From left: Greg Dill, Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton, and Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary. (Photos by the writer.)

On a 6-1 vote – over dissent by Republican Dan Smith – the county board passed a resolution directing the administration to negotiate new four-year contracts “to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions.” The resolution also directs negotiations for a separate letter of understanding to cover a 10-year period. The letter would relate to agency fees paid by non-union members based on the idea that they benefit from the union’s representation of their interests during collective bargaining.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

The resolution was brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of three Ann Arbor commissioners on the nine-member board. Two commissioners – Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – were absent.

Deliberations were relatively brief. Dan Smith, who said he found some of the language in the resolution offensive, also pressed for estimates on possible legal expenses, if the county is sued over these new labor agreements. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, was reluctant to speculate, indicating there are still too many unknowns. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, told commissioners that the 10-year letter of understanding would have a strong indemnification clause. The union would indemnify the employer for any legal challenges relative to the right-to-work agency shop issue.

The lengthy closed session at the end of the meeting reflected some urgency in negotiations, which must be completed before the new law takes effect in March.

Also at the Feb. 6 meeting, commissioners gave initial authorization to county treasurer Catherine McClary to borrow up to $40 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. It’s a standard practice to help the local jurisdictions manage their cash flow. The estimated amount of delinquent taxes is lower than in recent years, possibly reflecting a recovering economy.

McClary also gave the board a year-end report for 2012. Her office brought in $9.96 million during the year from the following sources: delinquent taxes and fees ($5.046 million), accommodation tax ($4.067 million), investment earnings ($755,681), dog licenses ($59,748) and tax searches ($31,760). McClary reported that the county’s investment portfolio totaled $156.08 million at the end of 2012. The non-cash portion of that amount is $147.855 million, which brought in an average weighted yield of 0.456%.

In other action, the board voted to amend an interlocal agreement that will create the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office Community Alliance. The new alliance – affiliated with the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, led by county commissioner Conan Smith – is being formed to set up a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The community alliance includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). No other communities in Washtenaw County are part of this alliance. The city of Ann Arbor has already set up its own PACE program.

Also during the Feb. 6 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he was working with community members and human services providers to establish a Washtenaw County ID card. It would provide a way for residents who don’t have a driver’s license or other photo ID to access services that require such an identification card, such as opening a bank account.

Felicia Brabec reported from the Sustainable Revenue for Supportive Housing Services Task Force, on which she serves. The group is looking at the possibility of an endowment campaign. It’s estimated that about $17 million would be needed “so it’s a big undertaking for us,” she said. That amount would support an additional 116 units of supportive housing throughout the county.

Right-to-Work Response

Washtenaw County commissioners considered a resolution related to Michigan’s new right-to-work legislation – including direction to renegotiate union contracts. The resolution was brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of three Ann Arbor commissioners on the nine-member board. [.pdf of LaBarre's resolution]

From left: Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton and county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) of Ann Arbor.

In addition to condemning the right-to-work law and urging the state legislature to pass SB 95 and SB 96 – bills that would repeal the law – LaBarre’s resolution also “directs the county administrator and the director of human resources to engage in expedited negotiations, as requested by the unions, with the goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a letter of understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.” The letter would relate to agency fees paid by non-union members based on the idea that they benefit from the union’s representation of their interests during collective bargaining.

This is the same approach recently authorized by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board at its Jan. 17, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of AATA's letter of understanding. Also see Chronicle coverage: "AATA OK's Labor, Agency Fee Accords"]

LaBarre, who took office in early January, had previously indicated his interest in bringing forward a resolution opposing the right-to-work law. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he led a meeting on Jan. 3 with a lengthy discussion of that issue. [Chronicle coverage: "County Board Weighs Right-to-Work Response"]

The controversial right-to-work law was passed late last year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The law, which takes effect in March, will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are Democrats, including LaBarre.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Dan Smith asked that this item be pulled out from the consent agenda for separate consideration.

Right-to-Work Response: Public Commentary

One person – George Lawrence of Whitmore Lake – addressed the board during public commentary about this issue. He said he had been a union member for a long time, and had been forced to pay dues that went to a political party that he didn’t agree with all the time. That was all he wanted to say, Lawrence told commissioners. He also pointed out that the board had forgotten to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of their meeting.

Yousef Rabhi, chair of the board, responded to Lawrence’s comment about the pledge, noting that it is made at the start of the regular board meeting, which is held immediately following the ways & means committee meeting. Lawrence had made his public commentary during the ways & means committee meeting.

Right-to-Work Response: Board Discussion

LaBarre began the discussion by saying the resolution was his best attempt to confront this issue “that’s been put upon us.” He felt it was worthy of discussion and debate, but hoped the board would pass it and find some tangible benefits from it.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2, standing) with Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

Dan Smith asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, to comment on the legality of the 10-year letter of understanding.

“I won’t comment on that tonight,” Hedger replied. If the board as a whole wants him to, Hedger said he’d be happy to look at the issue. There are a lot of areas that will be scrutinized about the state’s right-to-work law, he said, but he didn’t have an opinion on the issue that Smith raised right now.

Smith then asked Hedger what the cost might be if the county’s actions are challenged in court. If the board passes this resolution, Smith wondered what would happen if someone finds the 10-year letter of understanding or the new four-year union agreement illegal and sues the county. What would it cost to defend that? Would it be in the range of $50,000 or $100,000 or $1 million?

That’s hard to say, Hedger replied, because it would depend on the tenor of the lawsuit or how aggressively someone decided to pursue the case. He didn’t feel comfortable hazarding a guess. In cases that are more of a legal question, each side briefs the issue and it goes right to court, he explained. If the case doesn’t get appealed, it could be fairly inexpensive, he said. But if it’s a more complicated case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that could cost significantly more.

Hedger noted that lawsuits have already been filed in connection with the right-to-work law, and that Gov. Rick Snyder has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to get involved. So there might be answers fairly quickly on a lot of these issues, he said.

Smith suggested looking at a worst case scenario, with a lawsuit going all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court, against which the county must defend itself. What might the cost be for that?

Hedger again said he couldn’t speculate. It might be only $10,000 if only briefs are filed. When Smith expressed surprise at that amount, Hedger said it’s less costly since there would be no discovery phase in this situation. “This is just a legal issue, so it’s going to be in the nature of a declaratory judgment, I believe.” A declaratory judgment would simply state whether the legislation is legal. The biggest expense in any litigation is during the discovery phase, Hedger said.

Hedger added that if the case went all the way to the state Supreme Court, then it would likely be more than $10,000 but probably less than $100,000. He restated his opinion that it was “almost impossible” to try to guess. Smith summarized Hedger’s position by saying that the county is looking at an “unknown cost” to defend this. Hedger agreed, saying it would be true of any litigation that was speculative.

Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, told commissioners that the 10-year letter of understanding would have a strong indemnification clause. The union would indemnify the employer for any legal challenges relative to the right-to-work agency shop issue.

Moving to a different issue, Smith characterized the language in the resolution as “over the top” and said it contained offensive rhetoric. He told commissioners that he had crafted two alternative versions of the resolution – one that eliminated the offensive rhetoric [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #1], and another that removed language that was extraneous to county policy [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #2]. “I’ve been quite clear that we need to stick to the county’s business, and I’ve shown a way we can do that,” he said.

Smith did not formally offer the resolutions for consideration.

LaBarre defended his own resolution, saying he agreed with the importance of sticking to the county’s business. He argued that “this is the county’s business,” due to the effect it would have on the workforce and on their ability to continue to provide excellent customer service for taxpayers, unionized and non-unionized. It’s “entirely within the scope of rational thinking,” LaBarre said, for one unit of government to weigh in on something that another unit has done that will change the original unit’s operations or affect its workforce.

Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the largest union representing county employees.

LaBarre said he agreed with Smith’s general principle that the county board should not be overly eager to weigh in on issues at other levels of government. “But I think this is a special case,” he added, “and thus requires a response.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. highlighted the resolution’s reference to reaching a new four-year agreement. Does that indicate that the county will be developing a four-year budget? County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that the county has had a five-year contract with its unions in the past, even though it “didn’t marry up with the budget.” So there is precedence for union contracts that don’t match the county’s two-year budget cycle, she said. The contracts can include clauses that will build in protections against any unforeseen budgetary changes, she said.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, commissioners passed the right-to-work resolution. Voting against the resolution was Dan Smith (R-District 2). Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) were absent.

The board later entered into a nearly three-hour closed session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiation strategy. They were joined by several senior staff members – including county administrator Verna McDaniel; finance director Kelly Belknap; and Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. Also participating in the session was the county’s bond counsel, John Axe of Axe & Ecklund of Grosse Pointe Farms. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m., without additional action by the board.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

Commissioners were asked to give initial authorization to the county treasurer to borrow up to $40 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

County treasurer Catherine McClary told commissioners that although this process is conducted each year, “I don’t handle it just pro forma.” She reported that under the state’s General Property Tax Act, as county treasurer she is required to collect delinquent taxes. Section 87 of the act allows the county to set up a revolving fund – which was done several decades ago – so that the county can borrow the estimated amount of delinquent taxes, then pay in advance to all the taxing jurisdictions the amount that they would have collected if there had been no delinquent payments.

This year, the estimated amount of delinquent taxes is about $25 million, though McClary said she expects the amount to be lower than that. The exact amount won’t be determined until the middle or end of March. The notes will likely be issued in April or May, she said. “The earlier we can issue, the earlier we can advance” funds to the local units of government and the county’s general fund, she explained.

McClary also pointed out that the resolution limits the amount that can be borrowed to $40 million, down from a limit of $45 million last year.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing: Board Discussion

Dan Smith thanked McClary, saying the process really helped local municipalities with significantly smaller budgets to manage their cash flow. He noted that some municipalities actually purchase these delinquent tax bonds, citing Ann Arbor Township as an example. So these local entities are investing in the county, which is another reason to keep the county’s finances in order, he said, and to keep the county’s bond rating high. A higher bond rating means that the county can borrow at lower interest rates, he noted.

Smith also pointed out that interest rates on CDs are “abysmal” now and it looks like they’ll remain that way. He asked if there’s any way he could purchase a delinquent tax bond too, when they are issued?

McClary replied that in 1975, when she served as a county commissioner, she investigated whether delinquent tax bonds could be sold over-the-counter to the public. Bonds are traditionally issued in amounts of $5,000, she said, but at that time, the county was looking at issuing $1,000 bonds. Selling to the public proved to be an insurmountable problem, she explained, having to do with securities laws, regulations about broker-dealers, and the expense of splitting the bonds into smaller amounts.

When she became treasurer 16 years ago, McClary said, she looked at the county’s cash flow, and realized that the county could issue these delinquent tax bonds, advance the necessary amounts to the local units of government, then use the remaining cash on hand from the bonds to purchase the county’s own delinquent tax bonds through a broker-dealer and hold them in the county’s investment portfolio. It was a “win-win-win” for everyone, because the county was holding its own “very safe” securities. “Talk about buy local,” she joked.

In 2010 and 2011, the delinquent taxes were so high – because of the economic crisis – that she didn’t have the additional cash to buy back the securities. Last year, there was enough extra cash to purchase some but not all of the delinquent tax bonds. So she made an offer to the treasurers of other local units of government, as well as to some other county treasurers. The result was that Washtenaw County, Kalamazoo County and Ann Arbor Township split the purchase of Washtenaw County’s delinquent tax notes. “It was a fabulous way to go,” she said. This year, she’ll try to hold all the notes in Washtenaw County’s portfolio. “If I can’t, I’ve got some buyers.”

Smith said he was sorry he couldn’t buy any of the bonds himself. In his opinion, it would be one of the safest bonds he could purchase.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the delinquent tax borrowing. A final vote is expected on Feb. 20.

Treasurer’s Report

During the Feb. 6 meeting, county treasurer Catherine McClary also gave the board a year-end report for 2012. [.pdf of 2012 treasurer's report]

She began with an overview of the importance of civic infrastructure, noting that it includes the elements of fiscal stability and the safety of public funds, as well as fair and equitable tax systems, honest elections, and the maintenance of accurate land and vital records. The equalization department, which reports to the board, as well as the elected positions of treasurer and clerk/register of deeds are responsible for these aspects of civic infrastructure, she explained.

These three units of county government are interlocking, McClary said. She gave an example from the housing sector. When someone buys or sells a home, the deed must be certified by the county treasurer’s office to attest that the taxes on that property are paid. The paperwork then goes to the register of deeds, where the deed gets recorded. If the treasurer’s office is behind on certifications, then the deed recording gets backed up. In another county in Michigan, she said, fraud occurred because deeds weren’t recorded quickly and the property was sold multiple times to different people.

After the deed is recorded, a copy is sent to the local assessors, who can then “uncap” the assessment, because the property has changed hands. The uncapping means that the taxable value can be raised to equal the assessed value. Determining the assessed value is part of the job of the county’s equalization department, McClary said. That assessment, in turn, is the basis on which each local treasurer levies taxes. Uncollected taxes come back to the county treasurer, “so it really is an interlocking cycle,” she said.

McClary also described in more detail the roles and responsibilities of the treasurer’s office, linking each area to the county’s guiding principles. Related to the principle of ensuring the county’s long-term fiscal stability, McClary pointed to the treasurer’s role of generating revenue by collecting taxes, noting that property taxes make up 61% of the county’s general fund. In addition to property taxes, the treasurer’s office handles other millages – for parks and natural areas, for example – and special assessments for drains, public works and road projects. All other revenue, from grants and other sources, flows through bank accounts that are managed and reconciled by the treasurer. In addition, the treasurer’s office invests surplus funds for the county.

The office also works to prevent foreclosures, McClary said – both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures. These prevention programs have served as a model throughout the state, she said. In addition to an emphasis on prevention, the treasurer’s office will foreclose when necessary, she said, with the goal of returning the property to productive use, preserving neighborhoods, eradicating blight and enforcing local ordinances. She noted that the treasurer’s office and the city of Ypsilanti received a National Association of Counties (NACo) award for an open house project to market tax-foreclosed properties. She also pointed to the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street in Ann Arbor, saying that the county made “nice excess proceeds” from selling that tax-foreclosed property.

McClary also noted that her office sometimes intervenes in bankruptcies. Although it’s is not mandated by state law, she said it’s a way to get the taxes paid for the public benefit. As an example, she cited a bankruptcy intervention last summer with a “well-known slum landlord” in Ypsilanti. McClary said her office was able to convince the bankruptcy judge and bankruptcy trustee to abandon 13 of the properties, and the county was able to recover over $400,000 in taxes. The properties were foreclosed and sold at public auction.

Delinquent taxes are an early indicator of foreclosures, she said. There was a time when the county averaged 12 foreclosures a year out of about 10,000 properties with delinquent taxes. But for the last four or five years, those numbers have been much higher, she said, although now delinquencies are decreasing.

Chart showing Washtenaw County investment allocations.

Turning to financial data, McClary noted that her office brought in $9.96 million during the year from the following sources: delinquent taxes and fees ($5.046 million), accommodation tax ($4.067 million), investment earnings ($755,681), dog licenses ($59,748) and tax searches ($31,760).

She said the investment earnings in recent years have distressed her. In 2006, total revenues for her office were $11 million – not much off the roughly $10 million that were brought in during 2012. But in 2006, investment earnings accounted for about $6 million of the total revenues from her office, she noted – much higher than the $755,681 in 2012. However, now other categories – including the accommodations tax and dog licenses, which her office administers – have increased since then. That reflects the counter-cyclical nature of revenues from the treasurer’s office, McClary said.

She highlighted the diversification of investments and maturity dates, which will put the county in a good position when interest rates rise – although she didn’t see that happening in the immediate future.

McClary also reported that the county’s investment portfolio totaled $156.08 million at the end of 2012. The non-cash portion of that amount is $147.855 million, which brought in an average weighted yield of 0.456%. Even though that’s low, she said, it performed well against the three-month Treasury benchmark, with a return of 0.05%.

McClary noted that at the end of 2012, a third of the county’s investment portfolio was in Michigan municipal bonds.

Treasurer’s Report: Board Discussion

Conan Smith thanked McClary for her attentiveness to both the rate of return as well as the need for financial security, saying it was hard to balance those two things, but he thought she did a great job of it. He was interested in knowing the relative difference in interest earnings, based on the maturity dates of the county’s holdings. He said he assumed she kept a blended portfolio.

McClary replied that although the county’s portfolio is blended, in general the county doesn’t get a better rate of return by holding longer-term investments. Rather, the different rates of return are more dependent on the different types of securities. In this market, municipal bonds deliver the highest rate of return, McClary said. She noted that in the current portfolio, CDs (certificates of deposit), CDARS (certificate of deposit account registry service), and commercial paper are making 1% or less. Federal agency investments vary, based on how long they’re held, she said – with returns ranging from 0.15% to 1.625%.

Dan Smith asked McClary to comment on the Wayne County airport bond, which was showing a 4% rate of return – the highest of the Michigan municipal bonds. He noted that the Washtenaw County tax notes, which mature on Dec. 1, 2013 – at the same time as the airport bond – have only an 0.85% return.

McClary replied that she had purchased the airport bond through a broker-dealer. In contrast, on the Washtenaw County tax notes she had entered into negotiated bidding. Because she was working with two other units of government on that deal – Kalamazoo County and Ann Arbor Township – “we needed to make sure everything was squeaky clean and fair in terms of setting the rate,” she said. They worked with an underwriter to come up with suggested rates, she explained, then she and the other two treasurers figured out “who wanted the long ones and who wanted the short ones” – a reference to maturity dates.

Andy LaBarre noted that he, McClary and others from the county had attended a recent community capital forum featuring economist Michael Shuman, sponsored by the county’s office of community & economic development. He asked McClary to speak about the secondary positive benefits of local investments, and why she’s taken that step of investing in Michigan municipal bonds.

McClary replied that everyone has likely thought about buying local on a personal level, whether it’s food or clothing or other items. Shuman had talked about three different areas, she said. One is whether the county might have a role in matching local businesses with capital. The second area would be making local investments from the county’s retirement fund. To do that, you’d need to look at the goal of the retirement fund and at what’s permissible under the law, she said. Shuman had also stressed that the investments wouldn’t be made in start-ups, she said, but rather in well-established firms that are looking to expand.

Another issue is how to define “local,” McClary said – is it Michigan, the Midwest or the U.S.? She said the county has had success in investing in Michigan municipal bonds, as long as they meet the criteria of safety and liquidity to meet the county’s cash needs.

McClary concluded her presentation by offering to answer any additional questions commissioners might have in the future regarding the treasurer’s office work.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Energy Alliance Accord

Commissioners were asked to approve amendments to an interlocal agreement to form the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office Community Alliance.

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

The history of this partnership dates back to 2010. The county board voted initially to join the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) – a separate entity from the SEMREO Community Alliance – at its March 17, 2010 meeting. At the time, SEMREO was a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit that’s led by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith abstained from the March 17, 2010 vote, following conflict-of-interest concerns raised by other commissioners. SEMREO later split off from the Michigan Suburbs Alliance as a separate organization, but Smith serves on its board of directors and as its treasurer.

Washtenaw County became involved in the SEMREO Community Alliance in 2011. On Aug. 3, 2011, the county board voted to join the SEMREO Community Alliance and approved the original interlocal agreement. According to Sam Offen – SEMREO director and co-director of the SEMREO Community Alliance – the alliance is being created in order to pursue certain grant funding that’s not available to municipalities directly. It includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). [.pdf of original interlocal agreement] Smith was absent from the Aug. 3, 2011 meeting when the Washtenaw County board voted to join the alliance.

Specifically, the community alliance will be setting up a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which is enabled by state legislation – the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act 270 of 2010. The program allows property owners to take out loans to make energy improvements that would be repaid through regular installments as part of their taxes. The city of Ann Arbor has already set up its own PACE program, and the city council is expected to vote soon on authorizing up to $1 million in bonds that would help owners of commercial property make energy improvements.

The interlocal agreement requires the approval of Gov. Rick Snyder. The state attorney general had reviewed the original agreement and requested some changes.

According to a staff memo, the amended interlocal agreement includes 13 changes, summarized in the county board’s resolution. [.pdf of interlocal agreement resolution] Changes include: (1) clarifying local government appointment and removal powers; (2) allowing video conferencing for quorum and voting; (3) allowing teleconferencing for participation, but not voting or quorum; (4) adding forms and rules for additional parties to join the alliance; and (5) clarifying the entity that determines how costs and expenses are to be distributed. A full copy of the amended interlocal agreement was not provided in the board’s Feb. 6 meeting packet. Offen emailed it to The Chronicle following the meeting. [.pdf of amended interlocal agreement]

Washtenaw County was the last of the six partners to authorize the amendments. In an email sent to commissioners on Feb. 1, Smith expressed some frustration about the process. [.pdf of Smith's email] From the email:

The Regional Energy Office requested the BOC address this on December 11, 2012. Understandably, we were not able to take it up in December or at our first meeting in January. I had expected staff to bring it to our last meeting but that did not happen. At the Working Session, I requested this be included on the BOC agenda, but again staff did not expeditiously prepare the very brief cover memo that is necessary. I communicated directly with staff in person and by email about this, but the memo was not provided until yesterday. I learned today that it has been included on the Ways & Means agenda rather than the Board agenda, despite our agreement at Working Session to send it to the BOC and the fact that this is not, at least in my opinion, a change in County policy.

I am very frustrated by this process. I feel I have been patient and supportive, but not received prompt attention to what is a minor ministerial matter. At this point, all the other communities have approved the amendments and Washtenaw is holding up the process. I would very much appreciate it if we can complete action on this item next week.

Energy Alliance Accord: Board Discussion

On Feb. 6, Smith was absent for the initial vote to amend the SEMREO Community Alliance interlocal agreement, arriving at the meeting after the vote had been taken. However, he asked the board if he could record affirmative votes for all items that he had missed – which included the SEMREO Community Alliance item. None of the other commissioners objected.

The item was voted on at both the ways & means committee meeting, and the regular board meeting that immediately followed. It had been added as a supplemental agenda item for the regular board meeting. Typically, resolutions are voted on initially at ways & means, then two weeks later at the regular board meeting – rather than on the same night.

Before the final board vote, Smith introduced Sam Offen, SEMREO director and co-director of the SEMREO Community Alliance, saying that Offen had been shepherding the interlocal agreement through the process in the attorney general’s office and the governor’s office. Smith described the process as “onerous.”

Smith noted that Washtenaw County was the last government entity to vote on approval of the revised agreement. He asked Offen if the agreement then had to get the governor’s signature. Yes, Offen replied. All of the changes that the board was adopting that night had already been approved by the attorney general.

Outcome: Without further discussion and in separate votes, commissioners unanimously gave both initial and final approval to the amendments for the interlocal agreement.

After-School Program Grant

Washtenaw County commissioners were asked to give final authorization to apply for a $20,000 grant to fund expansion of an after-school program called “Telling It” in the West Willow and MacArthur Boulevard housing developments, low-income neighborhoods on the county’s east side. Initial approval was received on Jan. 15, 2013. [.pdf of grant application]

According to a staff memo, the Telling It program focuses on developing creative writing and literacy skills for at-risk youth. It would support an effort to fight gang-related activity – specifically, the dozen or so “cliques” in the Ypsilanti/Willow Run area. The memo defines cliques as gangs “without by-laws, or a code of ethics, ultimately heightening the threat. Criminal behavior is viewed as a rite of passage as youth longing to belong to something in some areas where they are being offered very little positive influence during the school year. The sheriff’s office has recognized the need to provide after-school enrichment programs that are not purely sports based.”

One of the main concerns in West Willow is an underground culture of “fight clubs,” according to the sheriff’s office – where teenage boys promote fighting between teenage girls, with the fights videotaped and uploaded to YouTube.

The grant application is unusual in that it’s the first time a county unit has sought funding through the coordinated funding pilot program, which was designed to support human services more effectively in this community. The coordinated funding is a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the United Way of Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

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

The grant application for Telling It would help pay for four program facilitators, a program director, and a psychotherapist to serve as a training consultant. It would fall under the coordinated funding category of capacity building.

Commissioner Conan Smith had previously raised concerns about using the coordinated funding program, which was designed to support local nonprofits, to pay for a county-sponsored initiative. He felt the county should find a way to pay for it without using money that’s meant for outside agencies. However, he raised no objection at the Feb. 6 meeting.

After-School Grant Program: Board Discussion

Board chair Yousef Rabhi told commissioners that he has asked Mary Jo Callan – who leads the county’s office of community & economic development, which administers the coordinated funding program – to develop a policy that addresses whether county programs can apply for funding from the coordinated funding program.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the grant application.

Changes to Board Rules & Regulations

On the Feb. 6 agenda was an item to change the board rules and regulations that commissioners adopted at their Dec. 5, 2012 meeting. The proposal was to amend the list of boards, committees and commissions that are eligible for stipend payments, adding the Detroit Region Aerotropolis board to the list and removing the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA). The stipend for service on the aerotropolis would be $100.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had been appointed to serve on the aerotropolis at the county board’s Jan. 16, 2013 meeting. Sizemore’s appointment on Jan. 16 came in the context of the annual county commissioner appointments made at the start of each year. [.pdf of 2013 appointments listing]

The original list of eligible boards, committees and commissions for which stipends are paid was approved at the county board’s Dec. 5 meeting, but the aerotropolis had not been included in that list.

At that Dec. 5 meeting, commissioners had voted to alter their compensation to receive stipend payments based on the number of meetings that a commissioner is likely to attend for a particular appointment. One or two meetings per year would pay $50, three or four meetings would pay $100, and the amounts increase based on the number of meetings. Each commissioner typically has several appointments. In the past, commissioners had to request per diem payments for their work. Now, stipend payments will be made automatically, unless commissioners waive their stipends by giving written notice to the county clerk.

According to the county clerk’s office, Dan Smith (R-District 2) is the only commissioner who has waived all of his stipends. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) waived the $150 stipend for the accommodations ordinance commission. She serves as an alternate for the AOC. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) does not receive any stipends because he was not appointed to any boards, committees or commissions.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the change to the board’s rules & regulations.

Board Budget Calendar & Guidelines

On Jan. 16, the board had given initial approval to a timeline and guidelines for developing the county’s budgets through 2017, setting a goal for the county administrator to submit budget recommendations on Sept. 4, 2013 with final adoption by the board on Nov. 20, 2013. [.pdf of budget guidelines]

The item was up for final approval on Feb. 6. Dan Smith (R-District 2) moved to make a minor amendment related to policies and procedures [italics indicates added text, strikethrough indicates deletion]:

Department Heads are directed and Elected Officials are requested directed to review all programs for continuing relevance and priority as a County service, and discuss the possibility to delete or modify programs where possible with the County Administrator.

Outcome: Smith’s amendment passed unanimously, without discussion. The amended item was later passed as part of the board’s consent agenda.

Community & Economic Development Grants

Several items were on the agenda related to grants and programs administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED). Those items included:

• the Michigan Works! system plan for 2013 [.pdf of 2013 MWSP]
• $20,000 in federal funding (Community Services Block Grant discretionary funds) to conduct a needs assessment of the New West Willow Neighborhood Association.
• $20,000 in federal funding (Community Services Block Grant discretionary funds) for tax preparation services to low-income customers, in partnership with Avalon Housing, Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County, Housing Bureau for Seniors and Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan.
• $299,821 in federal funding for the foster grandparent program, plus $104,208 in county matching funds. The program serves 80 limited-income individuals aged fifty-five and over, who’ll mentor children with special needs. The funds provide foster grandparents with a stipend, transportation, meals, uniforms, community involvement and training, and an annual physical exam.
• $46,900 in state funds to provide emergency heating deliverable fuels to about 45 households.
• $94,901 in state funds to help low-income families pay their home energy bills, and to provide emergency deliverable fuels to residents at or below 200% of the federal poverty limit.

Community & Economic Development Grants: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that there were a number of agenda items related to OCED, and he wanted to thank OCED director Mary Jo Callan and her staff for all their work.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked about the needs assessment for the New West Willow Neighborhood Association and for the senior nutrition program – another item on the agenda for final approval on Feb. 6. She wondered if there would be funding available to implement the recommendations from the needs assessments.

Callan said the needs assessments are definitely planning activities. The point is to inform future investments, she noted. The staff can’t yet say if there will be money available to fund everything that needs funding, Callan added, but it’s useful to look at how their current funding is deployed and to make sure it’s doing the most good for the most people.

Regarding the New West Willow neighborhood assessment, there aren’t currently operating dollars to fund programs there, Callan said. But the county receives an annual allocation of federal Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funding. The county is making sure they invest those dollars in the places that they know there’s need, she said.

Outcome: All items were approved unanimously by commissioners as part of the consent agenda.

Tech Agreement

County commissioners were asked to give initial approval to amend a three-way agreement with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the city of Ann Arbor. The three-way accord – an interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (IACTS) – is meant to provide a way to procure and maintain common technology platforms and services centrally.

The modification to the agreement allows for adding other entities into the agreement in a more streamlined way. It gives each founding member the ability to add new participants administratively, without modifying the agreement itself. The original IACTS was approved in May of 2011. [.pdf of IACTS amendment]

The Ann Arbor city council approved the amendment at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting. According to city of Ann Arbor IT director Dan Rainey, responding to an emailed query, one of the entities interested in participating in the IACTS is the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. Also responding to an emailed query, Washtenaw County IT manager Andy Brush explained that certain IT services are already provided by Washtenaw County to various entities – like the city of Ypsilanti, Dexter’s fire department, and the 14B District Court – although they aren’t yet parties to the IACTS agreement.

Tech Agreement: Board Discussion

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) highlighted this project as one of the county’s “shining stars” in terms of collaborative efforts. It’s an example of collaboration between the city and county, saving money and being “excellent stewards” of public dollars, he said, “and really making those public dollars go as far as possible.” He thanked the county’s infrastructure and IT staff for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the IACTS amendment. A final vote on this item is expected at the board’s Feb. 20 meeting.

Debt Refinancing for Township Sewers

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The action is intended to save about $110,000 in interest payments. [.pdf of bond resolution]

The resolution authorizes the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remains to be repaid. According to a staff memo, the project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

The staff memo also states that additional funds might be available from special assessment prepayments and connection fees paid by the state of Michigan. These funds might reduce the total refunding bond amount even more, and would increase the savings.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the debt refinancing. A final vote is expected on Feb. 20.

Miller Avenue Drain Project

Funding for a drain project along Miller Avenue in Ann Arbor – in the Allen Creek drainage district – was on the county board’s Feb. 6 agenda.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The request was to authorize the backing of up to $1.58 million in bonds for the project, which will repaid through a special assessment against the city of Ann Arbor.

The project is being handled by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, led by Evan Pratt. It’s the first project brought forward by Pratt, who was elected in November 2012 and took office in January. Pratt attended the Feb. 6 meeting but did not formally address the board.

According to a staff memo, the funds will be used “to clean out, widen, deepen, straighten, tile, extend, or relocate along a highway, construct branches, relief drains, or connections to the Miller Avenue portion of the Allen Creek Drain to reduce downstream flooding and improve water quality to increase the public health benefit.”

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Miller Avenue Drain project. A final vote is expected on Feb. 20.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: County ID Card

Yousef Rabhi reported that he was working with community members and human services providers to develop a new program about a Washtenaw County ID card. The project is being overseen by a task force of the following members and entities:

• Yousef Rabhi, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners
• Jerry Clayton, Washtenaw County sheriff
• Catherine McClary, Washtenaw County treasurer
• Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk
• Melody Cox, assistant to the county clerk/register of deeds
• Synod Community Services
• Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights
• Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
• Casa Latina
• Law Enforcement Citizens Advisory Board
• Home of New Vision

It provides a way for residents who don’t have a driver’s license or other photo ID to access services that require such an identification card, Rabhi said. Actions and services that require a photo ID include renting an apartment, opening a bank account, and proving residency for things like library cards. People who are elderly, immigrants, ex-offenders, or homeless often face discrimination because they don’t have a photo ID, Rabhi said. It’s also important for law enforcement, he added, because sometimes immigrants don’t feel comfortable reporting crimes – they fear repercussions if police ask for their ID.

Funding this kind of program is a huge issue, Rahbi noted. It’s important to minimize the impact on the county, he said, but there are lots of opportunities for partnerships. People involved in this effort will be reaching out to local officials in the coming weeks, he said, and he hoped the program would move forward.

Communications & Commentary: Liaison Reports

Felicia Brabec reported from the Sustainable Revenue for Supportive Housing Services Task Force, on which she serves. The group is looking at the possibility of an endowment campaign. The nonprofit Washtenaw Housing Alliance is paying for  a consultant (Hammond and Associates) – to explore how such a campaign might fare. It’s estimated that about $17 million would be needed “so it’s a big undertaking for us,” she said. That amount would support an additional 116 units of supportive housing. An existing endowment has $2 million, Brabec reported – $1 million from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and $1 million from St. Joseph Mercy Health System, in honor of Sister Yvonne Gellise.

Brabec also reported that TCC Group, the consultant hired to evaluate the county’s coordinated funding pilot program, has finished its work. She, Yousef Rabhi and Andy LaBarre were briefed on the initial findings and “overall it looks good,” she said. TCC representatives indicated that they haven’t seen this kind of public/private model being done anywhere else. The full report will be shared with other commissioners, policymakers and the public when it’s completed, she said.

Brabec also updated commissioners on the status of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a partnership between Washtenaw County and the University of Michigan Health System. The organization has completed its relocation into county office that it’s leasing on Zeeb Road, she said. She thanked Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, for his help in making that transition.

Communications & Commentary: Introductions

Several other elected officials attended the Feb. 6 meeting, in addition to county commissioners.

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, noted that sheriff Jerry Clayton, county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Evan Pratt – the county’s water resources commissioner – were attending the meeting. Also in the audience was Brian Mackie, the county prosecuting attorney.

Dan Smith introduced Oakland County commissioner Phil Weipert. [Weipert, a Republican, represents District 8 in Oakland County, which includes the cities of South Lyon and Wixom, the village of Wixom, and the townships of Lyon and Milford.]

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke at both opportunities for public commentary during the evening. He told commissioners he was there to advance the cause of the most vulnerable, and called for them to add to the agenda a funding plan to provide housing to everyone who was outside on this cold night. He said the “right-wing” Republicans in the Michigan legislature and the U.S. Congress have the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation as the deadline approaches at the end of February, when he said the economy will be hit by the impact of sequestration. Partridge also called for the county board to put forward a resolution calling for gun and ammunition control.

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping.

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

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

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, left, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Leah Gunn prior to the start of the Aug. 1, 2012 board of commissioners meeting. Gryniewicz is community outreach coordinator for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (Photos by the writer.)

Because the articles were amended, they will need to be reconsidered by the other three parties in the agreement: the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort. Those governing bodies are expected to take up the issue at meetings later this month. It will be on the Ann Arbor city council agenda for its Aug. 9 meeting.

Before the county board’s Aug. 1 vote, about a dozen people spoke during a public hearing on the issue, the majority of them in support of the agreement and of expanded public transit in general.

Although amendments had been considered and voted down at the board’s July 11 meeting, on Aug. 1 Rob Turner proposed a new amendment to the articles of incorporation. The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment would have stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. Leah Gunn offered a compromise – a four-fifths majority, or 12 of the new authority’s 15 board members. That amendment to Turner’s amendment passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent from Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater. The vote on the amended amendment itself – requiring the four-fifths majority – passed unanimously.

Turner felt his original amendment offered safeguards for smaller communities. It’s possible for communities to decide to join the new transit authority, only to have the articles of incorporation – the “rules of the game” – changed after they’ve joined, he said. If his amendment had been approved, Turner said he would have supported the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. He said it no longer seemed like a countywide authority – it seemed like an Ann Arbor system that others could join. That saddened him, he said.

Joining Turner in his final vote against the overall agreement and articles of incorporation were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

A range of other items were on the Aug. 1 agenda. Commissioners suspended the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements, responding to a change in state law. They also gave final approval to a change in the county’s accommodations ordinance, exempting bed & breakfasts, cottages and individuals who occasionally lease out rooms from the 5% accommodations tax. And addressing a need for veterans, the board authorized the county clerk to offer photo IDs that can be used to redeem discounts offered at local businesses.

On an 8-2 vote, commissioners also approved a brownfield financing plan for a $39 million residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. Before the board’s vote, both Felicia Brabec and Yousef Rabhi praised the development, but said they were voting against it because of concerns about affordability. They did not feel that most young professionals would be able to afford living there, and stressed the importance of having more affordable housing in the downtown area.

The board also heard a report from the county treasurer, and got a second-quarter financial update from staff. Commissioners then approved a $1,263,994 mid-year adjustment to its 2012 general fund budget, bringing the 2012 general fund budget to $101,162,770.

In one of the least controversial items of the meeting, commissioners passed a resolution commending the Washtenaw Community Concert Band – formerly the Ypsilanti Community Band – on its 35th season. Dan Smith, who plays the trumpet, is a member of that group.

Countywide Transportation

Commissioners were asked to approve a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation for a new public transit entity tentatively called the Washtenaw Ride Transportation Authority.

The other parties in the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which would shift its assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties had previously approved the transit documents, after going through their own amendment process. [.pdf of pre-amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The county board had given initial approval at its July 11 meeting, after a lengthy debate and a split 7-4 vote with dissent by Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner and Dan Smith. At that meeting, several amendments proposed by commissioner Dan Smith were discussed, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. Those amendments had been similar to proposed changes that Smith had put forward at a three hour working session on June 14.

The county would not be contributing assets or a millage to the new authority. Nor would the county board be asked to put a countywide millage request on the ballot. Rather, the county’s role would be for the county clerk to file articles of incorporation with the state – an action to create a transit authority under Michigan Act 196. When formed, the Act 196 board would have authority to put a funding proposal on the ballot for voters to consider. A financial advisory group that’s been working on this effort has suggested that revenues equivalent to a 0.5 mill tax would be needed to cover the cost of expanded services for the first five years. [.pdf of financial advisory group report]

For other general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Countywide Transportation: Public Commentary

Speakers addressed the board on the topic of countywide transit during general public commentary as well as during a public hearing specifically on the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. Several other transit supporters attended the meeting but did not formally address the board. Joel Batterman of Partners for Transit, who had sent out an email urging people to attend the meeting, was on hand to pass out stickers that stated support for expanded public transportation.

Here’s a summary of remarks made during public commentary and the public hearing on Aug. 1.

Thomas Partridge told commissioners that he’s a Democratic candidate for state representative in District 53, and he supported the countywide transit agreement. The county’s most vulnerable residents, including senior citizens and the disabled, need better access to affordable public transit, he said.

Jim Mogensen reminded the board that although people talk about the Ann Arbor public transit system starting in the 1970s, in fact the first time a local public transit system was proposed happened in the late 1950s. At that time, however, voters didn’t support the formation of a system. An alternative approach was passed in the 1970s, including a millage to support the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He referred to the current effort at expansion as a Pandora’s box, and likened it to a previous effort to pass a millage for a county jail expansion. That was a very complicated process, but voters ultimately rejected the bond proposal for it, he said. The jail eventually did expand, but in a different way, he noted. Now, the same dynamics are happening with public transit. Mogensen urged commissioners to take a step back, listen to concerns, then take leadership to move the county forward in a constructive way.

Joel Levitt said he’s been a resident of Ann Arbor for 40 years, and now his daughter, her husband and one-year-old grandchild are also living here. The health of the county depends on the health of Ann Arbor, he said. The city is the center for industry, commerce, health services and culture. For that to continue, the city can’t have poor and overcrowded roads and inadequate parking. There must be a superior public transit system from the city to every corner of the county, and improved services within the city as well.

Charlie Nielsen told commissioners that he’s the former Scio Township supervisor. He remembers the day when his son used to take the bus – when AATA used to provide service to Scio Township. It was invaluable in helping his son attend classes at Washtenaw Community College, he said. But Scio Township later couldn’t pay for the service, so it stopped. Nielsen noted that he serves on the advisory committee for the current countywide transit effort, and supports serving the whole county. One of the reasons he’s proud to live in this county is because of the human services that are provided, and countywide transit is in that same spirit. He noted that he’s president of the homeowners association for Scio Farms Estates, where many of the residents are getting older and could benefit from a public transit system. He urged commissioners to support it.

Waleed Howrani said he’d been a resident of Ann Arbor for 37 years. He finds it hard to believe that people aren’t doing more to save the environment. Resources should be used wisely, not recklessly. The auto industry doesn’t care about how many natural resources are dug up to build their cars, or about emissions from those vehicles. Howrani said he’s proud of the AATA. He’s taken public transportation in over 30 states, and no other system as as clean, efficient, and friendly. Although he does use Amtrak, he feels helpless when he needs to travel to neighboring towns and states. He loves that he can read on the bus and leave the driving to others. He noted that every bus can eliminate 50 cars from the road, and saves many lives as well.

Tad Wysor said he’s passionate about community organizing and mass transit. He lives in Ypsilanti Township and works in Ann Arbor, and said he’s blessed to have dependable buses on both ends of his commute, with bike racks. But for most folks, it’s not that easy. With residents struggling because of the economy, now is a great time to pull together, focus on common values, he said, and greatly improve mass transit in the county and beyond. He said he’s involved in a new coalition on the east side of the county involving clergy, labor and other community leaders. They haven’t yet decided how they’ll focus their efforts, but expanding and improving mass transit is one possible area. It’s hard for him to imagine an issue that would be more effective in helping the economy, he said. It could help connect employers and employees, get people to medical appointments and places of worship, and keep senior citizens more engaged in the community. Now’s the time to pull together and make it happen.

David Sponseller said there’s probably no one in the room who did more to help launch AATA than he did. In 1969, he spoke up to urge government leaders to support the public transit system. He encouraged his son to help promote it and urge residents to vote in favor of the millage. But that was a huge mistake, he said. He had no idea that although the system would grow, it would fail to win people over to use it. Less than 5% of people in Ann Arbor ride the bus, he said. People still love the convenience of their cars. Public transit is successful in areas that have high density – places like Toronto, Chicago and New York. But that’s not the case in Ann Arbor. Sponseller wondered how they can expect people in less dense parts of the county to embrace public transit, when Ann Arbor residents haven’t been won over. He argued that more energy is spent on fueling buses that have only one or two riders, than on cars. For the sake of avoiding costs that his grandchildren would have to pay, he urged the board to not support the project.

Larry Krieg of Ypsilanti Township said he was there to speak in favor of the agreement. For anyone who thinks the buses are empty, he urged them to ride one – it’s not the case that they’re empty, he said. Krieg, a retired faculty member at Washtenaw Community College, said he observed that if a WCC student’s car fails, then that student is likely to fail. Education is important for the entire county, as well as for individuals. Reliance on auto transportation also locks people out of the economic system, because many jobs require that you have a car, he said.

Countywide public transit will give people who don’t live in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti the chance to participate in the economic system, he continued. Krieg said he also supports expanded public transit because of his grandchildren. One of his children went to the east coast for a job, and another went to the west coast for the same reason, because the economy is more prosperous there. He’d prefer that his grandchildren wouldn’t have to make that choice, and could stay in Washtenaw County. The county needs a solid public transit system.

Nancy Kaplan talks with Joel Batterman of Partners in Transit before the start of the Aug. 1 county board of commissioners meeting. Kaplan, a member of the Ann Arbor District Library board, raised concerns about the proposed governance of a countywide transit authority.

Nancy Kaplan of Ann Arbor described expanded public transit as a great idea, but said she had several concerns about the proposed process. Some of those concerns relate to the board for the new authority. Board members aren’t required to be residents of the county, she noted, and there’s no real oversight of the board – it’s questionable representation without accountability, she said. Kaplan noted that several services outlined in the five-year transit plan have already been implemented by AATA, which shows that these services can be provided under the current system. The services include commuter bus from Ann Arbor to Chelsea and Canton, but she wondered why Ann Arbor pays for that, without contributions from the other two communities.

Why not test out interest in service levels by signing five-year point-of-service agreements with other communities? asked Kaplan. That would let people see if residents of those communities are willing to fund transit services, and if they’re satisfied with the service they get, she said. There are many other unknowns regarding process, scope and fare increases, Kaplan said. She asked commissioners to test it out for several years before committing to a new transit authority.

Jan Wright of Pittsfield Townshp supported the agreement. She lives two miles from the nearest bus line. She just turned 70 and is doing great, she said, but she knows that won’t always be the case. She’s not the only person in this situation. As the population ages, there are a lot of people who won’t want to be stuck in their homes or forced to move, she said. Wright also has strong concerns about climate change, especially after the strange weather we’ve been having over the past year. Public transit is a way to have sustainable transportation, she said. Gas prices will probably increase, and that’s another reason to support public transit.

Matthew Braman of Milan also supports expanded public transit. He grew up in this county, attended a state-funded public university here, but is continuing his professional career in New York City – in large part because he can’t continue to live in Milan and work in Ann Arbor. He described how his car broke down earlier this year, and he had to rent a car from a friend. He’s been working with the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI), and noted that ex-prisoners on parole are trying to find work and the community needs to find ways to help them succeed. Public transit would open up job opportunities in other communities.

Sayan Bhattacharyya told the board that he’s a graduate student at the University of Michigan. No one in his family had ever owned a car, and coming to Ann Arbor was the first time he’d seen snow. He’s afraid to drive in the winter, and that’s one reason why public transit is important. There are a lot of people like him, he said. When he graduates next year, he’ll be looking for a job, and part of the decision will be based on transportation choices. Bhattacharyya also said that he loves Ann Arbor because of its cultural offerings, but it’s frustrating that he can’t go to cultural events in places like Chelsea or Dexter unless he rents a Zipcar. He noted that he’s not a U.S. citizen so he can’t vote for them – a comment that elicited laughter from commissioners. He said he’d never been to a public forum like this, and had previously only read about democracy in action.

Robert Klingler said that about 18 months ago, he slipped on black ice and tore the tendon off his knee. It’s been humiliating, and he’s had to depend on services offered by AATA, including RideConnect. He lives just outside the Ann Arbor city limits, and taking the bus to work can take 45 minutes one way. It would be nice to catch a bus to go downtown, to restaurants, to church. If public transit were expanded, more people would come to Ann Arbor, he said. Klingler concluded by noting that the city and county are praised as good places to retire, but we’re not ready to accommodate retirees.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, began by thanking everyone who spoke during public commentary. He’s very much in favor of countywide transit – it’s desperately needed, and should have been expanded a while ago. He wanted to respond to some of the comments made during the public hearing. The idea that just because people love cars means that the community should give up public transit is like saying that because people like nicotine, we should give up on trying to quit smoking. We shouldn’t give up on public transit, he said. We should work to make it better.

Regarding empty buses, Rabhi said he used to regularly ride the Route 2 bus and during the winter, buses would be so packed that they would have to pass by people who were waiting at bus stops. There was no room for additional passengers. That’s not the case on all lines, but it’s not true that buses are empty. He noted that ridership is up on Route 4, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, after AATA increased the frequency of bus service.

This is not the perfect plan, Rabhi continued, but you can’t expect perfection. It’s the start of the process, and moves the county in the right direction. It will make an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that he shared some concerns raised by Nancy Kaplan – saying he agreed that the AATA shouldn’t be providing service to Chelsea and Canton unless those communities are willing to pay for it. This new transit proposal does give Chelsea residents the opportunity to pay, he said, and he’ll continue to lobby AATA and ask them not to serve areas that don’t pay. But that’s not what the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation are about.

Today, the board will be creating a new entity, he said, and that entity will choose whether to put a proposal on the ballot for voters to decide. “This is direct democracy, folks,” Rabhi said. If Ann Arbor voters reject a funding proposal, then the broader public transit won’t happen. He said he supported the resolution before the board, and thinks it should move forward.

Rob Turner also thanked the public speakers. He’s been hearing from people in his district who are both for and against the proposal. [Turner, a Republican, represents District 1, which covers a large portion of western Washtenaw County, including Chelsea and Dexter.] Public transportation is important – it will help the county grow and prosper, and help people who are struggling to find jobs, he said.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion – Amendment

But Turner said he did have a major concern, and that’s why he was proposing an amendment to the articles of incorporation. [A written text of the amendment had been circulated by Conan Smith before the meeting started.] The original draft stipulated that a two-thirds majority of the new authority’s board would be required to amend the articles of incorporation. Turner’s amendment struck the two-thirds majority, and stipulated that a unanimous vote by the new authority’s board would be needed to make such changes. The amendment was seconded by Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Rob Turner, a Republican representing District 1 – covering the western part of Washtenaw County – was unable to convince a majority of his fellow commissioners to adopt an amendment he put forward for the articles of incorporation of a new transit authority.

Turner said that the directors of the new authority’s board could change the structure of the authority – so it could become something different than communities originally opted into, he said. His amendment would provide a safeguard against that, he said. Otherwise, he couldn’t support the articles of incorporation or four-party agreement.

Leah Gunn responded, saying the board has gone over and over these documents, and had given initial approval at their July meeting without amendments. The problem with amending it now is that it would then need to go back to the other three parties for re-approval, she said. Gunn also felt it was unfair to require unanimity. That’s a high bar, she noted, and it means that one jurisdiction could “destroy” everything. Ann Arbor is passing over a huge amount of assets to the new entity, she said, and Ann Arbor needs as much protection as other jurisdictions. [Gunn, a Democrat, represents District 9 in Ann Arbor.]

Gunn then proposed amending Turner’s amendment – striking “unanimous” and inserting “4/5 (12 out of 15) vote of the directors seated and serving.” Four-fifths is a very strong majority, she said. Her amendment was seconded by Rabhi.

Barbara Bergman said she agreed with Gunn. She also wondered if requiring unanimity was legal, and asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, for his opinion. He said he hadn’t had the chance to look at the question, but in general, whatever the four parties agreed to would be legal – though unanimity might make it more cumbersome to get things done.

Bergman said that one person could be easily swayed by a contractor, for example, and unanimity would make board members of the new authority extremely vulnerable to that kind of pressure. She said it scared her to think of the amount of capital that had been paid for with her tax dollars riding on the whim of one person.

Rabhi also supported Gunn’s amendment. As a practical matter, not every jurisdiction will opt in to the Act 7 districts that form the basis for the new authority, he said. So in some cases, it might be only one township that represents a district. If a unanimous vote of the authority’s board is required, that means that action could be blocked by just one small township, he said. Certainly the bar to change the articles of incorporation should be high, Rabhi said. Two-thirds is high, and four-fifths is even higher. He encouraged commissioners to support Gunn’s amendment.

Ping said she’d support Gunn’s amendment, but she wouldn’t be supporting the overall agreement. [Ping had voted against it at the July 11 meeting.] But she thought the agreement would pass, and a four-fifths majority would be the best option for the entire county.

Turner said he didn’t understand why Gunn could argue against his original amendment, saying that it would have to go back to the other three parties. Her amendment would also require that action, he noted. He shared the concern that Rabhi had mentioned – that one township could block a vote. But in his part of the county, one of the Act 7 districts comprises eight townships. That means that eight townships would be represented by only one director on the new authority’s board.

Any amendment to the articles of incorporation would change the structure of the new authority, Turner said. He added that this is the only instance in which he’s pushing for unanimity, because it’s an important safeguard. It’s a safeguard that might make the difference between a local entity joining the authority or not.

Wes Prater weighed in, saying these articles of incorporation should last a long time. Everyone should be on board, or it shouldn’t be done. The need for a unanimous vote might never come into play, he noted, or it might be very rare. He wanted to reject Gunn’s amendment and keep Turner’s.

Ronnie Peterson, a Democrat who represents District 6 in Ypsilanti and a portion of Ypsilanti Township, said he wanted to see the out-county jurisdictions participate in the new authority. But he found it difficult to see how unanimity could work effectively. On the other hand, he could see the difficulty of having rules change in midstream. Overall, he just hoped they could get this bus rolling.

Conan Smith said that the articles of incorporation only include five articles that state the board “shall do” certain things. The rest of the articles are characterized as “may do.” So the “shall do” items cause the greatest concern, he said. The first relates to jurisdictional boundaries and of the districts within the new authority, he said. Two other items have impact on the board makeup: Board qualifications that require a director to be a Washtenaw County resident, which the commissioners previously debated, and the board members’ terms and compensation.

Directors will serve without compensation, and people want to protect that, Smith said. [Smith did not mention this, but the articles of incorporation allow the residency requirement to be waived – that was an element of debate at the board's July 11 meeting.]

Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

The fourth “shall” is the right of employees to collective bargaining, Smith said, and the fifth one provides pension protections to AATA employees who move to the new transit authority. On balance, the rest of the articles say “may do” or “may not do,” Smith contended. So the “shall” items are just those that would be impacted by a vote of the new authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation, he said. Setting the bar to require unanimity seems fair and reasonable, he added. Smith noted that he has served on boards that operate on a consensus basis. In cases like this new transit authority, it’s not too much to ask to make it as inclusive as possible and make sure everyone in the county has a fair say.

Gunn responded, saying she had no idea what Smith was talking about – his speech obfuscated the whole issue. The amendment being considered doesn’t apply to any specific article of incorporation. It would apply to all of them. She also noted that the idea of fairness works both ways. It’s important to be fair to the smaller communities, but also to larger communities that have “paid and paid and paid” – that’s the community she represents, Gunn said. A four-fifths majority should work.

Responding to Turner’s comment, Gunn said of course she was concerned that her amendment will also require that the documents be reconsidered by the other three parties. But she was trying to compromise, she said, because unanimity won’t work.

Directing his comments to Gunn, Prater said it’s true that Ann Arbor has paid and is contributing its assets, but it’s been Ann Arbor residents who have primarily used the AATA over these years. The AATA has also received a lot of state and federal grants, and that’s partly his tax dollars, Prater said. [Prater, a Democrat from York Township, represents District 4 covering the southeast side of the county.] He again urged support for Turner’s original amendment.

Bergman then called the question on Gunn’s amendment, a parliamentary move that forces a vote.

Outcome on Leah Gunn’s amendment to Rob Turner’s amendment: It passed on a 6-4 vote, with dissent by Turner, Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec and Wes Prater.

Countywide Transportation: Board Discussion – Amended Documents

Peterson asked for clarification – the new authority’s board can amend the articles of incorporation at any time? That’s right, Hedger said. So the authority’s board could change any of this in the future? he asked. Yes, Hedger replied.

Felicia Brabec clarified with Hedger that the vote before them was to accept the amendment requiring a four-fifths majority to alter the articles of incorporation, or to keep the original two-thirds majority requirement, which has already been approved by the other three parties. She said she appreciated Gunn’s attempt to compromise, but she was struggling with it. She generally likes to compromise, but would have preferred Turner’s original amendment. She’d support the four-fifths compromise, because she didn’t agree at all with requiring just a two-thirds majority.

Turner said he’d support the amendment, because it will provide additional safeguards for the articles of incorporation, which he felt the board would ultimately approve. But he said he’d now be voting against the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, when it came for a vote later in the meeting.

Outcome on vote to amend the articles of incorporation: Commissioners unanimously passed the amendment requiring a four-fifths majority to change the articles of incorporation.

Later in the meeting, the board considered the resolution to approve the four-party agreement and the amended articles of incorporation. Dan Smith said he had applauded the AATA for taking a leadership role in this effort. He noted that he has no problem with the notion of public transit – he used it when he lived in the Netherlands and in Germany. The role that the county board is being asked to play puts them in the middle of this process, he noted, and it’s largely a ministerial role. They are being asked to adopt articles of incorporation that will last a very long time. He didn’t see the board’s role as saying public transit is good or bad, or as lobbying for or against it, or as determining the services that a new entity might provide. Commissioners’ role is to put a new authority in place so that the authority’s board can make those decisions.

Smith said he wasn’t satisfied about the articles of incorporation for reasons that he had elaborated on at the July 11 meeting and the previous working session. For those reasons, he said, he’d be voting no.

From left: County commissioner Wes Prater and Charlie Nielsen, former Scio Township supervisor.

Wes Prater read a one-page statement about the process. He stated that as of today, the AATA was not in compliance with the section of the four-party agreement that requires the AATA to publish details about the new entity’s service and funding plan in local newspapers. Until that happens, he said, the board shouldn’t approve the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. “Without the details,” he said, “it’s like buying a pig in a poke.”

He noted that the articles of incorporation don’t state a date for the new authority to become operative and for the articles of incorporation to take effect. Not setting that date is a violation of state statute, he contended. This information is critical for local governments to know as they decide whether to opt out or participate in the new authority. He also argued that the sections in the articles of incorporation that provide ways to dissolve the authority should be removed, because these methods of dissolving the authority have no standing under Act 196. He cited a December 1998 opinion issued by former attorney general Frank Kelly to support that fact.

All of these issues should be resolved before the county board adopts the four-party agreement or articles of incorporation, Prater said.

Rob Turner described it as a difficult situation. All he hears from Leah Gunn is how much Ann Arbor has contributed and how much Ann Arbor would be sacrificing. It doesn’t sound like a countywide authority, he said. It sounds like an Ann Arbor authority that’s allowing other local governments to join. He said he’d be voting no, and that it breaks his heart. He hopes that the new authority will be more inclusive in the future. He’ll now have to go to the governing entities in his district and make sure they know the dangers. People in his district had told him that it would be an Ann Arbor authority, and he had told them it would be countywide. Now that will be thrown in his face, Turner said. He thought his amendment would pass, but he now believes it will be an Ann Arbor authority – he’s afraid those people were right.

Barbara Bergman said she was sorry for Turner’s sad heart, but she’s been paying taxes in Ann Arbor for the last 32 years, and that’s been a fairly substantial amount. She’ll be paying even more, if voters approve an additional transit tax. But everyone has skin in the game, she said – this isn’t just an Ann Arbor system.

Conan Smith observed that a different governance model would have guaranteed other things, but they would have to trust that directors of the new authority will do what’s best.

Felicia Brabec said she’d been reassured by AATA leadership about concerns she’d raised regarding her district of Pittsfield Township. People in her district were excited about expanded transit. She hoped Turner’s concerns would be laid to rest as the process unfolds.

Prater said he wanted to get another two cents in. It doesn’t matter what the county board does, he said – as soon as the new authority’s board is in place, that board can do whatever it wants. ”We can wail about it all we want to, but they can.”

At that point, Yousef Rabhi called the question.

Outcome: On a 6-4 vote, commissioners gave final approval to the four-party agreement and amended articles of incorporation that set the foundation to form a new transit authority. Voting against the resolution were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rob Turner and Dan Smith. The documents will now need to be reconsidered by the other three parties – the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the AATA board.

2nd Quarter Financial Update

Tina Gavalier, Washtenaw County’s finance analyst, gave a second-quarter financial update that showed an improved outlook from her first-quarter presentation to the board in mid-May. The county’s fiscal year is based on a calendar year – the update covered the first six months of 2012, through June. [.pdf of chart showing general fund projections]

As she did for the first-quarter update, county administrator Verna McDaniel again introduced the presentation by saying that the main message is still “stay the course.”

Second-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $2.085 million more than budgeted – due primarily to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $100.83 million. [The board had received the news about the higher property tax revenues at its April 18, 2012 meeting, when the county equalization report was presented.]

Gavalier reviewed some of the revenue variances for specific units. Revenues for the sheriff’s office are projected to be about $835,116 less than budgeted. Much of that amount is caused primarily by delayed implementation of the county’s dispatch consolidation with the city of Ann Arbor. [At its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $759,089 annual contract with the county, which was supposed to start in March of 2012. Hiring is underway, but the consolidation hasn't yet happened.] Other items that contributed to the shortfall include no revenue so far for towing contract administration fees (contract amendments are in progress) and lower-than-projected concessions revenue for the corrections service center lobby coffee shop and other food venues.

Projected revenues for the Washtenaw County Trial Court also are falling short of budgeted amounts by about $208,000, primarily because of lower-than-budgeted court equity funds that are disbursed by the state. A projected shortfall of about $114,000 in the 14A District Court is due to lower court fees and fines, attributed to a declining trend in case filings.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

Gavalier reminded commissioners of amendments they made to the budget in late 2011 and early 2012. At their Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, commissioners voted to reinstate $128,538 in funds for human services nonprofits – administered via the coordinated funding model – that had previously been cut from the budget. On Jan. 18, 2012, the board voted to approve the consolidated dispatch between the county and city of Ann Arbor, and authorized the creation of 15 full-time positions. That vote increased the budget – on both the revenue and expenditure sides – by about $1.4 million. Also, at their Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, commissioners approved a $165,000 expenditure increase as part of a new contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, for animal control services through 2012.

Chart showing Washtenaw County general fund projection as of June 30, 2012.

Regarding overall expenditures, Gavalier reported that expenses are $808,251 more than budgeted for the general fund. That’s due in part to higher-than-expected costs in the sheriff’s office from greater use of part‐time temporary workers and overtime, operating supplies, and jail medical/food contracts.

General fund expenditure projections include an assumption that there would be a lump sum expense reduction of $2.481 million for the year – an amount that’s not specific to any particular department, but that would be gained from across the organization. So far, $1 million in reductions have been identified, due to the high number of retirements last year (118) with 97 of those coming in the last quarter of 2011. The savings come from several unfilled positions following those retirements, as well as from lower salary and fringe benefit costs for new employees replacing the retirees.

However, some of those savings have been offset by increases in part‐time temporary costs and increased fringe benefit costs. A high number of medical claims were made over the last five months of 2011, Gavalier reported. Since there’s typically a six-month processing delay for those claims, most are being paid in 2012. Changes in the county’s employee medical plan are expected to contribute to the lump sum reductions later this year, she said. Overall, only about $282,000 in net lump sum reductions have been realized so far this year – about the same amount as was reported in the first-quarter update. More reductions are anticipated to be recorded in the third quarter, she said.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is projecting a surplus of $1,277,318 – a significant increase from the $272,238 that had been projected in the first quarter. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance. The county faces a $612,065 shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

Gavalier also reviewed several county operations that are not supported by general fund revenues. Units that are projected to show a surplus include child care, facilities management, Friend of the Court (due to trial court consolidation and cost containment efforts), public/environmental health, building inspection, and risk management units. Units that are on budget include the office of community & economic development, the prosecuting attorney’s office, and the office of veteran’s relief.

One unit – programs supported by the Act 88 millage, related to economic development – is projecting a shortfall, but had budgeted to use its fund balance in 2012 to cover the overage, Gavalier said.

Second-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

Gavalier listed out several areas that the administration is monitoring closely, including some that she had highlighted in her first-quarter update. Medical costs are difficult to project, because the trend of claims is evolving under the new medical plans for employees. The budget was developed based in part on projected costs provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield, Gavalier noted. But because the county is self‐insured, it pays the actual costs of its employees’ medical claims. July was the first month that the county started to see how claims have adjusted under the new medical plans, so the third quarter of this year – from July through September – will show a better reflection of actual savings.

Another area to watch relates to state revenue-sharing and the state’s new economic vitality incentive program, intended as a replacement to revenue sharing. Gavalier reminded commissioners that the county’s revenue-sharing reserve fund will be depleted in 2013. The state’s adopted budget includes a partial allocation to Washtenaw County in 2013 of $1,177,601, if the county meets three specific areas of compliance incentives: (1) accountability and transparency; (2) consolidation of services; and (3) employee compensation with defined eligibility requirements outlined for each area.

Personal property tax (PPT) reform legislation is another uncertainty, Gavalier said. There will be an impact, but the magnitude is uncertain. Currently, PPT revenue for the county is $5.6 million. Current versions of bills to repeal the PPT  include reductions in tax revenue starting in 2013 of about $390,000 for industrial and commercial properties, with additional reductions phased in each year through 2022.

Gavalier also reported that the county’s annual actuarial valuations for its retirement plan (the Washtenaw Employees Retirement System, or WERS) and retiree health benefits (the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA) will be completed this summer. With 118 retirements in 2011, there will certainly be a cost impact to those plans, she said. The valuations might also increase the cost of fringe benefits for active employees too.

In addition, the county expects to complete a cost allocation plan (CAP) by this summer, Gavalier said, outlining how much each department will be accessed. CAP is an amount charged to each county department for things like the county attorney and administration. CAP amounts have been waived or frozen in recent years, but will be adjusted for the 2012-2013 budget cycle.

2nd Quarter Financial Update: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman referred back to the budget adjustments that had been made earlier this year, and pointed out that the adjustment of an additional $165,000 for animal control services was higher than the additional $128,538 for human services. She wanted other commissioners to think about that. She noted that most public employees choose their jobs not because of large salaries, but because of the satisfaction it gives them to be public servants. Bergman expressed concern that people might no longer be able to afford that choice, if they’re asked for more labor concessions. She indicated that’s the context in which the board should consider its allocation for animal control services. [For recent background on that issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Revenue Options Eyed for Animal Control."]

In response to a question from Conan Smith, Gavalier reported that individual budget item adjustments of less than $100,000 were not reflected in her presentation. For amounts less than $100,000, county administrator Verna McDaniel has the authority to approve those adjustments.

Rob Turner told Gavalier that after her first-quarter update, he had been concerned about the county’s ability to reach the surplus they needed to carry over into 2013. Now, the projection is much better and he feels more comfortable that they can attain that amount, he said. Gavalier indicated that the finance staff feels better about it, too.

Leah Gunn thanked Gavalier for the clarity of her presentation. The increase in property values is good news, she said.

Alicia Ping asked about the shortfall for Act 88 programs. Conan Smith explained that there had been a budgeting error when the county allocated $15,000 to the Food System Economic Partnership. That’s now being handled by tapping the Act 88 fund balance to cover the $15,000 allocation. Ping didn’t feel that was a great answer – because only the revenues coming from the Act 88 millage should be expended.

Wes Prater clarified with Gavalier that although there’s currently a general fund surplus, the amount of that surplus is less than the county had budgeted to carry over into 2013.

Outcome: This was a presentation only – no board action was required.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustment

Commissioners were asked to approve a $1,263,994 mid-year adjustment to its 2012 general fund budget, bringing the 2012 general fund budget to $101,162,770.

The adjustment includes equal increases in revenues and expenditures. The additional revenues come primarily from higher-than-projected property tax revenues of $2,417,690. The main increase in expenditures comes from an increase in personnel costs over the budgeted amount for 2012. The original budget had anticipated labor savings of $2,481,008 – but the bulk of those reductions have not yet materialized. The county did realize more than $1 million in reduced labor costs due to 118 retirements in 2011. However, that savings has been offset by increased part-time temporary costs and increased fringe benefits costs related to medical claims made during the last six months of 2011, which are being paid in 2012.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the recommended mid-year budget adjustments.

Treasurer’s Report

Catherine McClary, Washtenaw County treasurer, presented an annual foreclosure report as well as a mid-year investment update.

She told commissioners that her major goal is to protect and safeguard public funds. Through June 30, 2012, her office has brought in $5.268 million in revenues. Sources include investment earnings ($415,309), delinquent taxes and fees ($3,307,004), accommodation tax ($1,497,340), dog licenses ($33,872) and tax searches ($14,656). She’s projecting revenues of about $10.5 million for the full year.

McClary said she manages about $154 million for the county, diversified by investment type, institution and maturity date. Cash and investments are allocated in the following way: CDs, CDARs, money market accounts ($59.833 million); commercial paper ($3 million); treasuries and agencies ($16.5 million); Michigan municipal bonds ($52.7 million); and bank accounts ($22.172 million).

McClary noted that in previous years, investments were laddered out over five to seven years. But with investment rates lower, she’d now taking a “barbell” approach, with shorter-term and longer-term investments. Although the average weighted yield of the county’s investment is below 1% – at 0.526% – she noted that it is well above the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.09%.

Last year, McClary recalled, she had told the board that she expected interest rates to remain low, and that her strategy would be to increase safety and flexibility while reducing expenses. She noted that Congress authorized unlimited FDIC insurance on certain bank accounts through the end of 2012, so the county is taking advantage of that. By maintaining cash reserves in an insured account, the county is foregoing interest earnings in favor of an “earnings credit” that covers all of the county’s bank fees. This approach has saved the county’s general fund more than $80,000 annually, she said.

Conan Smith asked if McClary benchmarked Washtenaw County’s investment performance to other counties. McClary said that the county board’s investment policy had prioritized safety, and she didn’t know if that was true for other counties.

Treasurer’s Report: Foreclosures

McClary also gave her annual report on foreclosures, as required by state law. She noted that her office has been able to prevent many foreclosures through its tax and mortgage foreclosure prevention programs. Her report focused on tax foreclosures, because the county treasurer’s office is the governmental entity tasked with administering the tax foreclosure process.

The report shows a lag – because it reflects properties with unpaid taxes from 2007 that were auctioned in 2010, with excess proceeds reported as of May 31, 2012. This process is required by state law, to allow time for complete closure on the properties, McClary said.

For unpaid 2007 taxes, the process generally worked like this (the process is the same for any given year):

• 2007 taxes in any local jurisdiction in Washtenaw County that were unpaid by March 1, 2008, were declared delinquent. The county treasurer was then responsible for those taxes. A 4% administrative fee was added to the taxes, and interest started to accrue at 12% per year (1% per month). On Oct. 1, 2008 a $15 fee was added.
• On Nov. 1, 2008 the property was added to a preliminary forfeiture list. If taxes were still unpaid by Feb. 1, 2009, then mortgage lenders and banks could be notified.
• On March 1, 2009, a minimum of $205 in fees could be added to each property, and the properties were forfeited to the county treasurer. The interest rate was increased to 18% per year, retroactive to March 1, 2008.
• In June 2009, the treasurer filed foreclosure petitions in the 22nd Circuit Court.
• Between June 1, 2009 and Jan. 31, 2010, title research was conducted to identify owners and lienholders. In some cases, a personal visit was made to the forfeited property. Mortgage lenders, banks and other lienholders were notified.
• In early 2010, a show cause hearing was held. That led to a court hearing in February 2010 when the circuit court judge signed foreclosure orders. By March 31, 2010, redemption rights expire if taxes aren’t paid, and the property ownership transfers to the county treasurer.
• Property was sold at action in July 2010. The prior owner doesn’t receive any proceeds.

After two years of being unable to recover costs at tax foreclosure auctions, McClary reported net positive proceeds from 2010 of $102,746. That amount is available this year for transfer to the county’s general fund.

Interest on these properties goes into the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. After delinquent tax notes are matured and paid off, any leftover funds are transferred to the county’s capital projects fund and used to pay the debt service of other bonds committed by the board of commissioners. In 2010 and 2011, a total of $11.2 million was transferred from the delinquent tax revolving funds to the capital projects fund. These amounts are counter-cyclical, McClary noted – they are higher when the economy is bad, and lower when the economy improves and fewer properties go into tax foreclosure.

McClary said the county is seeing better times, and appears to be pulling out of its economic trough. A leading indicator of that is delinquent taxes, which are down 20% this year, she said.

McClary also reported that the first tax foreclosure auction of 2012 went well, with 45% of the properties sold. About 80% of the buyers listed zip codes in Washtenaw County, she said, noting that it’s a positive for our neighborhoods when the buyers are local.

Treasurer’s Report: Foreclosures – Board Discussion

Dan Smith observed that the nearly $103,000 in net proceeds is a mixed bag. While it’s good for the county’s general fund, it still reflects the fact that some people lost their properties through foreclosure. McClary said that’s why she’s proud of her office’s tax foreclosure prevention program, which helps people avoid that end result.

Ronnie Peterson said he knew that McClary had prevented a lot of tax foreclosures in his district, but activity was still very high there. Over the past few years, hundreds of homes had been lost to foreclosure. [Peterson represents District 6, which covers primarily the city of Ypsilanti.] Houses sold at auction were extremely reasonable for the market, he said – some selling as low as a few thousand dollars. He wondered how the county might partner with another agency to secure some of these properties for housing families in need.

McClary said she’d like to pursue the idea of a revolving loan fund. She’d be willing to sit down with her staff and do an analysis of properties that have been sold at auction over the last few years. The city of Ypsilanti had approached her office and partnered to have open houses of the properties before auction, she reported. This year there were 10 open houses – it’s a way of encouraging local people to buy, she said. McClary noted that the county and city recently received an award for the project from the National Association of Counties.

Peterson observed that some of his business colleagues get concerned when the government gets involved in the housing market. But he noted that the government already is involved – by funding the homeless shelter. If families can be put in housing, it would help stabilize neighborhoods and bring prosperity to the community, he said.

CUB Agreements Suspended

For the second time in the past 12 months, commissioners were asked to suspend the county’s use of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements.

CUB agreements are a type of project labor agreements (PLA), negotiated between local trade unions and contractors. CUB agreements require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The county board first suspended its CUB policy in September 2011, pending the outcome of litigation that’s challenging the validity of the state’s Public Act 98 of 2011. That law, which took effect on July 19, 2011, prohibited municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibited discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

The law was challenged in federal court by the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. They sought to rule the law invalid, contending that it was pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act.

The county board’s September 2011 resolution suspending its CUB also also stated that if the state law was overturned by a state or federal Court, the county would automatically reinstate its CUB agreement policy. That happened in March of 2012, when the judge for the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the state law was unenforceable. At that time, the county’s CUB immediately was reinstated, without additional action by the county board.

Instead of appealing that decision, the state legislature made revisions to the law, which took effect on June 29, 2012 as Public Act 238 of 2012. The new law revised several aspects of the previous version, but generally prohibits the use of CUB agreements.

According to a staff memo, the unions that filed the initial lawsuit seeking to invalidate the original version of the law are expected to file suit again to have the revised version invalidated. Meanwhile, the new law led the county board again to suspend its CUB agreement. The resolution on the Aug. 1 agenda was nearly identical to the one passed by the board in September of 2011. It suspends the county’s CUB requirement pending the outcome of any litigation challenging the validity of the new state law.

The city of Ann Arbor has taken similar action related to CUB agreements, most recently at the city council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

CUB Agreements Suspended: Board Discussion

Dan Smith said he would reluctantly support the resolution. There were a couple of the resolved clauses that he didn’t like – Smith didn’t specify which ones – but based on the advice of the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger], he’d support it.

Rob Turner confirmed with Hedger that this resolution suspending the CUB agreements is similar to the previous one that the board discussed and passed in September 2011. Yes, Hedger replied, it’s almost identical – a temporary suspension until state or federal courts find the new law invalid.

Turner noted that suspending the agreements temporarily will prevent the county from legal entanglements. The building trades were planning to take the government to court on this, he said. Turner added that he liked the section of the board’s resolution that stated the county supports these labor agreements and will reinstate them if possible.

Yousef Rabhi agreed, saying he very much supported CUB agreements and he doesn’t agree with the state law. The only reason he could support this resolution was because it included a resolved clause similar to the one that he had proposed through an amendment at the September 2011 meeting. [That resolved clause states that "upon such time as it is permitted under State and/or Federal law or otherwise ruled legal by a State and/or Federal Court, it is understood that the County will immediately reinstate its CUB Agreement policy."]

Felicia Brabec said she echoed Rabhi’s sentiments. She asked Hedger what’s to stop the legislature from repeating this cycle? Hedger replied that the current legislature is determined to remove this type of agreement. He assumed the unions would sue again. It’s difficult for the county, Hedger said, because many projects are in the process of soliciting bids. The county must follow the law. “I don’t know if there’s an easy answer,” he said.

Wes Prater said he also believed the building trades would be challenging this law in court – as the new law is very similar to the one that was struck down in court, he noted. Probably the same process will happen again and again, until Gov. Rick Snyder gets tired of signing legislation that the courts rule is unconstitutional and “stops this silliness.”

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, commissioners voted to suspend the county’s use of CUB agreements, with dissent from Alicia Ping and Ronnie Peterson. Neither stated their objection to the resolution. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

Change to Accommodations Ordinance

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a change in the county’s accommodations ordinance, exempting bed & breakfasts and cottages from the 5% accommodations tax. In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change also exempts individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The ordinance changes received initial approval by the county board at their July 11, 2012 meeting, and several B&B owners spoke in support of the proposal.

The changes had been recommended for approval by the accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) in June. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

No one spoke at a public hearing on the ordinance change. Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, attended the meeting but did not formally address to the board.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the accommodations ordinance change. 

Photo IDs for Veterans

The county board was asked to approve a proposal from county clerk Larry Kestenbaum that allows the clerk’s office to issue veteran photo ID cards for a $10 fee.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

According to a staff memo, county clerks in Michigan are permitted to record military discharge certificates for veterans. Those certificates – called DD-214s – are bulky and can’t be carried around easily. A veteran’s ID card would serve the same purpose, allowing veterans to show more easily a proof of service – to take advantage of discounts for veterans offered by businesses. The memo notes that $10 photo IDs are currently offered in Livingston, Oakland and Macomb counties.

The $10 fee would cover the cost of printing the card, which would be handled by the clerk’s vital records division. Start-up costs are estimated at $100. The county clerk/register of deeds office is located at 200 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor.

Photo IDs for Veterans: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman recalled that in the past, the clerk’s office offered ID cards at little or no cost to people who needed the cards to get certain government benefits. She wondered if that program was extant – if it wasn’t, she hoped it could be re-instituted. County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d check with the county clerk and report back to the board.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether veterans could use the photo IDs as voter identification. Michael Smith, director of veteran services for the county, replied that this ID primarily could be used for discounts at private businesses, but not as a voter ID. Companies like Lowe’s, Home Depot and restaurants often offered discounts to veterans, but require proof of service, he said. The U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs doesn’t offer an ID card of this type – discharge papers are used in order to obtain government benefits, but there’s nothing that can be used conveniently to show proof of service for other reasons.

There’s a need, Smith said, and this service fills that need, while also bringing in a little revenue to the county. He thanked the clerk’s office for taking the initiative on this.

Smith also said the board had been very brave in authorizing an 0.025-mill tax to pay for services for indigent veterans. If veterans were unable to afford the $10 fee for the photo ID, Smith said his office would be happy to cover that cost. He offered to work with the clerk to come up with a waiver, if needed.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to allow the county clerk’s office to issue veteran photo ID cards.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan

Commissioners were asked to approve a brownfield financing plan for a $39 million residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of brownfield plan]

Previously approved by the Ann Arbor city council on June 18, the project’s brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in conjunction with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012.

Dan Ketelaar, developer of 618 S. Main, a proposed 7-story apartment complex in downtown Ann Arbor.

Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA grant work in a similar way – in that the developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project, in order to receive the financial benefit. The brownfield plan includes developer reimbursements of $3.7 million over 26 years. Also during that period, the plan includes $462,864 of tax capture for administrative fees to support the operation of the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. An additional $457,741 of tax increment proceeds will be contributed to the Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund.

Work covered by the brownfield plan includes: site investigations for characterization of soils and dewatering if water is encountered during excavation; disposal of soils; demolition of buildings and removal of existing site improvements; lead and asbestos abatement; infrastructure improvements like water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades, street repair and improvements to streets; and site preparation like staking, geotechnical engineering, clearing and grubbing.

According to a staff memo, the project will create 80-100 temporary construction jobs, and 4-5 full-time, and 6 or more part-time, permanent jobs. Taxes from the Washtenaw County annual millage will increase from about $2,028 to $69,614 after the tax increment financing period is completed.

The 7-story building will include 190 units – which will be marketed to young professionals – plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Public Hearing

The only speaker at the public hearing was the project’s developer, Dan Ketelaar. He described various aspects of the project, noting that his team has been working on it since November of 2010. The Ann Arbor planning commission had approved the development in January of 2012, followed by city council approval in June. The market niche for young professionals isn’t being addressed in downtown Ann Arbor, Ketelaar said, and this project will satisfy that need. He described it as a gateway project, close to a highway yet walkable to downtown and the University of Michigan campus.

When the three minutes for his speaking turn ended, board chair Conan Smith asked if there were any objections to allowing Ketelaar to continue. There weren’t any, and Ketelaar spoke for a few more minutes.

Ketelaar told commissioners that he had met with several local groups, including the Old West Side Association and the city’s design review board. In response to neighbors’ concerns about parking, the project doubled the number of parking space on site, he said. The project and related streetscape improvements will improve the pedestrian experience in that part of town, Ketelaar said, and encourage redevelopment of other property. He urged the board to support the plan.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the development included any affordable housing. Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, replied that there would be no subsidized or public housing – most of the units would be priced around the range that’s considered affordable for the area median income. [Median income for one person in metro Ann Arbor – a region covering all of Washtenaw County – is $60,500. For a two-person household, the area median income is $69,100.] Lenart noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s site plan approval for this project did not have an affordable housing requirement.

Brabec called it an amazing project, but was concerned that young professionals couldn’t live there because the rent would be too high. When she moved to this area 10 years ago, she would have loved to live in a development like this, but with student loans, it would not have been possible. She said she’s not alone in that.

Dan Smith said he’d support the plan, but he still had the same concerns that the board had discussed at previous meetings and working sessions regarding brownfields and downtown development authorities. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Packard Square Brownfield Project Debated."] He noted that county taxes would be diverted because of the brownfield TIF financing. And although the plan requires approval by the Ann Arbor city council and county board, Smith pointed out that other taxing entities – including the Washtenaw Community College, Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw Intermediate School District – would also see a portion of their taxes diverted, yet their governing bodies have no say in the matter. The same is true of public school districts, indirectly.

Yousef Rabhi thanked Ketelaar for his work, and praised the project’s outreach efforts, green amenities, and the fact that it was adding needed housing to the downtown area. He also thanked the Ann Arbor DDA, for contributing to public upgrades related to the project. He wished Ketelaar good luck and success, and he hoped the project would bring energy to the downtown. But his concern comes from his heart, Rabhi said – the issue of accessible, affordable housing. The issue “should have been thrown into the batter before the cake was in the oven,” he said. At this point, all he could do is voice his opinion in the form of a no vote.

Rabhi said he’d be working proactively with county staff on this type of project to ensure that the downtown is accessible to all income levels. He concluded by saying that his vote isn’t a no-confidence vote against the process, but rather a vote that reflected his other concerns.

Outcome: On an 8-2 vote, the board approved the brownfield plan for 618 S. Main in Ann Arbor, with dissent from Felicia Brabec and Yousef Rabhi. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.

Weatherization Grant

On the Aug. 1 agenda was a resolution to accept $289,800 in additional federal funds for the county’s weatherization program. The funds will allow the county to weatherized 26 housing units for low-income residents.

The money is available through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus program. It’s a redistribution of funding that had previously been awarded to other communities but was not used. In total since 2009, Washtenaw County has received $5,053,338 in ARRA funding for its weatherization program, and has served 721 housing units. The program is administered through the office of community and economic development, a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department.

According to a staff memo, weatherization services include “outreach and intake, pre-inspection of homes, air leakage testing, health and safety evaluations, furnace assessments, refrigerator efficiency testing, post-inspection of the completed work and consumer education on how to keep one’s home weatherized and energy efficient. Licensed and approved contractors provide procurement and installation of weatherization materials including attic and wall insulation, air sealing, window repairs, furnace tune-ups and high efficiency furnace installations.”

To be eligible for the program, residents must have an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, or 60% of the state median income (whichever is lower). That translates to annual incomes less than $22,911 for a single person or $44,700 for a family of four. Residents who receive federal Supplemental Security Income, state disability assistance or who are part of the Family Independence Program are automatically eligible for the weatherization program.

Weatherization Grant: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked about indirect costs – the staff memo indicated that indirect costs for this grant were not included in the budget. Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, told Brabec that because it will be part of a program that the county already runs, there would be no indirect costs to increase the program’s budget.

Wes Prater said he hoped the grant would fund weatherization in owner-occupied homes, rather than rental properties. Lenart indicated that the “vast majority” of the projects would occur in owner-occupied homes.

Outcome: The resolution related to weatherization funding passed unanimously.

Public Commentary

In addition to the public commentary and public hearings reported above, Joel Levitt of Ann Arbor spoke during general public commentary about the need for a graduated, progressive income tax that would replace excise taxes in Michigan. He noted that last year, the state Democratic convention adopted a resolution to work to change the state constitution so that such a tax could be instituted. Property taxes made sense long ago, when property was the basis for wealth, he said. But that’s not the case today. Excise taxes on products like gasoline make it even more difficult for struggling families. He urged commissioners to pass a resolution supporting an improved financing system for the state, and said he planned to ask the Ann Arbor city council to do the same.

Responding to his commentary, Barbara Bergman said she agreed with his premise, but that the county board isn’t the forum for this kind of resolution. They generally don’t take up “political” resolutions, she said, but that didn’t mean his comments had fallen on deaf ears. She said she personally supported it.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 5, 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. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary, right, talks with deputy county administrator Bill Reynolds before the start of the Feb. 16, 2011 board of commissioners meeting. McClary delivered her annual treasurer's report during the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Ronnie Peterson started that debate by advocating for holding the board’s budget retreats and administrative briefings at the boardroom table, where they can be televised. The meetings are open to the public, but are more informal and not available on Community Television Network or online webcasts. The ensuing discussion revealed different perspectives on what kind of environments are most conducive to deliberations. At one point, board chair Conan Smith – who opposed a change of venue – argued that deliberations aren’t subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act. The county’s attorney, Curtis Hedger, advised the board that, in fact, deliberations do need to occur in open meetings, with limited exceptions allowed in closed sessions.

After roughly 90 minutes of debate, the board voted – with Smith dissenting – to hold future budget retreats in the boardroom following their bi-weekly working sessions. The retreats will be televised. An effort to relocate and televise administrative briefings failed, however, with support only from Peterson, Kristin Judge and Wes Prater.

In other business, the board appointed three staff members to a review committee that’s part of a new coordinated effort for funding human services nonprofits in the county. During a presentation by Mary Jo Callan – head of the office of community development, which is overseeing this process – Peterson expressed concern that smaller, community-based nonprofits will be unable to compete in this new system. Callan assured him that she understood his concerns, but felt that this new model could actually be better for those nonprofits. She noted that the board would ultimately control funding decisions for county dollars.

Catherine McClary, the county treasurer, delivered her annual treasurer’s report, giving an update on the county’s investment portfolio, delinquent taxes and foreclosures. She reported that the amount of residential tax foreclosures appears to be stabilizing, but foreclosures of commercial property are on the rise, especially for parcels of vacant, undeveloped land. Separately, the board approved the treasurer’s annual request to borrow funds – up to $50 million this year – to temporarily cover delinquent taxes in the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. Last year, there was about $29 million in delinquent taxes, and McClary expects a small increase this year.

McClary also told commissioners that later this year she’ll be asking them to approve a civil infractions ordinance for dog licenses, as part of a stepped-up enforcement effort. Right now, not having a license is a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine.

During Wednesday’s meeting commissioners also delivered several liaison reports, including news that the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission had approved $600,000 for the Connecting Communities trail program. Part of those funds will support a project that will eventually link Saline and Ann Arbor through a non-motorized pathway. The commission also authorized $250,000 to build a boathouse and fishing dock at Ford Lake, in partnership with the state and Eastern Michigan University.

Coordinated Funding for Human Services

On the agenda was a resolution to appoint three representatives to a review committee that will help award human services funding to local nonprofits through a coordinated funding approach. The appointees are: Hazelette Robinson, community relations director for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization; Susan Sweet Scott of the county’s Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS); and Michael Smith of the county’s veteran affairs office.

The funding process coordinates the efforts of five major funders: the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It is being managed by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, led by Mary Jo Callan, who gave a presentation to county commissioners at their meeting.

Coordinated Funding for Human Services: Public Commentary

Julie Steiner, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, thanked commissioners for their support of safety-net services. Washtenaw County is a leader, she said, because it understands the importance of nonprofits in providing those services. She said the WHA has seen benefits from the coordinated funding approach that’s being managed by the office of community development.

The WHA has 27 member organizations all working on housing and homelessness-related issues. About two years ago, they came up with a list of shared outcomes, Steiner said, which help in their goal of being transparent to the community regarding how tax dollars supporting these organizations are spent. [.pdf of WHA outcomes] Saying she’d bring the board a more detailed report in the future, Steiner ticked through several outcomes identified by the group, including: (1) reduce the number of people who become homeless; (2) reduce the average length of stay in local shelters; (3) increase the number of homeless people who get permanent housing; (4) increase the percentage of people who stay in permanent housing for at least 12 months and 24 months; and (5) reduce the number of formerly homeless people who become homeless again. Steiner praised the staff of the office of community development, saying they were a great help in developing a database to track this information, and in training nonprofits in how to use it.

Joan Chesler introduced herself as coordinator for the Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth (WACY). The group was formed just a couple of years ago, she said, and is in a planning and coordination phase using the national model called Ready by 21. [See Chronicle coverage: "Alliance Focuses on School-Age Kids"] The intent is to do some big-picture thinking about what groups are serving these children, what problems exist and what resources can be used to address those problems. They’ve developed some shared outcomes as well, and are looking at ways to coordinate services. It’s a long-term effort, she noted.

Several commissioners had comments and questions for Chesler and Steiner. Barbara Bergman said she hadn’t heard of WACY and wanted more information – as did other commissioners. When Rob Turner told Chesler that he still didn’t really understand what WACY did, she responded that they were just getting started – she could share their goals and plans, but those hadn’t been realized yet. Kristin Judge assured them that addressing homelessness and supporting youth are priorities for the board, and that commissioners are also fans of the OCD and Callan.

Wes Prater said he was glad to see the WHA’s focus on performance outcomes, and asked that Steiner provide a report to the board when it’s available. Steiner said they’ve just formed a new data leadership team – they’ll seek input on crafting benchmark data, with regular reports annually.

Ronnie Peterson said it was good to see Chesler “back in action.” [She previously served as executive director of the Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti.] He hoped they could schedule a working session on the issue of services for youth in the near future, and said it was important that the county departments get behind these types of consortiums to support them.

Coordinated Funding for Human Services: Presentation

Mary Jo Callan, head of the office of community development (OCD), began her presentation by introducing three county employees who were nominated for appointments to a funding review committee. The committee, part of a new coordinated funding model, will evaluate proposals from local nonprofits seeking financial support from five major funders: the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Susan Sweet Scott, left, talks with Mary Jo Callan, head of the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development. Sweet is an administrator with the county's Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS).

Susan Sweet Scott of the county’s Employment Training & Community Services has been with the county 22 years, and leads the community services portion of Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS). Hazelette Robinson, community relations director for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, is another long-time county staffer, with a 19-year tenure. The third appointee was Michael Smith, who leads the county’s veteran affairs office.

Not only do these three people bring their experience to the review process, Callan said, but they will also take away a better understanding of the programs and services available outside of county government.

She then gave a presentation she’s delivered many times over the past year – an explanation of how the coordinated funding model works. [The county board voted to join the partnership at their Nov. 3, 2010 meeting. Callan had briefed them on the project at an Oct. 7, 2010 working session. She has given similar presentations to the Ann Arbor city council and Urban County executive committee, in addition to other groups.]

Though Conan Smith jokingly asked whether she was tired of talking about it, Callan replied that it might be the commissioners themselves who were tired of the topic. However, she noted that four new commissioners had joined the board since she’d last spoken to them, and she hoped this overview would answer any questions they had.

The county has a strong safety net of social services, through local government programs and nonprofits, she said, but it’s been handled in a shattershot way. They haven’t gotten the most out of their investments, and this coordinated approach attempts to focus on community priorities in a coherent way. It involves entities that are already planning and coordinating efforts for specific areas – like the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and Success by Six – along with major funders and the programs that directly serve people in need. There’s also a piece for strengthening the nonprofits themselves, funding “capacity building” needs like staff training, financial software or paying for mergers between two nonprofits.

The funding model focuses on these key areas: housing/homelessness, seniors, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, and health/nutrition.

Most of the dollars will be used for programs and services, Callan said. For the funding cycle that begins July 1, 2011, they hope to have just over $5 million as a “baseline investment”: $2.7 million from the three government entities, $2.3 million from United Way and $300,000 from the community foundation. Obviously, a lot can change in terms of available funding, she noted – both the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County are working to address budget deficits in their coming fiscal years, and the Urban County faces cuts from federal funding it receives. [Chronicle coverage of possible reductions in human services allocations by the city of Ann Arbor: "Ann Arbor 2012 Budget: Parks, Plan, People"]

The process will be streamlined, Callan said. Instead of five applications for funds, there’s one. The same is true for the review process and final recommendations – there will be one set. However, the governing boards of each funding entity will retain control over how their dollars are allocated. Callan noted that they’ll be making those decisions in the context of what all partners are doing, and her hope is that everyone will look in the same direction, with the same strategy to achieve the same measurable outcomes.

Benefits include leveraging the funders’ investment, Callan said – for every dollar that’s invested, local nonprofits bring in $10 from state, federal and private funders. The coordinated approach is also minimizing duplication of efforts for both nonprofits and funders, and maximizing the effectiveness of their investments. She said her office has already seen benefits from previous coordination of funding by government entities, in terms of saving roughly 600 hours of staff time – those benefits will be even greater, with additional partners.

After getting approval from the governing boards of all five funders last year, the application process for the next funding cycle has already begun. Nearly 60 nonprofits applied to the first phase of the application process, in which they were asked to supply basic financial and governance documents. Of that group, 51 were qualified to respond to a request for proposals (RFP) that was issued Jan. 28. The deadline for applying is March 4, with reviews conducted in March and early April, and recommendations presented to funders in April and May.

For the county, funds will be invested in programs that reflect the board’s priorities, Callan said: school-aged youth (37%), pre-school children (19%), “safety net” health (22%), housing/homelessness (15%), aging (4%) and hunger relief via Food Gatherers (3%).

The need is great, Callan said. Unemployment remains stubborn, poverty has increased – an estimated 10,000 children and 2,000 elderly live at poverty levels in Washtenaw County – and roughly 8% of county residents are uninsured.

Coordinated Funding for Human Services: Commissioner Comments

Ronnie Peterson began by asking whether the guidelines given to nonprofits who applied for funding were the same as those used by United Way – he said it would have been useful for the board to see those guidelines. Callan said she’d send the board a copy. They aren’t identical to the United Way guidelines, but were developed with input from that agency.

Peterson, whose district covers Ypsilanti and parts of Ypsilanti Township, then asked if funds from the city of Ann Arbor only served Ann Arbor residents. Callan replied that the city supports agencies that serve residents in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Pittsfield Township.

Peterson expressed concern about the status of smaller nonprofits, those that he called “community-based.” Sometimes those only have a couple of volunteers running a clothing bank or giving some other kind of assistance, he said. Years ago, the county set aside funds for those kinds of nonprofits, but over the years the funds have been going to larger, more “institutionalized” nonprofits, he said. He wanted to make sure the smaller nonprofits could compete within this new funding model.

He also asked whether the Ann Arbor city council or the county board could reject funding recommendations that are brought to them after the review process. It’s “absolutely within your power” to reject the recommendations, Callan said. If that happens, her staff would need to go back to the other funding partners and possibly reallocate the remaining funds. She said the county board has not historically done that – the board has in the past accepted the recommendation of the office of community development (OCD), and she would anticipate that to continue.

Peterson said the board hasn’t rejected recommendations since Callan joined the OCD, but in the past that did happen. He clarified that it would be possible to take 5% from one agency and shift it to another, for example. Callan said it would be possible, though she’d advise against it. She also told Peterson that she was aware of his acute concerns for smaller nonprofits, and felt that this model would actually be better for those groups. With capacity-building grants available for small nonprofits that provide a priority service, they could be strengthened, she said. And there’s nothing to say that small or innovative programs can’t get funded, she added, though there are minimum requirements – like having a functioning board, and meeting basic financial standards. The idea is that taxpayer dollars are accounted for.

Of course there should be accountability, Peterson said. He just wanted to ensure that nonprofits aren’t disadvantaged because of their size, and that the board has some flexibility in allocating funds. He noted that it’s unclear how much funding will be available from the county in 2012 and 2013. [The county faces a projected $20.9 million over that two-year period.]

Barbara Bergman said she supported the coordinated funding approach. It’s one thing if a small nonprofit can meet the criteria, she said, but the county isn’t a research organization – they’re not there to fund the development of someone’s good idea. They need to fund groups that demonstrate best practices. She said she won’t vote against the OCD recommendations: “I’m not willing to put a pot (of money) over here for my bright ideas.” Bergman added that it saddens and scares her that holes in the safety net are growing, and that the county can’t meet all the needs of its residents. She would hope that in the future, other funders would join the coordinated funding initiative, too.

Yousef Rabhi, whose district covers part of Ann Arbor, praised the city for funding work that serves other communities as well – it reflects the fact that Ann Arbor’s fate is tied to the fate of the county, he said. Referring to the statement that every dollar invested yields $10 in other funding, he asked Callan how much of that leveraged $10 goes directly toward programs and services. She estimated $7-$8. Wes Prater then clarified that a $5 million investment by the five funders would bring $35-40 million to the community from other sources. When Callan confirmed that it would, Prater replied, “Well, get going!”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to appoint Hazelette Robinson, Susan Sweet Scott and Michael Smith as county representatives to a review committee for the coordinated funding of human services nonprofits.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

On the board’s Feb. 16 agenda was a resolution permitting the county treasurer to borrow against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all 80 taxing jurisdictions throughout the county, including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others.

The process works like this: After Feb. 28, these jurisdictions turn their delinquent taxes over to the county – the first step in a long tax foreclosure process. The taxing jurisdictions are reimbursed for that amount by the county, and the county treasurer assumes responsibility for collecting the delinquent taxes. It’s a standard practice that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The funds that the county borrows – an amount not to exceed $50 million – are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year. The delinquent tax collections are receivables on the bonds.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing: Commissioner Comments

County treasurer Catherine McClary did not give a formal presentation about this request, though later in the board meeting she presented her annual treasurer’s report. However, some commissioners had questions on the bond issue.

Dan Smith thanked McClary, saying that as someone who previously served on a township board, he appreciated the fact that the county made the township whole early in the year. [Smith was a former trustee for Northfield Township.]

Conan Smith noted that the county covers the potential risk to other jurisdictions, and asked McClary to comment on how economic conditions are affecting this process.

McClary reported that the amount of delinquent taxes turned over to her office for collection has more than doubled in the past seven years. For the last two years, the county was not able to self fund the delinquent taxes. Last year, there was about $29 million in delinquent taxes, and she expects a small increase this year. But the request is to borrow the same amount as last year – an amount not to exceed $50 million. She commented that the figure “takes my breath away.” One change is that interest rates on the bonds will be higher this year than last year, due to the tightening credit markets.

McClary explained that every year, the treasurer’s office sets up a separate delinquent tax revolving fund, where money is deposited as the delinquent taxes are collected. If the county is unable to collect the taxes by year’s end, they charge back that uncollected amount to the taxing jurisdiction, charging them the same interest that’s charged for the bonds – last year, interest was around 2%, McClary said.

McClary characterized delinquent taxes as a leading economic indicator. For residential properties, it’s starting to level off, she said, but there are increases in commercial properties, and especially in undeveloped vacant land.

Yousef Rabhi asked about the cost of administering this process. Is that money recovered, or is that simply a service the county provides? McClary explained that state law requires a county’s general fund to pay for the salaries of the treasurer’s office. They don’t charge taxing jurisdictions an extra agent’s fee for handling the delinquent taxes – the county could do that, she said, but when she tried to bring forward a resolution to that effect last year, she was asked not to do it. There is interest charged on the delinquent taxes, she said – 1% per month for the first year, and 1.5% per month for the second year, plus a 4% administrative fee. Those funds are also deposited into the delinquent tax revolving fund.

When the bonds are paid off, any remaining money in the revolving fund is transferred to the county’s capital projects fund, to be used as the board and administration sees fit, McClary said. Last year, $5.5 million was transferred – double the amount that had been budgeted.

Treasurer’s Report

Every year, the county treasurer gives a report to the board. This year, commissioners began by giving Catherine McClary a round of applause – her presentation was the last major agenda item, and it followed an unanticipated, lengthy discussion by the board about how they handled their budget retreats and administrative briefings. [See report below.] They thanked her for her patience.

McClary described how her office manages the investment portfolio for the entire county – at the end of 2010, cash and investments totaled $147.545 million. That figure is invested in the following ways: $56.509 million in certificates of deposit (CDs) and money market accounts; $45.815 million in commercial paper; $35.660 million in U.S. treasuries and agencies of the U.S. government; and $9.561 million in bank accounts, including deposits in the Ann Arbor State Bank, Bank of Ann Arbor, Chelsea State Bank and Michigan Commerce Bank, among others. [.pdf file of two-page treasurer's report]

She clarified that the $147 million includes more than just the investments made using general fund money, which had only about $30 million in its account at year’s end. In addition to general fund monies, the total includes funds from the Washtenaw County Road Commission, Washtenaw Parks & Recreation Commission, funds from the water resources commissioner’s office, and the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO).

She reported that 2010 revenue from her office totaled $10.6 million, from five main sources: $737,602 from investment earnings; $6.262 million from delinquent taxes and fees; $3.539 million from the accommodation tax; $37,922 from dog licenses; and $24,971 from fees for tax searches.

Michigan’s Public Act 20 governs the types of investments that her office can make, McClary said, and decisions also conform to the board’s investment policies. The 2010 average weighted yield was 0.559% – “that’s not the best part of the presentation tonight,” she said, adding that nonetheless it outperformed the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.12%.

The treasurer’s office is charged with safeguarding public funds, and they do that through diversifying investments and implementing strong internal controls, McClary said. Their other duty is to collect delinquent property taxes. These services raise money so that the county can fund its mandated activities, as well as support other programs that are board priorities – like those discussed earlier in the meeting, she said, for children, veterans, or others in need.

They do this with a staff of 11.5 employees, McClary said. They take receipt of a half-billion dollars each year, though much of that is a pass-through. For example, the treasurer’s office collects the Michigan education tax, which it passes on to the state. However, she noted, for the two weeks that the county holds those funds before passing them on, they were able to earn $30,000 in interest income.

McClary had spoken briefly about delinquent tax collection earlier in the meeting – when commissioners authorized her office to borrow up to $50 million to temporarily cover the cost of 2010 delinquent taxes for the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. She elaborated on the issue, saying that in order to get a top credit rating, it’s important that the county demonstrates strong management. The credit markets are tightening and rating agencies are especially scrutinizing public funds, she said. McClary reported that she’s working with county administrator Verna McDaniel and Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, to meet with the some of the major rating agencies, with the goal of ensuring that the county retain a top rating.

Regarding interest income, McClary acknowledged that the rates are very low, but the county’s earned income was well above the benchmark rate. Interest income on all county funds was $737,602 for 2010. The interest income for the general fund was considerably lower, she noted, in part because the amount of general fund dollars that can earn interest is low. At the end of the year, there was $30 million in the general fund account – of that, $17.5 million had been transferred in from the county’s revenue-sharing reserve fund.

McClary also reported on revenues from dog licenses, which totaled $37,922 in 2010. She thanked the board for approving a change last year that allows her office to issue multi-year licenses – that’s been well received by the public, she said. What’s not been as well received is an increase in the license fee, which was raised for the first time since 1981. [For spayed/neutered dogs, the fee is $12 for per year. It costs $24 per year for dogs that aren't spayed or neutered.]

Her office also collects fees for dog park licenses, and is working with the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation to step up enforcement, McClary said. This spring or summer, she’ll likely be bringing a resolution to the board to adopt a civil infractions ordinance for dog licenses. Right now, not having a license is a criminal misdemeanor of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine, which McClary indicated is excessive. For a civil infraction, you’d simply be issued a ticket. The treasurer’s office is coordinating with Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14-A District Court, who is interested in having the court help with collections, McClary said.

After adopting a civil infractions ordinance, a final step would be to conduct a dog census, McClary said. There are many unlicensed dogs in the county, she said, but without an ordinance in place, it doesn’t make sense to do heavy enforcement. She said they anticipate dog licenses will be a future revenue stream. They’re also exploring having a fee to pay for sheriff’s deputies who do kennel inspections, and perhaps adding a fee for checks that are returned for insufficient funds.

Treasurer’s Report: Mortgage and Tax Foreclosure Prevention

In additon to the financial overview, McClary reported on two programs that her office oversees: Mortgage foreclosure prevention and tax foreclosure prevention.

Efforts at tax foreclosure prevention aren’t supported by the general fund, she noted – it’s paid out of fees attached to a parcel after it enters foreclosure. Still, she thanked the board for approving the jobs in her office that deal with the program – including two social workers, who were probably the first social workers in the country to be hired by a county treasurer’s office, she said.

Each year, her office handles about 11,000 parcels with delinquent taxes. Her office works with owners to try to help them pay off the taxes, but that doesn’t always happen. Since 1999 – when action was taken on properties that had delinquent taxes from 1997 – the county foreclosed on 539 parcels. Of that total, 391 foreclosures occurred last year.

The properties that the county has lost money on – those that were sold at auction for a lower price than the delinquent taxes that were owed – were on undeveloped vacant land, McClary said. Right now, there are 900 parcels in the foreclosure process, McClary said, including 550 parcels of vacant land. She or her staff have talked to the owners and lenders on each of those 550 parcels, and at this point expect to collect on only 150 of them.

Regarding mortgage foreclosure prevention, the treasurer’s office only handles that directly when tax foreclosure is also involved. Beyond that, they partner with other agencies, including the Michigan State University Extension program and the county office of veterans affairs.

McClary urged people to contact her office if they needed help: either via email at taxes@ewashtenaw.org or by phone at 734-222-9595. Even if the county can’t help directly, her staff can refer them to the right resources, she said.

McClary described three waves of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. The first wave they saw was caused by predatory loans, which were easy to modify because interest rates were too high and they primarily affected vulnerable populations. The next phase concerned middle-class homeowners who had prime credit, but who lost their jobs and could no longer afford their mortage. These are the hardest to deal with, McClary said, because the income just isn’t there. The final phase are walkaways – owners who just leave their property because they owe more than the value of the parcel. That kind of foreclosure is the most detrimental to neighborhoods, she said, because the properties are simply abandoned.

Foreclosure prevention isn’t a mandated service, McClary noted, but with the board’s support, she said her office has been able to provide a valuable community service.

Kristin Judge noted that SEMCOG – the Southeast Michigan Council of Govvernments – recently released foreclosure data for counties in this area. Percentage-wise, Washtenaw is doing well compared to other counties, and she thanked McClary for her work.

Veteran’s Affairs

Commissioners gave initial approval to create a new full-time position – a veterans relief program specialist – as part of a minor restructuring in the county’s veterans affairs department. The restructuring includes downgrading an administrative assistant position to office coordinator. The moves are expected to result in about $20,000 in structural savings for the department. The board will likely take a final vote at its March 2 meeting.

The new position is estimated to cost $75,000 and will be funded from the indigent veterans relief fund, which gets proceeds from a dedicated millage and has a fund balance of $250,000. The job will entail coordinating the county’s veterans relief efforts and doing public outreach activities.

At Wednesday’s meeting, several commissioners praised the department and its leader, Michael Smith. All four of the board’s new commissioners – Dan Smith, Rob Turner, Alicia Ping and Yousef Rabhi – had visited the department recently, as part of an orientation tour of county facilities. They all applauded the staff’s efforts to assist local veterans. Ping cited the ability to leverage local dollars for state and federal funds, while Turner said the department served as an example of what he’d like to see all county units do – provide great services efficiently.

Rabhi asked about the percentage of staff salaries that are paid from the general fund, versus the veterans relief fund. Smith clarified that the percentages wouldn’t change. The general fund pays for 90% of his salary, 60% of the salary for analyst and service officers, and 57% of the department’s assistant – the millage pays for the rest. The percentages are based on the amount of time each staff member spends on indigent veterans relief activity – the millage can only fund those activities, he explained.

There’s been an increased demand for veterans relief, Smith said – that’s why the new position will be paid exclusively from the millage proceeds.

Smith gave credit to county administrator Verna McDaniel and her leadership as being an inspiration to him. The state has 19th and 20th century laws to take care of 21st century warriors, he said. Reservists are coming home to their communities with a plethora of problems, he said. Some counties haven’t even levied the veterans relief millage – Wayne and Macomb counties were sued over the issue, and Macomb still hasn’t levied it. Without those millage funds, Smith said, his department wouldn’t have been able to access the other resources it is tapping. He told the board they’d been brave to comply with Public Act 214, which authorizes the county to levy the millage without voter approval. [The 1/40 mill is expected to raise an estimated $362,415 this year. It was first passed two years ago, and cost homeowners $2.50 for every $100,000 of a home’s taxable value.]

Smith also told the board that he planned to offer internships later this year to disabled veterans who are pursuing degrees at local universities. The U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs pays for such internships, he said – it would help the interns, provide more services to the local veterans community, and not cost the county.

Rabhi told Smith that the veterans affairs department had been his inspiration at the recent board retreat, when he’d suggested that the county provide help desk services to residents – he’d seen that model in action at Smith’s department.

Trial Court Memorandum of Understanding

Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to a memorandum of understanding with the Washtenaw Trial Court, outlining the rights and responsibilities of each unit of government. Initial approval was given at the board’s Jan. 19, 2011 meeting, which included a presentation by chief judge Donald Shelton. A previous MOU expired in December 2010.

As part of the agreement, the county will fund operations of the trial court in four “lump sums,” allocated separately to: (1) the 22nd Circuit Court (including circuit court administration, juvenile-general fund, friend of the court and community corrections); (2) Probate Court (estates & mental health); (3) 14-A District Court; and (4) the child care fund. The county will not have line-item budgeting authority, but the trial court has agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and provide quarterly financial projections. The amount of the lump sum payments has not yet been determined.

Later in the meeting, during the time for communiciations from commissioners, Rob Turner and Rolland Sizemore Jr. reported that they’d had recent meetings with Shelton and other staff of the court, regarding renovations to the downtown courthouse. They said Shelton has indicated that he hopes the renovations will be finished in April, but Sizemore said they told him there are no guarantees – “and I think he understands that,” Sizemore added. Bids are also being solicited for the demolition of the Platt Road courthouse, where the juvenile court is located. The juvenile court will be relocated to the downtown courthouse, after renovations there are completed.

Where Should Commissioners Conduct Business?

A seemingly routine item on Wednesday’s agenda led to an animated debate that revealed disagreements among commissioners about how they conduct their business.

The discussion began when Ronnie Peterson asked about a resolution to approve a timeline and guidelines for the 2012-2013 budget process. Where were the guidelines? he wondered – they hadn’t been included in the meeting’s board packet. [The document had been part of the board's Jan. 19, 2011 meeting packet, when they gave initial approval to the process. .pdf file of budget timeline/guidelines]

Peterson then asked whether the board retreats were part of that process. Conan Smith, the board chair who has led the two budget retreats this year, clarified that the retreats are part of the budget process. The outcome will be a formal resolution of guidelines and priorities that the board will post, get public input on, and vote to approve, ideally at a board meeting in March, Smith said. The next retreat – possibly the last one – had been scheduled to follow the board’s Feb. 23 administrative briefing. [See Chronicle coverage of the Jan. 29 and Feb. 9 budget retreats.]

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Peterson said he wished that the retreat discussions would be more in the public eye, held at the boardroom table and televised. [The retreats, unlike the board meetings and working sessions, have not been televised on Community Television Network.]

Budget decisions will affect the more than 1,000 county employees as well as constituents who depend on the county for services, he said. This is the board’s main job, he said, and he didn’t understand why they weren’t doing it more publicly – at a working session, for example.

The county will be downsizing, and some departments may be eliminated or consolidated, he said. People want to know how their tax dollars are spent – it’s frustrating when the budget is delivered and people don’t have the opportunity to understand the complexity of the decision-making. People distrust government because they don’t have the opportunity to see how it works, Peterson said.

Media coverage isn’t sufficient, he continued – the press only covers what they think is hot at the time, but people want more. Especially as the county faces a deficit, the public “should see everything we do.”

Peterson then moved an amendment to the budget timeline/guidelines resolution: to hold the budget retreats and the administrative briefings in the boardroom – where both could be televised. [Briefings are currently held in a small conference room.] Kristin Judge quickly seconded the motion.

Barbara Bergman noted there would be a cost to televising the administrative briefings, though she didn’t know what that would be. She also described benefits to the current format, which she said is more informal and allows for interesting give-and-take – and there’s less risk of appearing ignorant if you have questions. The meetings are open to the public and attended by the press, she noted. [The Chronicle attends all administrative briefings; there are rarely any other media or members of the public in attendance.] Meeting in the more formal boardroom venue would stifle discussion, she said.

Judge pointed out that the city of Ann Arbor has been using the boardroom and county staff to televise their meetings while renovation work is done at city hall. The county hasn’t charged the city for that, she noted. If the county can do it for Ann Arbor, surely they can televise meetings for county residents, she said. And while she understands the desire not to feel ignorant, that can be handled in other ways – by asking staff for clarification privately, for example.

The briefings are open meetings and deliberations are done there, Judge said, though some of the newer commissioners might not have experienced it yet. But many people expect to see the deliberations at the televised meetings, which they can also watch online. She described herself as an advocate for the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act – saying this is one of the reasons she got involved in local government. The administrative briefings “should be in the public eye.”

Wes Prater also supported that view. It might be a bit inconvenient and require some adjustment, he said, but it’s the proper thing to do.

Rob Turner disagreed. He said he didn’t care if the meetings were televised, but he wanted to keep the more informal setting. They were able to get a lot done by working closer together, or in small groups. How would that be televised? Would they have to rebuild the boardroom to accomplish that? He said he planned to vote against the amendment.

Yousef Rabhi reiterated the statements of other commissioner who noted that the retreats and briefings are open and that the press attends. He offered a compromise – that future retreats be held immediately after the working sessions in the boardroom, so that they could be televised. [Rabhi chairs the working sessions.] As for the briefings, he suggested that they agree not to deliberate, and simply listen to Joanna Bidlack – the staff member who leads the meetings – as she reviews the agenda items. That would save the cost of televising.

Dan Smith felt that Rabhi’s suggestions addressed Peterson’s concerns. The staff does a good job of reviewing the agenda at the briefings, he said, but sometimes the discussion goes off topic. He noted that at a recent briefing, he had to steer the group back to the agenda item. [He was referring to the Feb. 9 briefing, when Judge proposed adding a resolution to the agenda that would allow the county to join a dental discount program being piloted by the National Association of Counties (NACo). The ensuing discussion focused on the merits of such a program – after several minutes, Smith noted that they were getting ahead of themselves and should focus on whether to put the resolution on the agenda. It was not added.]

Leah Gunn proposed amending Peterson’s amendment, to keep the briefings as they are and move the retreats to the working sessions. When Judge objected – noting that it would reverse the intent of the original amendment – corporation counsel Curtis Hedger agreed, and Gunn’s amendment was modified to say retreats would immediately follow working sessions.

Peterson recalled that he wouldn’t have been allowed to join a country club years ago – he will never find a backroom where it’s acceptable to conduct the public’s business. He said he worked hard to tear down those walls, and he was shocked and alarmed to hear people who called themselves progressives shutting others out of the process.

Outcome on Gunn’s amendment: The board passed the amendment to hold the budget retreats immediately following the board’s working sessions, and in the same venue, with dissent from Conan Smith.

Peterson’s amended amendment was then considered: To hold future retreats in conjunction with working sessions, and to hold administrative briefings in the boardroom, where they can be televised.

Both Judge and Prater argued that deliberations did occur during the briefings, and the meetings should be held in a more public venue. If there were no deliberations, Judge said, she’d have no problem with the meetings held where they are now. But “it has not been that way since I’ve been there,” she said. They’ve done a lot of the people’s business in that small conference room, and it’s made her very uncomfortable. Prater said the briefings are really unnecessary – Bidlack could simply review the agenda with the three board leaders: the chair of the board (Conan Smith), the chair of the ways & means committee (Rolland Sizemore Jr.), and the chair of the working sessions (Yousef Rabhi).

Conan Smith weighed in, saying he wasn’t supportive of Peterson’s amendment. Deliberations could and should happen in different contexts and environments. They have different kinds of conversations that don’t happen at the boardroom table – that’s important for good government, he said. The intent of the Open Meetings Act isn’t to situate people physically or require televised meetings, Smith said. It’s to ensure that when they make a decision, it’s done in public. “The process of deliberation isn’t subject to the Open Meetings Act,” he contended. When they face contentious topics – as they inevitably will, he said – they need a space to have that kind of dialogue, to arrive at a solution.

Prater asked Hedger to review Smith’s statement. Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, clarified that deliberations are, in fact, subject to the Open Meetings Act. The exception is when the board holds an executive session, but that’s only limited to certain purposes, he said. But both deliberations and decision-making are subject to the OMA.

Saying she agreed that briefings shouldn’t be used for deliberations, Gunn then proposed setting a new rule to limit discussion at those meetings. Hedger advised dealing with this at the next ways & means committee meeting, since it would be setting board policy. [The board's ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve, immediately precedes its regular board meetings. Resolutions are first reviewed and voted on at ways & means before being considered for a final vote at the regular board meeting.]

Saying he meant no disrepect to Peterson’s past experience, Turner said he agreed with Conan Smith. The backroom meetings of past years, to which Peterson referred, weren’t open to the public or the press. The board’s briefings are, he said. Good deliberations happen there, he said – deliberations that wouldn’t occur in the more formal boardroom setting.

Gunn then proposed separating out the two issues in Peterson’s amendment, and suggested voting on the budget retreat first – to hold future budget retreats during working sessions.

Peterson clarified that the retreats would be held after the regular working session, and expressed dismay that such an important issue – the budget – would come last.

Outcome: The amendment to hold future budget retreats during working sessions passed, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

The discussion then focused on the administrative briefings. Peterson noted that he hadn’t attended one in years. [Since The Chronicle began covering the briefings when the publication launched in September 2008, Peterson has been the only commissioner who hasn't attended a single briefing.] He clarified that the briefing included an agenda, opportunity for public comment, and that minutes were taken. [The briefings are attended by deputy county clerk Jason Brooks, who records the minutes.]

Peterson said that until about eight months ago, he wasn’t aware that decisions were being made at these briefings – it didn’t used to be that way, he said. He’d found out that some of the things he advocated for – including the land bank – had been killed in the briefings. It’s a cop-out to say that the press is there, he added. They were elected to the board of commissioners, not the board of administrative briefings. He noted that the conference room where briefings are held is so small that there’s not enough room for the public to attend. “That’s not the way you do government business,” he said.

Regarding some commissioners who don’t feel comfortable having these informal briefings televised, Peterson said that those who make jokes about staff members “need to check yourself, because you need to stop.” Everyone should be respected, he said. And for those who are uncomfortable, they should get another job. “We’re not here for a comfort zone,” he said. “You find your loving at home.” The board isn’t a lovefest, he said, it’s a place to do the government’s business. He said he knows people are upset with him about raising these issues, but whatever he might say in private he’ll say in public, too.

Rabhi noted that he’d heard both his experience and his progressiveness called into question that night, and said he’d yield on the first issue. [Rabhi took office in January, and at age 22 is the board's youngest member.] What’s come out of this debate is the question of what an open meeting is, he said. Not everyone has a television or Internet connection – that’s not what makes a meeting open. He agreed that they should do the public’s business on television if it reaches more people, but he argued that they don’t do business at the briefings. He said he yielded on the question of his experience because perhaps deliberations have occurred in the past. He supported Gunn’s proposed rule change to limit discussion. He said he agreed strongly with Peterson about the importance of open government, but was approaching it a little differently.

Judge told Rabhi that lack of experience can be a positive thing – she didn’t intend it as a criticism. It brings new ideas and compromise, and she appreciated that. However, she said it saddened her to hear a public official say they can have better conversations when the cameras are off. She would hope they could have that dialogue at the boardroom table, noting that hundreds of employees are watching. She said she’d never be comfortable saying it’s better to do board business elsewhere. As for having dialogue, “if we all agree, then we’re probably not going our jobs.”

Turner told his colleagues that he doesn’t often get passionate, but that he was now. Pounding his fist on the table, he said the briefings aren’t “backroom” meetings – they’re open to the public. What’s more, he said, “I have never talked about anybody’s character or said anything derogatory about staff members.”

Peterson, who sits next to Turner, said that in his remarks he wasn’t referring to Turner.

Turner again said he didn’t care if any of the meeting are televised, but that it’s important to have the informal setting. He learns from the give-and-take, much more so than in formal sessions. He noted that having served on the Chelsea school board for nine years, he’s very familiar with the Open Meetings Act. He knows that their discussions at briefings are open, but values the informality. “Please don’t take that away from me.”

Bergman agreed with Turner. If the meetings are more formal, the discussions will be taken out of view of the public and press, she said – it’ll become “telephone buzz.” She also objected to Peterson’s comparison of these meetings to racial or religious discrimination. Bergman, who is Jewish, said she’s been the subject of discrimination, when a house wasn’t sold to her family. “It ain’t the same,” she said.

At this point, Gunn called the question – a parliamentary move that prompts action on the motion that’s on the table. The motion to call the question passed, and a roll call vote was taken on the amendment.

Outcome: The amendment to the budget timeline/guidelines – to hold the administrative briefings in the boardroom, where they can be televised – failed, with support only from Judge, Peterson and Prater. The resolution adopting the budget timeline/guidelines was later approved as part of the regular agenda.

Misc. Communications, Commentary

There were several communications from commissioners, and one speaker during the regular board meeting’s time for public commentary.

Public Commentary

Raymond Mullins introduced himself as co-founder of The Loyal Opposition to the Status Quo (LOSQ), a nonprofit group launched to address disparities between African-Americans and Caucasians, including the academic achievement gap, imprisonment and poverty. [Mullins, former president of the Ypsilanti/Willow Run chapter of the NAACP, spoke on the same subject at the January 2011 meeting of the University of Michigan board of regents.] He said he was there to plug the group’s Fourth Annual Celebration of African-American Life in Washtenaw County, on Feb. 26 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Peace Neighborhood Center in Ann Arbor. They’re inviting the whole community, he said, not just African Americans. The free event will feature panel discussions and exhibits, and will highlight accomplishments of people from Washtenaw County who’ve distinguished themselves in ways that aren’t widely known. Mullins told the board that he hoped this was the start of a beautiful friendship.

Rob Turner said he’d met Mullins at the recent African American Writers Celebration at the Ypsilanti District Library, and he plans to attend the Feb. 26 event as well.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. suggested that Mullins contact the B.Side – an entrepreneurial program at Eastern Michigan University. He described the B.Side as an excellent program led by Jack Bidlack, the husband of Joanna Bidlack, who works in the county administration office.

Communications from Commissioners

Several commissioners gave liaison reports from the committees and commissions on which they serve, as well as other various communications. Highlights include:

• Conan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. both serve on the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission. Smith reported that the commission recently approved $600,000 in grants for the Connecting Communities trail program. The projects include one in Pittsfield Township that will be part of a non-motorized path eventually connecting Saline to Ann Arbor. Sizemore noted that the commission also approved $250,000 for a project to build a boathouse, to be used by crew teams, and a fishing dock on Ford Lake. The project is in partnership with the state and Eastern Michigan University, he said. Kristin Judge noted that it will be the only boathouse in Michigan that’s ADA compliant, and she thanked Sabrina Gross of Pittsfield Township for her efforts on the project.
• Rob Turner, a liaison to the Washtenaw County Road Commission, said the road commission is hoping that the rest of the winter is a mild one, given their budget constraints. [.pdf of 2011 road commission budget] Two mechanics are retiring and the commission is replacing them – they’re down to six mechanics, he said, though the standards for their fleet size call for 11.
• Yousef Rabhi gave reports from two groups: the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority is moving to single-stream recycling, which Ann Arbor adopted last year, and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) has changed a policy toward employees, becoming an at-will employer. He also reported that Gretchen Driskell, the mayor of Saline, is urging local officials to contact state and federal representatives to advocate for keeping the Community Development Block Grant program. Communities in the county receive several million dollars each year in federal CDBG funds, but the program is targeted for deep cuts in the proposed federal budget.
• Wes Prater, a liaison to the county’s public health advisory board, highlighted a letter from a resident of Lodi Township, Melissa Higgs, regarding the county-certified inspection of a water and sewage disposal. [.pdf of Higgs' correspondence] Prater said the letter, which is highly critical of the county operations, troubled him. He asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to make sure that someone followed up on it.

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

Next meeting: The board’s administrative briefing, to preview the March 2 agenda, will be held on Wednesday, Feb. 23 at 5:30 p.m. in the offices of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The board’s next regular meeting is on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

At left: Ted Annis, AATA board treasurer, and board member Jesse Bernstein, right. (Photos by the writer.)

The discussion began with a gentle ribbing of the board’s treasurer, Ted Annis, who was asked: “Have your feelings been hurt?” It ended, however, with a serious philosophical discussion about the difference between a body consisting of appointed board members compared to one composed of elected officials.

Over the next few months, the board will begin a conversation in earnest to change its meeting location to the Ann Arbor District Library and its time to Thursday evenings.

A development not explicitly discussed at the board meeting, but nonetheless connected to it, is the fact that the AATA will begin providing board packets in their native digital text – until now, the documents have been available in electronic form, but only as image scans.

Treasurer’s Report

The question of the treasurer’s report prompted a conversation that eventually led CEO Michael Ford to agree with board member David Nacht’s description of it as “healthy.”

Treasurer’s Report: Background

Coinciding with the October start of the AATA’s fiscal year, at its September 2009 meeting the board engaged in the annual exercise of electing new officers. That included election of board member Ted Annis as treasurer.

Since taking over as treasurer, Annis has submitted one-page treasurer’s reports:

• Treasurer’s report: Oct. 29, 2009
• Treasurer’s report: Dec. 8, 2009
• Treasurer’s report: Jan. 11, 2010

The October report focused on the budget context within which a consultant should work – the consultant would design a countywide transit system. The December report focused on transparency issues, with specific recommendations to increase the kind and quality of information available on the AATA website, and a recommendation to change the venue of the board meetings. The January report recommended the hiring of a chief financial officer.

Annis was unable to attend the January 2010 board meeting due to illness. But in an email sent to CEO Michael Ford and cc-ed to other board members before that meeting took place, he expressed some frustration that the January treasurer’s report was not part of the board packet:

Michael,

Board packet arrived today, no Treasurer’s Report included. (Note that I sent it to you and the Board on 11 Jan, see below.) Please update the Board packet.

Second time this has happened.

Treasurer’s Report: Discussion

At Wednesday’s meeting, then, Annis broached the topic by asking that the treasurer’s report be put back on each month’s agenda. Responding to David Nacht’s “Have your feelings been hurt?” ribbing, Annis deadpanned: “I’m the treasurer, I don’t have feelings.”

Though Ford said he took responsibility for the issue, board chair Paul Ajegba put the responsibility on the board’s governance committee, which includes Ajegba.

[Per the AATA board bylaws, the governance committee includes the board chair (Paul Ajegba), and chairs of the other board committees (Jesse Bernstein, who chairs the performance monitoring and external relations committee; and Rich Robben, who chairs the planning and development committee), plus the "executive director," which is Michael Ford. The job title for Ford is actually CEO, but previously his position had been called "executive director."]

After Ajegba said that the governance committee had discussed the matter, Annis took Ajegba’s remarks to indicate that the treasurer’s report would be included in future board agendas. Annis noted, “The bylaws require the treasurer to make a report, so if we’re putting it back, good.”

However, Ajegba resisted committing to that, saying that they would be included “as needed.” Annis stated, “That’s not what the bylaws say.”

The board chair prior to Ajegba, David Nacht, then weighed in, declaring, “I have something to say about this.” Nacht noted that the board had transitioned to a working style where the material considered by the whole board had been worked through at a committee level – it had been vetted in some sense by the committee process. There was, Nacht said, some sense of consensus that developed on matters brought before the whole board. Continuing, Nacht noted that Annis’ reports had been substantive, and to some extent that could be seen as undermining the ability of the committees to do their part.

That being said, cautioned Nacht, there is a reason for the treasurer’s report in the bylaws – it’s supposed to be more than just a dollars-and-cents accounting, and the treasurer should have the ability to report directly to the board. It all depended, Nacht said, on what the report includes: Is it more philosophical or is it more dollars and cents? To the extent that the content of the treasurer’s report amounted to a dissenting opinion on board policy, Nacht said, it shouldn’t come in the form of a treasurer’s report.

Annis, as he listened to Nacht, stated: “I’m not in agreement with what I’m hearing.”

Ajegba confirmed that the concerns and issues outlined by Nacht had reflected the thinking of the governance committee. Annis objected to that way of thinking, describing it as too restrictive. He said that his report ought not to disappear and that it should not be suppressed: “I think you ought to suck it up and listen to it.”

Jesse Bernstein, who serves on the governance committee, said they had not suppressed anything. The treasurer submits a report, Bernstein said, and the question is how do they implement the treasurer’s communication. Ajegba added, “We’re not trying to censor.” Bernstein appeared to make a gambit at reconciling differences by saying, “We’ve got to get this clear among all of us.”

Annis again appealed to the board’s bylaws: “If you don’t want to hear from the treasurer, change the bylaws.” Nacht said he didn’t think it was true that the bylaws needed changing. In addition to the financial data – How much did we spend? – there was room for comment that is fairly included in a treasurer’s report, said Nacht.

Annis, alluding to the fact that Nacht is an attorney, said, “Counselor, let me read from the bylaws: ‘The Treasurer shall submit to the Board, and comment on, …’” Annis stopped at that point, but Rich Robben, who also serves on the governance committee, prompted him to continue: “On what?” Annis then finished the sentence: “… monthly budget-expenditure reports prepared by management.”

Bernstein again made a gambit to reconcile, suggesting to Annis that “you and I sit down and come up with the best way to do this to make sure comments are shared.” Annis replied: “Do you want to hear an independent treasurer’s report?” Bernstein’s answer: “I want us to be a team.” Bernstein said he wanted to maximize board and staff time to get solutions.

Annis then acknowledged Bernstein’s effort to reconcile, saying, “We don’t have to beat it up any more at this point.” Nacht summed up by calling it a “healthy conversation.”

Nacht then offered a comparison between the AATA board and the mayor and city council as playing a “watchdog role” for citizens. Where the two bodies differed, cautioned Nacht, was in the fact that the AATA board was not a legislative body: “No one elected us to express an opinion. We’re a governing board.” Nacht said he tried to look out for riders who use the bus system not by choice, but that fundamentally the role of the board was to govern. And governing, Nacht declared, “is a communal activity.”

CEO’s Reaction to Treasurer’s Report Discussion and More

On the heels of the board discussion of the treasurer’s report, Nacht asked CEO Michael Ford for his broad impression of the AATA after having been on the job for a little more than a half a year – Nacht said he’d not told Ford he was going to ask him that.

Ford began by citing the discussion that they’d just had on the topic of the treasurer’s report, characterizing it as “healthy.”

Continuing, Ford said that the AATA staff is geared up to do a lot of work and that there is a lot more work to do, based on the challenges he’d heard outlined in a visit to the state capitol that day. In remarks made earlier in the evening, Ford had said he’d been to Lansing and had met with State Rep. Pam Byrnes (D-District 52) to discuss ways to secure funding. Among the topics they discussed was the gas/diesel tax. She was, Ford reported, interested in the AATA’s efforts to expand service countywide. He would be returning to Lansing the following morning to have breakfast with State Sen. Liz Brater (D-District 18).

Ford continued his response to Nacht’s question by saying that he kept in mind a question that Paul Ajegba had asked his job interview: What will you do if you don’t succeed? Ford’s answer could be summed up in a sentence, as “I’ll keep trying.”

The relevant excerpt from The Chronicle’s coverage of that April 22, 2009 interview:

Paul Ajegba: Michael, we are currently a bus organization. We are trying to integrate rail into our organization. Everything seems to be on track – no pun intended – to make that happen. If for whatever reason, politically or financially, it does not happen, how would you feel about that?

Michael Ford: Well, I don’t think I would give up. I think the important thing is that the project and the focus makes sense. I came from an organization, for example, TriMet is pretty well-known for its service. But the big thing in working with my former boss, Fred Hansen, who is the general manager there, is that he was able through his relationships to get funding, to  get money. The last budget that President Bush had, three of the four projects were funded in Oregon, because of some diligence. To answer your question, I wouldn’t want to just give in to that. I would look at other alternatives, look at what else we could do. Maybe the timing won’t be right. But I think if we’re going to address the needs of Ann Arbor and the region we are going to have to get to that point. So I think we need to continue the discussions and all that. I don’t know if I would just feel defeated at that point. I just feel like I would keep trying and finding ways to do that.

Paul Ajegba: Even if it is beyond your control?

Michael Ford: Well, if it is beyond my control, in terms of just can’t get it done?

Paul Ajegba: As I said for political reasons or for financial reasons or for regional issues that you can’t have anything to do with, even if you can get money from Washington, but because the stakeholders are not coming together to make it happen, how would you feel about that?

Michael Ford: Well, I would be concerned. And I would be still looking to see what we could still do to try to make it happen. [...] I think that being able to carry a message of why this is important in getting other relationships and other people and other agencies to help support what you are doing and leveraging that is the best you can do. No, I would probably feel somewhat disappointed it didn’t happen.

Annis followed up Nacht’s question on Wednesday with a question about Ford’s goals and objectives. Ford indicated that he had been asked to run his set of goals and objectives through the board’s committees again, and he was doing that. Annis said he’d submitted suggestions for goals and objectives, and that if it turned out they did not “make the final cut” that he would like to know why.

Accessibility and Transparency

As noted, the December treasurer’s report focused on transparency and accessibility issues. The board discussed one possible step to be taken in that direction: moving its monthly meeting location from the AATA headquarters on South Industrial Ave. Another step was not mentioned at the meeting: creation of native digital board packets.

Accessibility: Board Meeting Time and Location

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Jesse Bernstein said that the committee recommended moving the board’s meeting location to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The advantage of the location, Bernstein said, was that it offered an opportunity to record the event for broadcast later on CTN – Community Television Network. Due to scheduling issues, he said, it would not be possible to make the broadcast live. However, he was looking at the possibility that live streaming could be made available on the internet.

A key part of the move would include a timing change. Instead of the third Wednesday of every month, Bernstein said, it would be necessary to switch to Thursday. He said the committee recommended that implementation not come until two months after a final decision had been made – that would allow sufficient time to alert the community.

Board chair Paul Ajegba noted that the change would require a change in the bylaws, and asked if the local advisory council had any concerns about the change. Michael Ford reported that he had reached out to the LAC to discuss their concerns about accessibility. The idea that the LAC might have accessibility concerns about the Ann Arbor District Library was puzzling to Nacht, who asked simply, “Why?”

Karen Wheeler, executive assistant with the AATA, clarified that there was concern about crossing the street, from the Blake Transit Center to the library, which is related in part to the construction project next to the library. With the former surface parking lot unavailable – the city is building an underground parking structure on what’s known as the Library Lot – there’s no place to park that would not entail crossing a street.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen weighed in on the topic by asking specifically: “Where will everyone park?” He noted that there was a certain element of irony that this would be a concern about a meeting of a transit authority board. But he noted that a number of AATA staff would need to find their way to the meeting, in addition to the board members and the public.

Also speaking during public commentary, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living clarified that drop-offs and pick-ups for para-transit are difficult at that location. She asked if the CTN studios, across the street from AATA headquarters, was a possibility. Bernstein shook his head, no.

Knitting is a common activity at Ann Arbor public meetings, and Wednesday's AATA board meeting was no different. No prizes are available for readers who can identify the knitter or the project.

The board did not have an item on its agenda to make a decision on moving the board meeting time and location, and did not take action on Wednesday.

Accessibility: Board Packets

AATA board packets have been available as scanned image documents for some time.

The work flow for stitching together a single electronic file containing  scanned images for the board packet is to take the assembled physical paper documents and feed them through a copy machine, which automatically scans them and creates a PDF file. In the future, the single electronic file will be created by knitting together the original electronic files using Adobe Acrobat.

Starting next month, board packets be available as native digital documents on the AATA website. Last month’s file was created retroactively – on the website it’s labeled as “Searchable Board Packet.”

The difference between the two electronic formats is the difference between having a picture of words, and actually having the words. Among the disadvantages of scanned images:

• They’re not machine searchable – it’s just a picture of text, not actual digital text.
• For vision-impaired people, who use a screen reader, there’s no text to read.
• The size of the resulting files is huge, thus slowing down access.
• Use of information from such files requires re-typing, instead of just copying and pasting.

The move to digital text will eliminate those disadvantages.

Survey Says!

The board had before it a resolution authorizing an increase in the contract with the vendor (CJI) who was to perform a series of three different surveys for AATA. The AATA had a grant from the Michigan Department of Transportation for up to $120,000 to cover the three surveys: one in Washtenaw County, one in Livingston County, and one conducted  on board the buses. The Washtenaw County survey of voter attitudes is complete, and results were presented at the last AATA board meeting. The on-board survey is also complete. Not yet done is the Livingston County survey.

The amount originally contracted was $96,000, which falls below the $100,000 mark – above that amount, the board must authorize the expenditure. The increase to $108,000 is explained this way in the board packet:

The [city manager] of Howell, Shea Charles, is responsible for coordinating the Livingston County survey. The survey was supposed to be conducted at the same time as the Washtenaw County survey, but was delayed because it took a long time for [city manager] Charles to gain local agreement on the questionnaire and the format. That finally occurred in January.

There is significant additional cost to CJI to conduct the two telephone surveys separately.

At first, the board members misunderstood the increase to be from $100,000 to $108,000, which caused Ted Annis to conclude that the overage was under 10%, so he was okay with that. On clarification that the increase was actually from $96,000 to $108,000, Annis allowed that it exceeded 10%, “but not by much.”

David Nacht said he’d found the presentation at the previous month’s board meeting of the survey results to be “unusually sound.”

Speaking during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen expressed his hope that the survey results for the other two surveys – the on-board survey and the Livingston County survey – would also be presented at a subsequent board meeting. He also said it was interesting that Livingston County officials had pre-approved the questions. An interesting question for the board to ask the vendor, suggested Mogensen, would be: What questions would you have preferred to ask?

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the increase in the contract for the survey work to $108,000.

Local Advisory Committee Charge

At  recent board meetings, Rebecca Burke, chair of AATA’s local advisory council, has indicated that LAC would be bringing a request to update the language of the LAC charge – words like “handicapped” needed to be replaced with “disabled.” On Wednesday, the board approved updates to the language. LAC is a body focused on advocacy for seniors and those with disabilities. From the LAC bylaws:

1. To provide input, review and comment on the Vehicle Accessibility Plan as required by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

2. To generate discussion, interpretation, and recommendations to the Board regarding any senior adults and persons with disabilities related issues of a significant nature.

3. To work with the AATA staff as directed by the AATA Board toward the achievement of the organization’s goals and objectives.

4. To report regularly to the AATA Board of Directors the activities, actions and recommendations of the Council.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change to the LAC charge.

Other Public Commentary

Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living (CIL) reported that the bus service in one direction into Research Park Drive, where CIL is located, had been running for a month and it was wonderful. She thanked the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, and the county road commission for their cooperation in getting the service put in. Now the challenge, she said, was to get service in the other direction as well.

Grawi also told the board that the next Annual Developmental Disabilities Conference was coming up in April and that it was important to get someone from the AATA to attend.

Thomas Partridge told the board that he’d arrive late [as public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting was starting] due to his attendance at the second county board of commissioners meeting of the month – it always coincides with the AATA’s monthly board meeting. He suggested the county board’s chambers as a possible location for AATA meetings, pointing to the  investment that had been made in technology for internet streaming and television broadcast there.

He encouraged the board to put a countywide millage on the ballot this November and not to use as excuses the general economic climate or the fact that the AATA had only recently hired a new CEO.

Present: David Nacht, Ted Annis, Jesse Bernstein, Paul Ajegba, Rich Robben

Absent: Charles Griffith, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 17 24, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]