined period?

In addition, support and supervisory positions are reviewed based on their function within a specific building, with an eye toward possible consolidation.

Funding sources are also taken into consideration, McDaniel said. It’s more likely the jobs will be filled if they are completely funded from non-general fund sources, or if the jobs are 100% revenue-generating. Other exceptions include contractual commitments – such as sheriff’s deputies who are paid through police services contracts with municipalities. There are also positions related to public safety or the provision of mandated services that need to be filled. And because the county funds the courts through a lump sum budget, court administrators have total discretion over hiring there, she said.

McDaniel described a “continuum of opportunities” that she wants county departments to explore, from cooperation on one end of the spectrum, to consolidation on the other end. She noted that the 911 dispatch consolidation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – an agreement at the county board approved at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting – began as cooperation, when county dispatchers co-located with Ann Arbor’s operations in 2010.

Other examples from the previous budget cycle include the merger of three county departments to form the new office of community and economic development, and the relocation of the juvenile court to the downtown courthouse.

On Feb. 10, the “Group of 180″ – the county’s departmental leadership, including managers and union leaders – will meet to start talking about the process of restructuring, McDaniel said. Other elected officials who lead departments will be part of the discussion too: the county clerk, treasurer, prosecuting attorney, water resources commissioner, and sheriff.

McDaniel ended her presentation by reading a mission statement for restructuring:

Through the guidance and review of the Board of Commissioners as part of Working Sessions, all Communities of Interest within Washtenaw County shall strive to further cooperate, collaborate and consolidate services and functions, demonstrate good stewards of community resources, all while seeking to improve service delivery to our customers.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Temp Assignments

Felicia Brabec asked about the process of making a temporary assignment to fill a vacant position. She clarified with McDaniel that the assignment is typically given to another staff member who gets “bumped up,” with an 8% pay increase for taking on additional responsibilities. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, noted that such assignments are for a defined period of time – it’s not indefinite.

Wes Prater said there seems to be a blur between responsibilities when someone is asked to take on a temporary assignment, in addition to their own job. Heidt explained that union contracts address this situation. The assignment also can enable an employee to learn a new skill set. She gave the example of teachers’ aides in the Head Start program being able to lead classrooms for a period of time, because of temporary vacancies.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Group of 180 Meeting

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked about the Feb. 10 meeting – when would it be held, and where? Is it open to commissioners? He indicated that he wanted to attend.

McDaniel replied that the Group of 180 meets quarterly to discuss leadership and operational issues. The name stems from a time when there were 180 department heads, managers and union leaders – the number is smaller now. Commissioners haven’t been invited because often the meetings focus on operational issues, like training, she said. On Feb. 10, much of the meeting will involve a discussion about internal audit controls, for example, in addition to the talk about restructuring.

Sizemore again asked for the time and location. The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m., McDaniel said, at the Washtenaw Community College’s Morris Lawrence Building.

Conan Smith said what he’s hearing from McDaniel is that she’d prefer commissioners not to attend the meeting. He felt it was inappropriate for commissioners to get involved at that operational level.

Saying she’d never tell commissioners not to attend, McDaniel nevertheless indicated that Smith was correct. The meetings are intended to encourage open dialogue among staff, she said. But although commissioners haven’t been invited in the past, that’s not to say things couldn’t change, she added. McDaniel said she thought the meetings might bore commissioners, but the sessions aren’t secret.

Sizemore said he agreed with Smith that commissioners shouldn’t get involved in operations. But if McDaniel is asking for his support in restructuring, he needs to be informed – the more he learns, the easier it will be for him to support restructuring, Sizemore said. “So I’ll be there.”

Wes Prater cautioned that any commissioner who attends needs to be aware of their role, and only go as an observer. Leah Gunn said she wouldn’t dream of going.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Mission Statement

Gunn praised the restructuring mission statement. The county’s role is to provide services – both mandated and non-mandated – with diminishing resources. It’s the board’s job to set priorities for that, she said.

Alicia Ping noted that for a long time, employees have been asked to do more with less. But there comes a point when you can only do so much with the resources you have, she said. It’s wonderful to say the goal is to “improve service delivery,” Ping said, but she doesn’t want it to seem that the county is able to do more than it actually can. Employees might feel they’re asked to do too much, she added: ”I don’t want anyone to get stressed out because they’re trying to achieve mission impossible.”

Dan Smith said he agreed with Ping. In terms of services, the county would be happy to maintain the status quo, given the financial circumstances.

Yousef Rahbi noted that focusing on customers is key as the county restructures. He appreciated seeing that in the mission statement.

Rob Turner said he loved the mission statement. This kind of focus needs to happen all the time, not just during hard financial times, he said. How the county government delivers services has an impact on how residents view the county, he said. It’s important to do a few things well, he added, rather than to do a lot of things not very well.

Prater asked whether levels of services will examined as part of the restructuring. McDaniel said the staff will be looking at how to make services more efficient, from the front counter to the back office. For example, if a building currently has multiple entry points and a staff person is located at each entry to handle customers, perhaps it makes more sense to have one entry into the building, and one staff person to direct customers to the appropriate office. These kinds of ideas will be put on the table, she said, then the staff can talk about whether operational changes can make it work.

Employees are the best source of information regarding potential changes, Prater said, as long as administration is clear about the outcomes it’s looking for.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Retirements

Felicia Brabec asked for more details about the 51 retirements in health and human services area. McDaniel said that most were in the public health department and the community support & treatment services (CSTS) department. Heidt added that in the public safety and justice area, the bulk of the 35 retirements were in the trial court, though there were also some in the sheriff’s office.

Dan Smith asked for some clarification on how many retirements were in positions funded by the general fund, compared to non-general fund jobs. Heidt replied that most of the 51 retirements in health and human services were non-general fund positions. In contrast, most of the 35 public safety and justice retirements were in general fund jobs.

Smith also asked for an example of a 100% revenue-generating job. Heidt said such jobs could be funded through grants or contracts. For example, 13 dispatch operators will be classified as 100% revenue generating, because the positions are funded through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Another example would be the county’s emergency management jobs that are paid for with a state grant. Heidt also gave an example of non-general fund positions: Employees with the county parks and recreation department, who are funded by a dedicated millage.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Budget Outcomes

Dan Smith noted that the words “cooperate, collaborate and consolidate” are used a lot, but it should be clear that these actions are the means to an end. The county isn’t consolidating for consolidation’s sake, he said. They’re doing it because of financial circumstances.

Wes Prater asked whether budget outcomes are driving the decisions to restructure. That’s the primary driver, McDaniel replied.

Yousef Rahbi reminded commissioners that at the previous working session, they had discussed the need to start talking about the next two-year budget cycle – for 2014-2015. [The county's fiscal years are based on calendar years, and budgets are developed in two-year periods. The most recent budget, approved in November 2011, covered 2012 and 2013.] Rabhi said it’s productive to think about 2014-2015 as they move through this restructuring process.

Rabhi also asked how McDaniel would be encouraging employees to participate – how would ideas for restructuring be solicited? There’s never any foot-dragging, McDaniel replied. Generally, department heads and managers are always looking for ways to improve services and deliver them more efficiently, she said. In fact, there are usually more suggestions for restructuring than the organization can implement – it’s difficult to do, McDaniel said. So she did not have any additional plans for outreach.

Rabhi praised McDaniel for proposing to restructure her own department, saying that it’s a great way to set an example. McDaniel said she felt it was necessary to practice what she’s preaching.

At the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, McDaniel will be asking for approval to restructure support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations.

The position of deputy county administrator – which has been vacant since April 2011 – and one other position will be put on “hold vacant” status. Another nine positions will be eliminated, while eight jobs will be created. The restructuring will result in a net reduction of three full-time jobs, and estimated annual savings of $326,422.

Rob Turner called the overall restructuring the perfect springboard to launch into the next budget cycle. He asked for more information about the internal audit, saying it would be a pivotal report.

Belknap, who’s currently serving as interim deputy administrator, replied that the Group of 180 meeting on Feb. 10 will be the kickoff for the internal audit process. [At its June 1, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized hiring the professional services firm Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) for $87,500 to perform internal auditing services for the county for one year, with the possibility of extending the contract over additional years.]

The audit’s first step entails a survey of current internal controls, she said. Then Experis will conduct an audit on a limited number of departments. Belknap said she expects a report will be ready for commissioners in the spring or early summer.

Plans for Restructuring: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the working session, Nancy Heine – president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 county employees who have supervisory jobs – raised concerns about some of the proposed administrative restructuring changes that commissioners will be voting on at their Feb. 15 meeting. The plan calls for eliminating two senior accounting positions that are part of the union, she said, and creating two non-union jobs in their place with a higher salary range.

Heine noted that this kind of situation has occurred in the past, and the union has restored the positions by filing a complaint with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). She said the union wants to work with the administration and human resources to resolve this issue, but the union will have to pursue whatever options are necessary.

In response to Heine’s commentary, Yousef Rabhi noted that the proposed restructuring also involves a non-union job being reclassified as a job represented by Local 3052. That position is in the information technology group. Rabhi said it’s a concern to lose the two union jobs, but at least another one is being created.

Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations, noted that several jobs are being reclassified, and that commissioners would be given more details about the changes before their vote on Feb. 15.

Trial Court Renovations

Jason Fee with the county facilities unit gave an update on renovations at the county courthouse in downtown Ann Arbor, located at Main and Huron. The courthouse houses the Washtenaw County trial court, an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program.

From left: Greg Dill, county infrastructure management director; Bob Tetens, director of county parks & recreation; trial court administrator Dan Dwyer; and Dave Shirley, county operations and maintenance manager.

There were two main phases, Fee said. The first phase, which cost about $300,000, started in early 2011 after the 15th District Court moved out of the courthouse and into the city’s new Justice Center at Fifth and Huron. The second floor of the county courthouse was remodeled to create a new jury assembly room, and the third floor was renovated for the juvenile court, which was previously located at a Platt Road facility.

The second phase – focusing on first-floor renovations and costing about $1 million – is still underway. The first floor is where the public comes to do its court-related business, Fee said. Renovations included an active file room; offices for the Washtenaw County Bar Association, Legal Resource Center, and court administration; and a new staff lunchroom.

First-floor renovations began in August of 2011 and are scheduled to wrap up by March 16, 2012 – though Fee said the work might be finished sooner. He credited Dan Dwyer, court administrator, for working hand-in-hand on the design and execution of the work, and said the county saved money by keeping much of the labor in-house.

Fee told commissioners that they’d get another update at their March 8 working session, with a tour scheduled for March 22.

Trial Court Renovations: Commissioner Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a question he’s voiced at other meetings: Is chief judge Donald Shelton happy with the work? Court administrator Dan Dwyer quipped: “He’s as happy as he gets!”

In response to another question from Sizemore, Fee said that renovations to the exterior of the courthouse aren’t part of this current project. Wes Prater encouraged Fee to look at the outside of the courthouse along the Main Street side, saying there are parts of the wall that look like they’re ready to fall off.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, told commissioners that staff planned to look at possible exterior work in the spring.

Rob Turner, the commissioner who has acted as a liaison for this project, described himself as usually a hard-head, but said it had been a pleasure to work with Fee and others on this effort. He noted that last year the project had been behind schedule, but they had managed to pull it back together and finish possibly ahead of schedule and on budget.

Sizemore commended the fact that the county’s facilities department was getting an intern to work with them. He encouraged the IT (information technology) department to do the same thing. Even though there’s not as much new housing construction now, Sizemore said, young people can still learn to work on construction projects like the courthouse renovation. It gives them hope that they’ll be able to find a job in this field, he said.

Agenda Briefings

At the Jan. 4, 2012 board meeting, commissioners had voted to change the start time of working sessions to 6 p.m. and add the administrative briefing as the session’s first agenda item. Previously the administrative briefings – held to review the board’s upcoming agenda – were held at 4 p.m. the week prior to a regular board meeting. It had been a difficult time of day for some commissioners to attend.

At the Feb. 2 working session, Alicia Ping expressed some frustration about the new format. The intent was good, she said, but it’s not working. She indicated that because the briefings are held so far ahead of the next meeting – nearly two weeks in advance – many items on the agenda aren’t finalized, and commissioners can’t get enough information to make the briefings productive.

Leah Gunn noted that the briefings are just that – briefings. They are meant to give commissioners an indication of what will be on the agenda, she said, but they aren’t meant to be detailed.

Wes Prater said that if the briefings are only meant to be informational, he didn’t see the point. Why not just email commissioners the agenda information instead? ”I believe all of us can read,” he said. “If we’re not going to talk about it, I don’t have a problem with that.”

Conan Smith pointed out that the agenda isn’t finalized until the week prior to the next meeting. The Feb. 15 meeting agenda, for example, won’t be set until Wednesday, Feb. 8. It won’t be posted publicly until Friday, Feb. 10. The idea for the briefings is to give commissioners a heads up for the big items that will likely be coming before them, he said.

As for when the briefings are held, and who attends, Smith described it as ”a crazy nightmare” to figure out, adding that they’ve tried scheduling it “seven ways from Sunday.”

In March 2011 the board had voted to eliminate the briefings entirely. That decision was made in the wake of criticisms by commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who did not attend the briefings during that period because of his objections to the format. He had called the briefings “backroom” meetings where deliberations occurred that he believed were too far out of the public eye. [The briefings are posted in accordance with the state's Open Meetings Act and The Chronicle has attended nearly all of the public briefings since late 2008.]

After that March 2011 vote, a weekly agenda-setting meeting took the place of briefings, attended by senior staff and just three commissioners: Smith, as board chair; Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the ways & means committee; and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working sessions. Because the meetings did not involve a quorum of commissioners, they were not be required to be open to the public.

Later in the year, the briefings were re-instituted. The 2012 calendar approved by the board at its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting included administrative briefings scheduled at 4 p.m. on the Tuesday during the week prior to the board’s regular Wednesday meetings. They were changed to the current schedule – as part of the board’s workings sessions – to accommodate the schedules of more commissioners, and to be included as part of a televised meeting. [Working sessions are broadcast by Community Television Network and available on the county's website.]

After the brief discussion on Feb. 2, the consensus appeared to be that the briefings would remain a part of the working sessions.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Ronnie Peterson.

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!