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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equalization Report

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

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

Raman Patel, director of equalization for Washtenaw County.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some staff of the county’s equalization department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equalization Report: Board Discussion

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

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the equalization report.

Police Services Contract

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

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thompson Block Brownfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accommodation Tax Distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accommodation Tax Distribution: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Accommodation Tax Distribution: Board Discussion

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

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

Urban County Action Plan

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

Map of Urban County participants.

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

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

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

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

Urban County Action Plan: Board Discussion

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

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

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

Bond Re-Funding

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

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

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

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

Honoring Eugene Glysson

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

Ned Glysson, son of Eugene Glysson.

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

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

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

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

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

Telecommunicator Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Emergency Sirens

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

James Richardson of Scio Township.

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Budget

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: MPRI

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Smoking

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Homelessness

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: US-23

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

Communications & Commentary: Misc. Public Commentary

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

University of Michigan students spoke during public commentary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map of Urban County participants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

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

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

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

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) talks with residents who attended the county board’s May 1 meeting to highlight the deteriorating condition of North Territorial Road, which runs through Smith’s district. (Photos by the writer.)

The May 16 retreat is set for the county’s Learning Resource Center at 4135 Washtenaw Ave. – near the county jail complex – starting at 6 p.m. The meeting is open to the public and will be videotaped.

Peterson also questioned the content of the retreat. “If it’s a hug fest,” he said, “I don’t have to be there.” Board chair Yousef Rabhi told commissioners that the goal will be to set priorities for the upcoming budget. “It’s going to be work,” Rabhi said. “There aren’t going to be any hugs, unless somebody wants to give me a hug.”

Also at the May 1 meeting, the board gave final approval to authorize the development of a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. The vote was 7-2 vote, with dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Peterson argued that developing a budget is the main job for commissioners. “So we owe the taxpayers a rebate. I hope we cut our salaries in half … because there’s really a lot less work to do.” Though the planning cycle would be longer, the board is still required by state law to approve its budget annually – so that process wouldn’t change.

The board will get a better sense of the county’s financial status at its May 15 meeting, when county administrator Verna McDaniel will give a first-quarter update and a “state-of-the-county” presentation. One major factor is a pending decision for the board on whether to issue a $345 million bond to cover the county’s pension and retiree healthcare obligations. The board discussed that topic at a May 2 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $350M Bond Proposal."]

One item not on the May 1 agenda was raised during public commentary: The deteriorating condition of North Territorial Road, specifically a section running through Northfield and Salem townships. Residents have collected about 600 signatures on a petition urging the road commission to repair that stretch, and asked the county board to help address the problem “before somebody gets hurt or comes in here shouting or raving.”

County commissioner Dan Smith, who represents the district that includes Northfield and Salem townships, pointed out that there are possible funding mechanisms available to the county, including the possibility of levying a tax under Act 283 of 1909. A 1 mill levy in Washtenaw County would bring in about $13.8 million, based on 2012 property values, he said. He also noted that there’s a similar law on the books that appears to allow townships in Michigan to levy up to 3 mills for roads. That could bring in another $24.9 million throughout the county, he said. In total, about $38 million could be raised in Washtenaw County to fix the roads.

In other action during the May 1 meeting, commissioners gave initial approval to the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan.

The board also declared May 12-18, 2013 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day. Dieter Heren, police services commander with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, was on hand to accept the resolution on behalf of sheriff Jerry Clayton and all law enforcement agencies in the county. He reminded the board that on May 15 at 10 a.m. there will be a memorial service in the Washtenaw 100 Park in Ypsilanti to “honor the law enforcement officers who have fallen here in Washtenaw County while serving the community,” he said. The park is located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Ballard Street.

North Territorial Road

Several residents addressed the board to express concern about the deteriorating condition of North Territorial Road. The portions of most concern on the east-west road – located north of Ann Arbor – run through the townships of Northfield and Salem, east of US-23.

Bob Hlavacek told commissioners that he wanted to highlight the condition of North Territorial Road. People have been complaining about it for four or five years. They’ve talked to the county road commission and several county commissioners, he said, but the answer is that the county has no funds for repairing the road. “It’s no longer a waiting situation,” he said. “There’s patch upon patch, and there’s potholes that show up between the patches.” An untold amount of expense has been caused from vehicle damage, including damage to tires, rims and alignments.

People drive over the center line, dodging back and forth to avoid some of the roughest spots, Hlavacek said. The Northfield Township police aren’t happy about it. It would be very easy to lose control of a vehicle. Hlavacek said he and others have circulated a petition online and in person, and have about 600 signatures from people who are concerned about the road. The petition highlights the need to fix North Territorial between Spencer Road and Ridge Road.

Some of the people who signed the petition also made comments. Hlavacek said he wasn’t sure about the validity of the comments, but he wanted to pass them along. Specifically, some people think the lack of road repair is retribution for protests against a road commission proposal to put a facility at North Territorial and Earhart.

Bill Harley told commissioners that he and others have tried to understand the funding priorities of the county and state. There were people who had wanted to rally around this issue a couple of years ago, he said, but some people had argued that because the economy was bad and everyone was suffering, it was better to wait. North Territorial is a multi-community road, he noted, going west of the US-23 corridor and east to Plymouth and beyond. “It is not even close to being a road,” he said. It’s so bad that it’s causing road rage. Harley said he travels North Territorial multiple times a day, and had to replace the front end of his Ford truck for $1,300.

Harley told commissioners that he and others were at the county board meeting to beg for help. He noted that a roundabout was being built at 7-Mile and Pontiac Trail, which is needed “like a hole in the head.” And as bad off as Wayne County is, last year that county paved North Territorial up to the border with Washtenaw. “But Washtenaw has done absolutely nothing,” Harley said. “It looks like the priority for North Territorial Road is misunderstood.” He noted that advocates for the road repair have gathered 600 signatures without even canvassing neighborhoods, and he wanted to know what they should do with those signatures. He asked if there was anything that the county board could do, or anything else he and other residents can do “before somebody gets hurt or comes in here shouting or raving.”

Harley added that “we’ll do anything that’s positive.” Hlavacek asked whether it would be possible to get on the board’s agenda for a more formal discussion.

Arlene DeForest spoke on the same topic. She said she was from Salem Township and was representing the Washtenaw County Farm Bureau. North Territorial is one of the few roads that goes straight east and west, she noted, and when there’s a problem on the expressway, North Territorial is the alternative route. “We’re going to have some deaths pretty soon” because of the road condition, she said. DeForest likened the condition to a track at the General Motors proving grounds, where bad terrain is used to test vehicles. The road is narrow with no shoulder. She urged commissioners to drive the road and see for themselves.

North Territorial Road: Commissioner Response

Conan Smith thanked the speakers for raising this issue, saying he was certain the road’s condition didn’t reflect retribution by the road commission. He joked that it’s probably retribution for electing Dan Smith to the board. [Smith, a Republican, represents District 2, which includes Northfield and Salem townships. He and Conan Smith are not related.] C. Smith noted that the county board doesn’t have jurisdiction over the roads – that’s in the hands of the road commission. The road commission has a prioritization process for capital improvements, and he suggested that the residents talk to engineers at the road commission who could explain that process.

The prioritization process includes scoring the condition of local roads. The worst road in the county is at 9, C. Smith said. North Territorial is scored at 8, “so it’s already pretty high on their list of priorities for repair.” One of the problems is the expense, he noted. The road commission already has plans to spend about $9.5 million on North Territorial improvements, but most of that money isn’t secured yet, he noted. “I know that they’re keenly aware of the problem, and they’re seeking the additional state and federal funds that they need to do a reconstruct on that road.” This year, the road commission does plan to do about $300,000 worth of repairs on North Territorial, he added.

From left: County commissioners Conan Smith (D-District 9) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

C. Smith said the county board can let the road commission know that citizens are concerned.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., the county board’s liaison to the road commission, said he agreed that North Territorial is in bad shape. There’s a road in his district that’s in bad shape too. It’s all about the money, Sizemore said. He noted that one option would be for the township to levy a special assessment on property owners to raise money for the repairs. Sizemore told the residents that he’d be glad to work with them, but they weren’t the only ones with road problems in the county.

Dan Smith thanked the residents for making the trip to speak to the board. He’d heard these comments before, and reminded commissioners that he had raised this issue at the board’s March 7, 2013 budget retreat. Some new options have been provided by the state legislature, he noted, in terms of management and funding. “We haven’t really explored either of those options in detail yet,” he added.

D. Smith also pointed to an option that the board discussed but didn’t pursue a couple of years ago – an Act 283 levy for road funding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Poised to Reject Road Millage."] He noted that the board could choose to bring that forward again.

The road commission has made public a map that shows sections of roads in the county that would get attention if state funding is made available, D. Smith said – including three problematic sections of North Territorial, east of US-23. But no one knows if or when that funding might be available. Reconstructing a road that’s beyond repair is very expensive, compared to spending funds on maintenance, he said, so the road commission is trying to make sure roads that are in fair condition don’t deteriorate even more. “Unfortunately, it means a segment like North Territorial, which needs major repair, doesn’t get any attention.”

Andy LaBarre encouraged the residents also to contact their state representative and state senator. There are many proposals in Lansing, but nothing has been decided, he said. Input like this would be helpful. [Northfield and Salem townships are part of District 52 in the state house, represented by Rep. Gretchen Driskell. In the state senate, the area is part of District 18, represented by Sen. Rebekah Warren, who is married to Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith.]

Ronnie Peterson noted that the residents had asked specifically about how to proceed. Peterson asked the county administration to contact the road commission and request that a specific discussion take place about North Territorial. Residents are relying on county commissioners to be advocates for them on this issue, he said, so there should be a meeting on it. The county commissioners are elected by the people, and have the responsibility of appointing the road commissioners, Peterson noted.

Dan Smith suggested the Whitmore Lake High School theater as a suitable venue for a public meeting in that part of the county.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d follow up with the board’s liaison to the road commission, Rolland Sizemore Jr. Sizemore stated that he’d call the road commission “first thing in the morning.”

Conan Smith noted that in Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed funding for roads statewide, the amount for Washtenaw County includes funding for North Territorial that would cover about half of the cost for the project. That funding has not yet been approved, however. “So the more you can reach out to Lansing folks as part of your advocacy effort, the better,” he said.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith brought up the issue of Act 283 again, saying “I don’t think this horse is anywhere near dead.” He read from Act 283 of 1909: “It shall be the duty of the board of supervisors to raise a sufficient tax to keep any county roads or bridges already built in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for public travel.” He said he didn’t want to interpret what each of those words mean, but the general meaning seems pretty clear to him – that the county might have a mandate and might have the funds to execute that mandate.

From left: Commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Over the past two years, D. Smith said, he’s asked residents specifically about this possible tax levy. One of the common responses he’s heard is that if the county does the job right, people still won’t like the tax but they “won’t hate it as much.” People are frustrated when they see road repairs that clearly won’t last long, he said. “People see that as throwing good money after bad.”

A 1 mill levy in Washtenaw County would bring in about $13.8 million, based on 2012 property values, D. Smith said. He also noted that there’s a similar law on the books that appears to allow townships in Michigan to levy up to 3 mills for roads. That would bring in another $24.9 million throughout the county, he said. In total, about $38 million could be raised in Washtenaw County to fix the roads. Making a rough estimate of what these taxes could bring statewide, he said the amount that could total about $800 million.

Sizemore responded, saying he didn’t agree that there should be a countywide millage for road repair. He said he felt the same way about last year’s effort by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to create a countywide public transit system. He’s willing to work with the road commission and residents to address the roads, but he’s not willing to support a millage. He indicated that one factor was the uncertainty of other possible millages, like one that might be proposed for the new southeast Michigan regional transit authority.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

County Budget

Two items on the board’s May 1 agenda related to the next county budget, for the period beginning Jan. 1, 2014: (1) setting a board retreat for May 16; and (2) taking a final vote to authorize the development of a four-year budget.

County Budget: Updates & Retreat

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, reported that she would be giving regular updates on the budget development at each meeting. She said that she and board chair Yousef Rabhi attend the bi-weekly budget task force meetings, as well as other budget-related meetings. The finance staff has scheduled its first round of meetings with all county departments, with second rounds as needed, Brabec reported. And county administrator Verna McDaniel will be presenting a first-quarter financial update to the board on May 15, as well as a “state-of-the-county” report.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) is chair of the board’s ways & means committee, on which all commissioners serve.

Brabec noted that the board would be voting later that night on developing a four-year budget, and that on May 2 the board would be briefed on a bond proposal to fund the county’s pension and retiree healthcare liabilities. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates $350M Bond Proposal."]

Rather than the normal working session on May 16, the board would be holding another budget retreat. This one will be located at the county Learning Resource Center (LRC), 4135 Washtenaw Ave. – near the county jail complex.

Ronnie Peterson expressed concern about the location. He felt that all meetings – especially related to the budget – should be televised and held in the board chambers, so that the public can know where commissioners stand in terms of priorities and funding. It’s especially crucial if the county moves toward a four-year budget planning cycle, he said, adding that he had concerns about that process, too. [The board holds its regular meetings in the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor.]

Conan Smith responded to Peterson, saying that he struggles “in this room, to have the kind of conversation with all of you – with my peers – that lets me get to that prioritization process.” Smith said he’s been a big advocate for getting out of the boardroom to have that conversation, but he’s torn on this issue. He wants the board as a team to work in a productive space, while at the same time giving the public access to those conversations. It might be doable to televise the retreat at the LRC, he said, noting that late last year, the interview process for appointments to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority had been held at the LRC and were videotaped.

C. Smith felt that the retreat was an opportunity for the board leadership to hear the views of other commissioners, but that the formal budget conversation would happen during a regular meeting in the boardroom.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi said it wasn’t his intention to take the retreat off camera or off the record. He stressed that the board is “always on the record.” The meetings are open to the public, and minutes are taken. The May 16 retreat is at a location that’s on a bus route, he noted, so that it’s more easily accessible. The point of having it at a different location is to “create a different environment for dialogue.” He said they were going above and beyond the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, but he was willing to explore options for recording the retreat – perhaps with audio or video recordings.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, reminded commissioners that when the boardroom had been renovated several years ago, meetings were held in the LRC and had been televised. So that capability exists, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. didn’t think the previous retreat format had worked well. “You guys probably have the votes to do the [four-year] budget and you guys have probably got the votes to go out and get the $350 million [bond] that you guys plan on doing, so I’m not inclined to go anywhere where we’re not on camera … I think the public deserves to know what goes on.”

From left: Commissioners Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Sizemore also wondered why the retreat wasn’t being held at SPARK East in Ypsilanti. Rabhi replied that the LRC was chosen because it’s the largest county facility – other than the boardroom in the downtown administration building – that could handle a larger crowd. He said he wasn’t opposed to exploring other locations.

Peterson said it was important to outline what would happen at the May 16 retreat. “If it’s a hug fest, I don’t have to be there.” If the meeting is about setting county priorities, then he’d be interested in it. He also stated that if the meeting isn’t televised, he wouldn’t attend – he said he’s been very consistent about that. Meetings shouldn’t be held “in the shadows,” especially in discussing a budget that extends beyond the commissioners’ terms in office. [County commissioners are elected for two-year terms. The proposed budget planning cycle would extend for four years.]

Peterson also noted the magnitude of the possible $350 million bond proposal, saying the public should be fully informed about that.

Andy LaBarre pointed out that the board would be discussing the bond proposal at the May 2 working session, and he suggested that comments and questions about that would be best saved until then.

Replying to Peterson, Rabhi said he wanted to be “crystal clear – we do not do business in the shadows. We do business in the public eye.” Minutes are taken, the press and public are invited, and most meetings are on camera, he noted. Rabhi said he’s never served on any other board that has held its retreat in a boardroom. Retreats are typically held in other locations “to facilitate the retreat environment,” he said. The county board has also held previous retreats that weren’t televised, he noted. Even so, Rabhi said he’s willing to work with staff and commissioners to find a way to record the retreat proceedings above and beyond the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. The openness of meetings is a priority of his and of the board, Rabhi said.

Rabhi added that the retreat is not focused on the question of bonding. That discussion would happen at the May 2 working session, he said, as well as at upcoming board meetings. All of that will be televised, he said.

The retreat on May 16, Rabhi said, “will not be a love fest. It will not be a pat-on-the-back occasion.” It will be a chance for the board to delve into its general priorities for the budget. The last retreat generated a lot of ideas, he said. Now, the board needs to take those ideas and weight their priorities. “It’s going to be work,” Rabhi said. “There aren’t going to be any hugs, unless somebody wants to give me a hug.”

He said he appreciated Peterson’s request to hold the retreat on camera, and that they can explore the possibility. However, he added, “I think that it’s unfair to me for you to continue to harp on this, when I have already committed to you that we are going to be looking into this. I just feel that it’s inappropriate. You didn’t mention my name, but you are directing it at me, and I feel that it’s inappropriate. I need to say that on record.”

Rabhi said he hoped the retreat could help the board work with administration to set a budget that reflects the board’s priorities. It’s especially important since the administration will be developing a four-year budget, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) is chair of the county board.

Peterson replied that he tried not to direct his comments to anyone personally. But when someone directs a comment to him personally, they can “expect a personal comment back,” he said. He wondered whether there was a document that laid out the content of the May 16 retreat. Brabec responded, saying there wasn’t a written document yet for the retreat.

Peterson stated that when things are done outside of the boardroom, “it puts a shadow over it.” He said no one has been anointed to run things. “All of us are equal at this table as commissioners,” he added. Documents should be equally shared with all commissioners, he said.

Regarding the issue of appropriateness, Peterson said, “I will bring up any item I deem is appropriate, as a commissioner representing my respective district, no matter what anybody thinks.” He said he knows some people are trying to guide this process. “Forget about guiding,” he said. “Just do your job that you’re elected to do as commissioner. There’s no minority at this table.” Apparently directing his comments to Rabhi as board chair, Peterson said: “You’re only elected by your colleagues to serve in the capacity that you serve.”

Peterson also said that the bond proposal is part of the budget, so he would be talking about that throughout the budget process. “You’ll hear me talk about a lot of the issues that are important to me as a commissioner – no matter who likes it.”

County Budget: Setting the Retreat Date

Later in the evening, Rabhi put forward a resolution that canceled the May 16 working session and set the budget retreat for that date instead, to be held at the LRC. When Sizemore asked if the retreat would be televised, Rabhi replied that the intent is to make sure there would be some kind of recording. Sizemore repeated the question: “Is this going to be on video or not?”

At that point, Rabhi suggested taking a straw poll of commissioners on this issue. LaBarre said that if it’s possible to videotape the retreat, that would be great. But if it can’t be videotaped, he felt the board should still proceed with the retreat, making every effort to comply with the Open Meetings Act and the spirit of transparency.

Other commissioners indicated agreement to videotaping the retreat. Rabhi said they’d go ahead and videotape it.

Alicia Ping suggested adding the LRC’s address to the resolution setting the retreat. She noted that not everyone knows where the facility is located. Rabhi suggested putting the bus route on the public meeting notice as well. [AATA's Route #4 goes past the LRC at 4135 Washtenaw Ave.]

Peterson reiterated his position that all budget-related meetings should be held in the boardroom.

Outcome: The board voted to cancel the May 16 working session and set a budget retreat for that date instead at the Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., starting at 6 p.m. Voting against the resolution were Ronnie Peterson and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was out of the room during the vote.

After the vote, Rabhi stated that he wants to make sure everyone feels this is a collaborative environment, where everyone can share their thoughts and feelings about the process and about the way business is being done. He apologized if commissioners felt that he had reacted inappropriately to comments that were made during the meeting. He welcomed people to share their thoughts and concerns, “whether we agree or not.” He thanked commissioners for their work, and for sharing their values and the values of the people they represented.

County Budget: Four-Year Cycle

On the May 1 agenda was a resolution authorizing the development of a four-year budget planning cycle, a change from the current two-year cycle that’s been in place since 1994. The board had taken an initial vote on the issue at its meeting on April 17, 2013, with Ronnie Peterson dissenting and Rolland Sizemore Jr. absent.

The board had been briefed on the issue at a Feb. 21, 2013 working session. County administrator Verna McDaniel has cited several benefits to a longer budget planning cycle, saying it would provide more stability and allow the county to intervene earlier in potential deficit situations. [.pdf of McDaniel's Feb. 21 presentation] State law requires that the board approve the county’s budget annually, but a quadrennial budget would allow the administration to work from a longer-term plan.

County administrator Verna McDaniel and commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

With a two-year approach, larger cuts must be made within a shorter timeframe to address anticipated deficits. McDaniel has argued that a four-year plan would allow the administration to identify potential deficits at an earlier date, and target savings that would compound over the longer period, making the overall budget more manageable. Currently, the budget is being developed for 2014-2017.

Commissioners have noted that this approval provides direction to develop a four-year budget plan, but at any time the board can decide to revert to the previous two-year cycle. One of the main concerns mentioned by commissioners, including Peterson, is the fact a four-year budget cycle doesn’t synch with the two-year election cycle for terms on the board.

During the May 1 meeting, Dan Smith said he wanted to be perfectly clear that the board is simply allowing the process to move forward. He was reserving judgment about whether the final budget that’s produced should be adopted. “I’m certainly not saying that by voting on this [resolution] that I’ll be voting for a four-year budget.” But it’s good to continue exploring the possibility, he said. There are some good things about it, though he continues to have some serious concerns.

Sizemore asked for clarification about the timeline. McDaniel said the ultimate deadline for approving the budget is Dec. 31, so it would need to happen by the board’s last meeting in December. She plans to bring the budget forward much sooner than that, however, saying “the earlier, the better.” The process starts by meeting with the different departments in the county, she said, and the board will be updated along the way. At the board’s May 15 meeting, McDaniel will be giving an update on the county’s current financial situation for the first quarter through March, to set the stage for crafting the budget.

Sizemore said he hoped the budget wouldn’t be rushed through initial and final approval during the same meeting. He felt that this was happening too often with other items that come before the board.

Yousef Rabhi emphasized that even though the budget would be prepared for a four-year period, the board is evaluating the county’s financial condition on a quarterly basis. “We’re taking a far look down the road, but we’re also making sure that we benchmark the progress that we’re making.” He said he’d gotten some feedback that indicates people aren’t sure what the four-year budget is intended to do. People have concerns about how the board can adjust for changes that happen over the four-year period, such as fluctuations in tax revenues, he said. Rabhi indicated that there are ways the board will be able to make adjustments.

McDaniel also noted that a budget reaffirmation is required every year, and the board would have the opportunity to make changes at that point.

Peterson highlighted the fact that the four-year budget wasn’t a projection or strategic plan – it would be a budget, and the only way to change it would be by a majority vote of the board. McDaniel replied that the board has authority to review or change the process at any time.

Peterson pointed out that this would be the first time in the county’s history that a four-year budget would be developed. He didn’t know of any other municipality or government that used this approach. The projections could be off, he noted, especially because of changes in state or federal funding. Anything could happen in the gubernatorial or presidential election, and priorities could change. New technology will also result in changes to the government, he said. “I’m going to vote against this, because I don’t see how you can project that far out.”

Peterson said his view isn’t a reflection of the administration or finance staff – they’re just carrying out the wishes of the board, he noted. The board has responsibility to set the county’s priorities, but with a four-year budget, most of that responsibility will be gone. “So we owe the taxpayers a rebate. I hope we cut our salaries in half … because there’s really a lot less work to do.” The budget is the county board’s main task, he said, other than accepting the annual equalization report and making appointments to various boards and commissions.

From left: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Peterson contended that it would be difficult to modify a four-year budget. As an example, he noted that the emergency allocation from the county in response to last year’s tornado touchdown in the Dexter area would be more difficult to do, if there were a four-year budget in place. “With a four-year budget, that flexibility is not there,” Peterson said. Other unforeseen needs might include overtime for police services, technology infrastructure, or court costs. He hoped that the board would discuss the impact of a four-year budget with department heads and other elected officials. [The county board sets the budget for all county departments, including those led by elected officials: The sheriff, prosecuting attorney, treasurer, clerk/register of deeds, and water resources commissioner.]

Peterson said he wasn’t trying to make this a hostile discussion about the budget, but he didn’t see how it would be possible to develop a four-year budget.

Sizemore said he echoed Peterson’s concerns. He noted that the circuit court is asking for $2 million for a software update. “That just comes out of the blue, and I don’t know how we’re going to handle things like that if we have a four-year budget,” he said. The district court is over budget, he added: How will things like that be predicted, and where will the money come from to address it?

Alicia Ping clarified that the resolution in front of commissioners that night was authorizing the administration to develop a four-year budget. The board wasn’t voting on the budget itself, she noted.

Sizemore responded, asking why the board would tell the administration to develop a four-year budget if there weren’t already the votes to support adopting a four-year budget? That would be a waste of staff time, he said. Sizemore added that he wouldn’t support it. The vote is premature and the issue needs to be explored more before moving ahead.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to develop a four-year budget on a 7-2 vote. Dissenting were Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Urban County Strategic Plan

Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan were on the May 1 agenda for initial approval. [.pdf of draft strategic and annual plans]

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

Urban County Strategic Plan: Board Discussion

Conan Smith asked about whether there is any integration between the Urban County strategic plan, and the strategic planning of other county operations, such as the workforce development or community action boards.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED), said the best example of that integration is related to human services. A lot of the funding that the county gets for human services is administered through this process, he said. The strategic plan itself is fairly formulaic and general, following HUD’s requirements. But it’s integrated in terms of the synergy of activities, he said.

Lenart added that the next phase of OCED’s development as a department is to look for more intersections between economic development and workforce development. Human services and affordable housing have always been strongly linked, he noted, and going forward the OCED will look for more strongly integrating the other areas, too.

C. Smith said it might be interesting to “tease out” of this plan the relevant sections related to other citizen boards – the workforce development board and community action board – and to have a short presentation to each of those boards about the Urban County initiatives. He noted that integrating these areas was one of the reasons why the county merged the office of community development with the economic development and energy department.

Ronnie Peterson asked whether the Urban County budget would be coming before the board later this year. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that this Urban County budget is for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2013, “so I believe this is it.”

Peterson then expressed concern that the commissioners weren’t getting more time to review this budget. Lenart explained that it’s a five-year plan that identifies general categories of work, but OCED will bring forward specific projects within those categories each year. The five-year plan gives an estimate of the total anticipated federal allocation during that period. The more detailed budget is for only one year, starting July 1. He noted that this is the Urban County’s third five-year plan.

Peterson said he’d support the resolution on its initial vote that night, but he would have additional questions when it came for a final vote on May 15.

Felicia Brabec noted that HUD’s priorities are changing. Are those changes reflected in the Urban County’s plans? Generally speaking, Lenart replied, the OCED has set up a framework that will allow it to do the work it has traditionally done with this federal funding. If HUD’s priorities and funding levels change, then OCED would look at the scope of its programs and how those programs are prioritized in the face of decreasing revenues.

Alicia Ping said she supported the Urban County “110 percent.” Six of the 10 municipalities that she represents in District 3 are part of the Urban County, which makes those communities eligible for federal funding that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to receive. She was glad that OCED director Mary Jo Callan had recruited more municipalities to join the Urban County a few years ago.

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

Peterson spoke again, noting that federal funding is shrinking. At some point, the county will have to make up the difference if it wants these programs to continue – whether they are programs managed by OCED, or by other county departments. So the question then becomes “Where does the money come from?” he said. Peterson felt that this warranted a fuller discussion, because “eventually, the well will run dry.”

Conan Smith noted that the housing challenge is universal across the county – it’s a dispersed problem. In areas where problems are greater – on the far west side, or in the city of Ypsilanti and Superior Township – it’s important to start looking at systemic investment in housing and workforce development based on geography, he said. In reading the strategic plan, C. Smith said he was surprised at how dispersed the housing problem was. “I thought it would be more concentrated.”

Responding to some of Peterson’s comments, Brabec said she agreed that it was important to consider the county’s entire budget – including federal funding – and not just look at the general fund budget. The county needs to be concerned about declining federal and state funding too.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the Urban County five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan. A final vote is set for May 15.

Weatherization Grant

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to accept $185,654 in funds for the county’s weatherization assistance program. The unanimous vote at the board’s May 1, 2013 meeting, followed initial approval on April 17, 2013.

The funding roughly equals the amount of federal weatherization dollars that the county received in 2012, which was a decrease of about 65% compared to 2011 federal funding levels. The current funding is allocated through the 2013 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The county last received LIHEAP funding in 2010, but has received weatherization grants from other federal funding sources in the intervening years.

For the period from April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the program is expected to weatherize 27 homes. According to a staff memo, the work includes an energy audit inspection and follow-up inspection of the completed weatherization work, which might include attic and wall insulation, caulking, window repairs, furnace tune-ups, furnace replacements, and refrigerator installations. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 150% of federal poverty, which is about $35,325 for a family of four.

Outcome: Without comment, commissioners gave final approval to accept the weatherization funds.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Police & Corrections Week

Board chair Yousef Rabhi read a resolution declaring May 12-18, 2013 as Police and Correction Officers Week, and May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, in honor of the local police and corrections officer who have died in the line of duty. [.pdf of resolution for Police & Corrections Officer Week] The presentation was followed by a standing ovation from the board and staff.

From left: Greg Dill, Washtenaw County’s infrastructure management director; county administrator Verna McDaniel; and Dieter Heren, police services commander.

Dieter Heren, police services commander with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, was on hand to accept the resolution on behalf of sheriff Jerry Clayton and all law enforcement agencies in the county. He reminded the board that on May 15 at 10 a.m. there will be a memorial service in the Washtenaw 100 Park in Ypsilanti to “honor the law enforcement officers who have fallen here in Washtenaw County while serving the community,” he said. The park is located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Ballard Street.

Communications & Commentary: Medicaid Expansion

Andy LaBarre informed his board colleagues that he intends to bring a resolution to the May 15 meeting regarding Medicaid expansion. He said he’d be talking with commissioners individually about his resolution before then. He noted that at a recent meeting of the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, that board approved a resolution in support of Medicaid expansion. [LaBarre serves as the county's liaison to the AAA 1-B board.]

Responding to a follow-up email query from The Chronicle, LaBarre indicated that the resolution he plans to bring forward will state the county’s support for Medicaid expansion, highlighting some of its benefits.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

The plans indicate that the Urban County area is expected to receive about $2.7 million annually in federal funding, which will be used for these broad goals:

1. Increasing quality, affordable homeownership opportunities

2. Increasing quality, affordable rental housing

3. Improving public facilities and infrastructure

4. Supporting homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing services

5. Promoting access to public services and resources

6. Enhancing economic development activities

A public hearing had been held at the board’s April 17, 2013 meeting.

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

From left: Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann; Carla Sledge, Wayne County’s chief financial officer; Kelly Belknap, Washtenaw County’s finance director; and Pete Collinson, accounting manager for Washtenaw County. (Photos by the writer.)

The county’s finance staff, along with the auditor, Mark Kettner of Rehmann, highlighted several points, including a relatively dramatic increase in the general fund balance over the last few years – from $9.7 million in 2009 to $16.8 million at the end of 2012. Kettner also explained upcoming accounting changes that will require unfunded liabilities from the county’s pension and retirement healthcare plans – now totaling nearly $250 million – to be recorded in a different way, with more disclosure.

The new accounting changes – required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) – won’t begin until 2015, but commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) wondered whether the county could implement the changes sooner. It might be possible, Kettner replied, but “I don’t know why you’d want to do it.” He suggested that the board hold a working session to go over the upcoming changes in more detail.

Kettner also pointed out that the changes will affect government entities in different ways. For example, it’s likely that there will be more impact on the city of Ann Arbor, because of how its many “enterprise” funds might be affected and the implications that would have on outstanding bonds. At minimum, the changes will mean more work for finance staff.

Also at the April 3 meeting, commissioners voted to add 39 new jobs in the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, which provides mental health and substance abuse services to county residents. The work is primarily funded by the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System. Most of the new jobs are union positions. Dan Smith expressed concern about adding to the county’s payroll, but supported the resolution along with other commissioners in a unanimous vote.

The board also took an initial vote to dissolve The Washtenaw Ride. That Act 196 authority is a remnant of a failed attempt to create a countywide transit system last year. Efforts to expand the current reach of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority are still underway, but don’t require the structure that was put in place under Act 196.

The topic of public transportation was raised later in the meeting as well, as Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the county’s role in the southeast regional transit authority (RTA). The RTA was formed by the state legislature last year to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. There was not uniform support for Washtenaw County to be part of this effort, and it’s not yet clear what the impact will be on the AATA.

In other discussion, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) highlighted a proposal in front of the Ann Arbor city council regarding possible ordinance changes governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Depending on what the council decides, there might be implications for the county, he said, so he wanted to put it on the board’s radar. For background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “DDA Tax Capture Change Gets Initial OK” and “DDA Ramps Up PR after First Council Vote.”

Also briefly mentioned was a discussion that occurred at a late March county pension commission meeting, raising questions about the new labor contracts that the board approved on March 20, 2013. At issue is whether the county complied with a state law requiring supplemental actuarial analysis before pension benefit changes are adopted. The county administration subsequently conferred with outside legal counsel, and confirmed their view that no new actuarial analysis was necessary.

And although it wasn’t discussed at the April 3 board meeting, the recent labor contracts resulted in another issue related to compliance with state law: Elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners.

When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011. PA 297 restricts public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. The benefits were eliminated as of April 1.

Heidt noted that even if the contracts hadn’t been renegotiated in March, the benefits would have eventually been eliminated when the previous contracts expired at the end of 2013. She said the administration was very disappointed about the change, and continues to explore other options that serve the employees while complying with state law.

2012 Finance, Audit Reports

The main action of the April 3 meeting related to the county’s financials, including a report from the auditor, Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann. Chronicle readers will likely recognize his name, as Kettner oversees audits for several local government entities, including the city of Ann Arbor.

Part of the financial presentation included an award to the county. As she has for the past several years, Carla Sledge – Wayne County’s chief financial officer and past president of the Government Finance Officers Association – presented the county with a certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting for its fiscal year ending December 2011. The award is based on the county’s timely completion of its state-mandated comprehensive annual financial report, or CAFR. This is the 22nd year that Washtenaw County has received a certificate of achievement.

Pete Collinson of the county’s finance department also gave a brief presentation with highlights from the current set of reports. The financial reports presented to the board are:

• Washtenaw County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County single audit of federal awards for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Building Authority financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Department of Public Works projects financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Water Resources Commissioner financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System (WCERS) financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Money Purchase Pension Plan (MPPP) financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) financial statements for the year ended Sept. 30, 2012.
• Washtenaw County Employment Training and Community Services Fund (ETCS) financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012 (conducted by the accounting firm of Stewart, Beauvais & Whipple).
• Washtenaw County Employment Training and Community Services Fund (ETCS) single audit of federal awards for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012 (conducted by the accounting firm of Stewart, Beauvais & Whipple).

Collinson described the process of fiscal review leading up to the audit. Auditors arrive in January and stay for about five weeks, then work with county staff for an additional period to finalize the financial statements. The goal is to make a presentation to the board by the first meeting in April, he said. He joked that an audit “certainly isn’t something we’d choose to do” every year. An annual audit is mandated by the Michigan Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act (PA 2 of 1968), which requires it for local units of government with a population of 4,000 or more residents.

There are two components to the audit, Collinson explained: (1) an audit of financial statements for all of the county’s funds, including assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures; and (2) a “single audit” of all federal grants, to see if the county complied with federal requirements attached to those grants. Last year, he noted, the county received about $28 million in federal grants, “so it’s a significant part of our operation.”

The 206-page CAFR is the main document that’s produced as a result of the audit, Collinson said. He noted that the auditor has given the county a clean opinion.

He also highlighted the different sections of the CAFR. For example, a statistical section provides a range of trend data, including employee count, expenditures, revenues and other financial information. “It’s a helpful section to look at the trends over time,” he said. [.pdf of CAFR statistical section]

Collinson said he wouldn’t spend a lot of time on the general fund report, noting that the board had received a detailed update on 2012 year-end finances at its March 20, 2013 meeting. The general fund ended 2012 with a $2.3 million surplus, and a fund balance of $16.8 million – or 16.8% of annual general fund expenditures and appropriations. He characterized that position as very good, and in line with the minimum fund balance recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). It would be good to build on that, he added, but it was impressive to finally reach the minimum. “I didn’t think we’d get there in my years here,” he said.

From left: Commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Turning to the report on all of the county’s fund balances, Collinson noted that some funds are restricted and can only be spent for a limited range of purposes. All county fund balances totaled $102.275 million at the end of 2012. Of that, $31.989 million was unobligated. [.pdf of schedule of fund balances as of Dec. 31, 2012]

He also mentioned the CAFR’s schedule of long-term liabilities over the last five years. Primarily, those liabilities are debt – such as debt related to construction projects – and actuarial liabilities for the pension and retirement healthcare systems. [.pdf of long-term liabilities] The schedule of long-term liabilities shows that total liabilities have increased from $393.9 million at the end of 2008 to $446.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2012.

Collinson also highlighted the county’s state revenue-sharing reserve fund, which had a balance of $4 million at the end of 2012. That remaining amount will be spent in 2013, and the fund will “sunset,” he said. The state has reinstated revenue-sharing at a lower level, with the county getting about $2.8 million for the current year. That amount is expected to increase, he said.

New to the CAFR this year are changes that reflect the county’s implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statements 63 and 65. Certain items that were previously classified as assets are now called “deferred inflows.” And certain liabilities are now called “deferred outflows of resources.” In addition, the balance sheet (statement of net assets) is now called the statement of “net position.” Collinson joked that if he read the definition of these terms, it wouldn’t clarify things. He noted that the terms “assets” and “liabilities” have worked well for centuries, but GASB has decided to change the terminology. He characterized these changes as minor, though he noted that “bigger changes are coming down the pike.” [The reference was to implementation of GASB 67 and 68, which was discussed later in the meeting.]

Collinson reported that despite the economy, the county has maintained its AA+ bond rating with Standard & Poor’s, and an Aa2 rating with Moody’s. It’s the second-highest rating possible, he noted. The county administration hopes to secure the triple-A bond rating in the future.

Collinson concluded by introducing Mark Kettner from the accounting firm Rehmann, who reviewed the 2012 audit and answered questions from commissioners.

Kettner noted that the current report was “unmodified” – a new term that’s being used instead of the previous “unqualified.” Both mean that the audit was clean, which is the highest level of assurance for financial statements. He cautioned that “the auditor did not say that everything is OK.” That is, it’s not an opinion on internal controls or the county’s financial position. It’s an opinion that the financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with criteria that meet GASB principles, he said.

Kettner also highlighted some terminology changes that result from GASB’s new “clarity” standards. Like Collinson, he characterized the changes as subtle, adding that it created some “nuisance work” compared to previous statements.

Bigger changes are coming, however. About a month ago, Kettner said he met with county administration and board leadership to talk about the current report as well as upcoming GASB standards 67 and 68. It would take hours to explain, he said, but he summarized it as a very big change dealing with pension plans and retirement healthcare. It will require an extra actuarial report, more disclosure, and recording of liabilities in a different way.

He pointed to the current pension fund statement – on page 115 of the CAFR – and noted that the current unfunded actuarial liability of $101 million will be recorded in 2015 as a liability on the county’s governmental-wide financial statements. That won’t have as great an impact as it would if it were required to be booked as a general fund liability, he said. [.pdf of CAFR statement regarding pension fund] “It’s going to be a big pop into the financial statements,” he said.

Two years later, in 2017, the same thing will occur for retiree healthcare – the county’s Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA), a 501(c)9 trust established to pre‐fund retiree healthcare benefits. Kettner said the county will be booking that liability – now at about $148 million – on the governmental-wide financial statements. [.pdf of CAFR statement regarding VEBA]

There’s lots of lead time, Kettner said, but he suggested that the board hold a working session, and perhaps include the boards of VEBA and WCERS, to talk in more detail about what this transition will entail.

Kettner praised the county for completing its audit by the end of the first quarter, saying it’s as good as any publicly traded Fortune 100 or 500 company.

2012 Finance, Audit Reports: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked if there’s anything preventing the county from implementing GASB 67 and 68 standards sooner than required. There’s nothing to prevent that, Kettner replied, but “I don’t know why you’d want to do it.”

Smith said he’d like to do it in order to get a clearer understanding of the county’s financial picture, because the county will be forced to do it eventually. Kettner likened it to going to the dentist to get a root canal, and being offered the choice of doing it tomorrow or next week – you might want to put it off.

From left: Mark Kettner with the auditing firm Rehmann talks with Curt Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel.

The information about these liabilities is already provided in the CAFR, Kettner noted. The amount might change – either up or down – because different assumptions will be used under the new GASB reporting standards. The county will need to get a new actuarial report that uses a different set of assumptions. But he indicated that those changes likely won’t be dramatic. The main difference will be a greater amount of disclosures, and a booking of the liabilities under the governmental funds.

Kettner added that the county couldn’t implement the changes until it gets the necessary information from the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan, a statewide system. Although only a small subset of county employees are enrolled in MERS, that pension system still must be included in the county’s audit. He described it as a “triple whammy” for Washtenaw County, because the county will be required to include information for all three systems: MERS, WCERS and VEBA.

For MERS, the county will have to include information related to the entire MERS system, not just for the small piece of it that relates to county employees. So under the new standards, the county’s financial statements will need to include a listing of all MERS investments and the rate of return for those investments. Then, the county’s financial staff will have to calculate the county’s “slice” of those investments as part of their report. “So it’s going to be rather complicated, and I don’t expect that you’ll have MERS ahead of time,” Kettner said.

Kettner also questioned whether the actuaries hired by the county are prepared to handle this additional workload yet. “I hear what you’re saying,” he told Smith regarding an early implementation, “but I would really advise against doing it.”

Smith noted that if the liabilities are currently on the county’s balance sheet – what’s now called its statement of net position – then the net position would be negative. It would make the statement look significantly different, he said.

That’s true, Kettner replied, but the rating agencies – Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s – are well aware of this information, and they know that actuarial information is based on an educated guess. In addition, it won’t be as big of a hit to the county as it will to the city of Ann Arbor, Kettner said. For a city that has a higher number of enterprise funds – like water, sewer and other utilities – the pension and retirement healthcare liabilities will have to be allocated to those funds. “All of a sudden those funds are going to get significant charges, and it could push them into a fund deficit,” Kettner explained.

The minor impact could be a requirement from the state to do a deficit elimination plan. But there’s potential for greater impact: If those enterprise funds have revenue bonds that are still being paid off, there might be covenants in those bonds stating that the funds can’t operate with a deficit. If that’s the case, Kettner said, then the city would need to figure out how to address it, which might entail rate increases. “That’s not going to go over very well,” he said.

The changes will hit governmental entities differently, he said. For the county, it will hit them in the governmental funds, “and to be honest with you, some people don’t even pay attention to those. Rating agencies are more concerned about your general fund, and any significant proprietary [enterprise] funds.”

Continuing his questions, Smith then highlighted a sentence from the CAFR, included in the notes on the pension system. He read it aloud, and asked Kettner to clarify. That sentence states: “However, for purposes of calculating the annual required contribution (ARC), the System uses the aggregate cost actuarial funding method, which does not identify or separately amortize unfunded actuarial liabilities.” Kettner explained that the county is using a different approach in its calculations to determine an annual required contribution to the pension plan, compared to what’s required as a GASB disclosure.

Smith indicated that he had other questions and comments, but he understood that Kettner’s scope was limited to the report of financial statements, not to the actual financial condition of the county.

Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Pete Collinson to elaborate on his remarks about the county’s fund balance.

Collinson noted that for many years, the fund balance was around $4 million, which would barely cover more than a couple of weeks of operating costs, he said. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel had tried to add to it every year, to build the fund balance slowly. In the last couple of years, the growth in the fund balance has been much greater, he said, from about $7 million to the current $16.8 million. [According to data provided in the CAFR, the general fund balance grew from $7.4 million in 2003 to $9.7 million in 2009, then jumped dramatically to $15.3 million in 2010.] Collinson called it a good surprise to reach that amount.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) called the CAFR interesting, but noted that “the weeds can get tall pretty quick.” He was glad the county has a staff that’s “able to wade through those weeds” and provide answers to questions that commissioners might have. The work that the staff does is very valuable, he said.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith made some additional comments on the CAFR, reflecting more on the county’s financial condition. He praised the staff, saying that even though many people were involved, the documents were unified with a consistent style that made it seem as though the same person wrote it.

Smith highlighted page 178 of the CAFR, with a chart comparing the county’s principle taxpayers in 2003 through 2012. [.pdf of Washtenaw County's top taxpayers] The county has a much broader tax base now than in 2003, he noted. Nine years ago, the top 16 taxpayers made up 9.89% of the county’s tax base. Now, that percentage is down to 6.88%. In 2003, several taxpayers represented more than 1% of the tax base. In 2012, no taxpayers are paying more than 1% of the county’s tax base. “I think that bodes well for the long-term future of the county,” Smith said.

The county’s top five taxpayers in 2003 were Pfizer, Visteon, General Motors, Detroit Edison and MichCon. By 2012, three of those – Pfizer, Visteon and General Motors – were not even in the top 16. The top five taxpayers in 2012 were Detroit Edison, McKinley Associates, Toyota, MichCon and Ford.

On pages 184-185, Smith pointed to a list showing the total debt across the entire county, including school districts, libraries, municipalities and other government entities. [.pdf of direct and overlapping debt table] The debt totals about $1.3 billion. If you divide that amount by the number of county residents, it works out to just $3,773 per person, Smith noted. If it was divided by parcels or taxpayers, that number would go significantly higher, he added. [Debt-per-capita is a factor weighed by bond rating agencies.]

Smith also highlighted page 23 of the audit for the office of the water resources commissioner. The office uses a straight-line amortization schedule of 50 years for its infrastructure. He noted that some of the county drains are well beyond that age, so there’s a building infrastructure deficit. It’s already clear that there are problems with roads, he said, and some of the county’s drains will likely start to collapse and fail as well. He pointed to a situation in Superior Township last year where a drain had not been maintained and it slowly sedimentized. The 50-year amortization schedule roughly equates to the lifespan of the county’s drainage infrastructure, Smith noted.

In wrapping up the discussion of financial reports, county administrator Verna McDaniel thanked the staff for their work. She thanked Dan Smith as well “for appreciating the CAFR to the extent that he does.” She joked that because she knew he would read the CAFR closely, “I read this darn thing front-to-cover myself.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Jobs for Mental Health Services

A resolution was on the April 3 agenda to create 39 new jobs and reclassify 76 others for Washtenaw County’s community support and treatment service (CSTS) department.

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

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

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

Jobs for Mental Health Services: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he supported the move. There’s a lot of need that often goes unmet in other communities, but the county rises up to the challenge, he said. CSTS has been seeing more customers, even though its staffing level has been relatively flat, he said.

The need for more staff is crucial, Rabhi said, because it means better service for people in the community. It will also mean a net increase in union jobs, he noted, which he said he is very supportive of. He also praised the fact that some of the people who have been doing these jobs on a temporary basis will now have permanent, full-time positions. “And as a temporary employee, I can tell you that being a temporary employee is no fun.” [Rabhi works for the city of Ann Arbor's natural area preservation (NAP) program.]

From left: County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7). Both represent districts in Ann Arbor.

Even in the face of shrinking government, Rabhi said, this proves that government is still relevant and necessary for this kind of service, because there is no private market to provide it. “We need to be there for those folks,” he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) said she wanted to echo Rabhi’s comments. It’s an important move for mental health stability in the community, for residents as well as workers. She asked for an explanation of where the money to fund these positions is coming from.

Tim Florence, CSTS medical director, reported that WCHO is the funder for these kinds of mental health services, and CSTS is the service provider. No county general fund dollars are being used.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) wondered if the additional staff would be serving a specific geographical region. He said he’s interested in “providing services where services are needed.” Florence replied that WCHO/CSTS are responsible for providing all medically necessary services for county residents on Medicaid. Recently there has been a push to engage in more outreach, he said, especially in areas where there might be opportunities to expand services. Those areas include the 48197 and 48198 zip codes, he said. [That's a reference to the Ypsilanti area, which is part of Peterson's district.] But the services are provided to anyone in the county, he added, regardless of location.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked Florence to explain the restructuring that occurred in 2002, and wondered if there would be another restructuring locally as part of a broader statewide initiative. It was his understanding that Washtenaw County is being left untouched by a statewide restructuring, “and I think that speaks to our strength in terms of this service provision,” LaBarre said.

Florence explained that the WCHO is the community mental health service provider for this county, going back to the year 2000. The county board and University of Michigan formed this freestanding entity to provide mental health and substance abuse services to people with Medicaid, as well as to the uninsured. In 2002, there was a change made by the state Dept. of Community Health, which provides funding to WCHO. The state created PIHPs – pre-paid inpatient health plans – which basically set up a managed-care structure for these services, Florence said. The WCHO became the PIHP for Washtenaw County, as well as for other surrounding counties. The WCHO contracted with CSTS, which actually provided the services.

Now, the WCHO is trying to ensure that CSTS has the tools it needs – including administrative resources – to deliver these services, Florence said. There are some functions previously provided by WCHO that will move over to CSTS, he explained. Regarding the broader statewide restructuring, the number of PIHPs has decreased, he said, but Washtenaw County has been untouched by that change. He felt the county could help inform the state about ways to integrate mental and physical healthcare, which he called a wave of the future.

Florence noted that CSTS is serving about 40% more people today than it was 5 years ago, but staffing hasn’t increased.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) expressed concern about adding to the county’s employee base. The county isn’t close to being out of the woods financially, he said, and in the not-too-distant future there will be about $250 million impacting the county’s bottom line. [The reference was to an upcoming change in how pension and retirement healthcare liabilities will be accounted for on the county's financial statements.]

The current budget is based on continued declines in tax revenues, he noted. With the additional CSTS jobs, plus the two jobs added in information technology and water resources [on a vote taken at the same April 3 meeting], the total county headcount will reach about 1,375. That will be the highest headcount since 2008, he said. The county could be faced with the “unsavory” prospect of letting people go, he said, which no one wants. He also noted that the employees with union positions could have various bumping rights. [A “bump” is a union term referring to reassignment based on seniority.]

“I’ll be supporting this,” Smith concluded, “but I am still very, very cautious and leery about increasing the county’s headcount at this time.”

Peterson pointed out that the funding is revenue-driven, coming from dollars that are outside of the general fund. Public health services have avenues for resources that haven’t been available before, he said. These are long-term dollars from outside the general fund, Peterson added, and that’s why he’s supporting it.

However, Peterson also noted that he had in previous years raised concerns about the creation of the WCHO. He said he’s an advocate of mental health services, but he believes only one entity should be responsible for the delivery of services. The costs should be directly related to delivering services, not for administrative overhead, he said. “There are two separate entities here,” he said. “I won’t get into how much these two separate entities cost, because I don’t want to put somebody on the spot.”

Florence explained that all services provided by CSTS are those delegated to it by the WCHO. To date, there were a limited number of services that hadn’t been delegated, however, including “front door” services like intake and assessments, as well as crisis care and 24/7 phone access. Those services will now be transferred to CSTS, he said. Peterson replied that he was glad to hear it.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the creation and reclassification of CSTS jobs. Commissioners Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith were absent. A final vote is expected on April 17.

New Jobs in IT, Water Resources

Final authorization to create two new jobs – in IT support and water resources – was on the April 3 agenda. The items had received initial approval on March 20, 2013.

The water resource specialist will work in the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. The job is authorized at a salary range between $30,515 to $40,253. According to a staff memo, the position is needed due to heavy drain construction activity and an increase in soil erosion application inspections. The job is described as a revenue-generating position, bringing in an estimated additional $41,337 in each of the first three years, and a minimum of $15,000 annually after that. The staff memo indicates that the office has identified reductions within its budget to offset the increased cost of the position.

Pratt had attended the March 20 meeting and told commissioners that the construction activity is primarily in the city of Ann Arbor, which is paying for the work. He had described the change as “budget neutral,” saying this was the most cost-effective way to proceed, by shifting some responsibilities elsewhere within his office.

The IT system support technician was authorized at a salary range between $37,464 to $52,355. According to a staff memo, the new position is needed to provide back-up for the IT help desk and other staff support. It will be funded from IT contracts and a structural reduction of $32,647 in the tech plan appropriation.

Outcome: The creation of two jobs in IT and water resources won unanimous final approval, without discussion. Three commissioners – Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith – were absent.

Public Transit: Dissolving The Washtenaw Ride

Taking a step officially to end an effort that stalled last year, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to dissolve a countywide public transit authority known as the Washtenaw Ride.

The Act 196 authority, created in mid-2012 and spearheaded by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, never gained traction and was for all practical purposes ended late last year when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. Of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti is the only one that hasn’t opted out.

Commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

The April 3 resolution was similar to one that county commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) had considered bringing forward in November of 2012, though he decided not to pursue dissolution at that time. [See Chronicle coverage: "End of Road for County Transit Effort?"] The April 3 resolution would rescind the board resolutions that created the transit authority, and request that the state legislature also take action to dissolve the Washtenaw Ride, in accordance with Attorney General Opinion #7003. That AG opinion stated that “the dissolution of a transportation authority organized under the Public Transportation Authority Act requires an act of the Legislature and may not be accomplished by the unilateral action of the city in which it was established.” [.pdf of AG opinion 7003]

The county’s role in creating the transit entity had been laid out in a four-party agreement with Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and the AATA, which commissioners approved on Aug. 1, 2012 in a 6-4 vote. Subsequent revisions involving the other entities resulted in the need for a re-vote by the county board, which occurred on Sept. 5, 2012.

There are two other transit efforts now under way. Washtenaw County is part of a southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) created by the state legislature late last year. The RTA was formed to coordinate regional transit in the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw.

Separate from the RTA effort, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. It would be a smaller effort than the previous attempt at countywide service. The AATA hosted a meeting on March 28 to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle advance coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

Outcome: The initial vote to dissolve The Washtenaw Ride was approved unanimously, without discussion. Three commissioners – Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Conan Smith – were absent. A final vote is expected on April 17.

Public Transit: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

The issue of public transit was also raised later in meeting, during one of the opportunities for communications from commissioners. Ronnie Peterson asked about the regional transit authority (RTA): When was the board going to discuss the county’s role in that effort, or in any alternative approaches to public transit?

Yousef Rabhi replied that he had attended the recent meeting of “urban core” communities, facilitated by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The group – which included representatives from Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township and other municipalities – talked about how to fund and govern expanded public transit. He noted that the Act 196 authority “did not work out the way most people had hoped, so we’re looking at new ways of funding it.”

Rabhi also hoped the RTA had a role to play, and said he was working with the county’s representatives on the RTA board – Richard Murphy and Liz Gerber – to make sure the opportunities for this county are fully explored under the new RTA structure.

Peterson asked whether the county board needed to take any action, or will there be any discussion about their involvement in the RTA or in any alternative to the RTA? Rabhi replied that the county’s involvement is governed by the state law that created the RTA. At this point, Washtenaw County is part of the RTA and the county board doesn’t need to take any action. The RTA board’s first official meeting is on April 10 in Detroit, he said, although the board met informally last month. Rabhi said he attended that meeting as well, and was the only elected official there from the four-county region and Detroit. Compared to other RTA board members, the Washtenaw County representatives have a lot of background and experience in transit, he said. “They bring a different voice to the table, which I think will be valuable.”

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). In the background is Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

The effort is being staffed by SEMCOG and other partners, Rabhi said, and has about $6 million in federal funding. The RTA board is discussing how to build sustainability within the organization and move forward.

Peterson wondered what the impact was on the AATA. It’s debatable, Rabhi replied. “I think the full implications of the legislation have yet to be determined.” He said he was working with the county’s RTA representatives and state legislators “to ensure that AATA is fully protected so that we can continue to have a robust transit system here in Washtenaw County, and potentially expand that transit system to the urban core areas.” The RTA was created to connect regions, Rabhi noted – like how to get from Ann Arbor to Detroit, and from Detroit to Mount Clemens. “But getting from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti, that’s our task,” he said.

Responding to another query from Peterson, Rabhi said the county’s only obligation to the RTA at this point is to appoint two board members, which happened in December of 2012. [The appointments were made by the county board chair at the time, Conan Smith, and did not require confirmation by the full board.] If the RTA board decides to put a tax proposal on the ballot, or to pursue a vehicle registration fee, then voters of Washtenaw County will have an opportunity to weigh in on that, Rabhi said.

Regarding a possible transit tax to support the RTA’s efforts, Dan Smith said he wanted everyone to be clear about how that would work. If the RTA board decides to put a tax proposal on the ballot, the entire RTA region votes on it as a whole. That area – covering four counties and Detroit – has a population of over 4 million, he noted, although he added that there are fewer registered voters than that. Even so, Washtenaw County is a relatively small piece of that, he said, with a population of about 348,000 residents. So Washtenaw County voters “probably won’t have a whole lot of say-so” in the outcome of a millage vote, he said.

Andy LaBarre noted that in order for the RTA board to put a tax proposal on the ballot, a super-majority of that board would need to approve it. There’s also the option for a single county veto, he said. For example, if both representatives from Washtenaw County voted against putting a tax proposal on the ballot, it wouldn’t move forward. LaBarre hoped all of this information could be clarified at a future working session.

LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, continued by telling Peterson that the topic of the RTA will be on the agenda for a working session in August or September. By that time, he hoped they would have more information about what the RTA intends to do, so that the county board can talk about more specific roles that Washtenaw County can play.

Peterson said he appreciated Rabhi’s involvement in support of regional transit, but felt it was important to have a discussion about this issue by the full board.

Public Hearing for Urban County Plan

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for April 17, 2013 to get input on the Washtenaw Urban County‘s five-year strategic plan through 2018 and its 2013-14 annual plan. The hearing will be held at the county board of commissioners meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the boardroom of the county administration building at 22o N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

Outcome: Authorization to set a public hearing on April 17 won unanimous approval, without discussion.

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: Retirement System

During the time set aside for liaision reports, Dan Smith (D-District 2) gave a brief update on the late March meeting of the Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System (WCERS) commission. He noted that the stock market is doing very well, and that has had a positive impact on the balances in the WCERS account. The commission is starting to begin the discussion about doing some explicit inflation hedges, he said. There’s a concern that in a few years, inflation might start to inch up a bit, and at this point there are no explicit hedges against that.

Smith also reported that there had been a discussion about possible PA 728 pension change requirements in the recently approved labor contract.

Smith was alluding to an issue related to the precedent-setting agreements reached in mid-March with 15 of Washtenaw County government’s 17 bargaining units. The new contracts, approved by the board on March 20, aimed to protect unions before Michigan’s right-to-work law took effect on March 28, and cut legacy costs for the county. All but one of the new agreements run for more than 10 years, through Dec. 31, 2023.

The issue raised at the WCERS meeting was whether the process of securing new contracts violated Public Act 728 of 2002. In relevant part, PA 728 states [emphasis added]:

A system shall provide a supplemental actuarial analysis before adoption of pension benefit changes. The supplemental actuarial analysis shall be provided by the system’s actuary and shall include an analysis of the long-term costs associated with any proposed pension benefit change. The supplemental actuarial analysis shall be provided to the board of the particular system and to the decision-making body that will approve the proposed pension benefit change at least 7 days before the proposed pension benefit change is adopted. For purposes of this subsection, “proposed pension benefit change” means a proposal to change the amount of pension benefits received by persons entitled to pension benefits under a system.

The county’s new labor contracts state that employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, instead of the current defined benefit plan – the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS). In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common defined contribution plan is the 401(k). Similar changes in retiree healthcare plans will also affect new employees.

Although current employees will keep their defined benefit plan, anyone hired before Jan. 1, 2014 – including current employees – will be offered a one-time opportunity to transfer their WCERS employee account to the newly created defined contribution system. That decision must be made within a window between Jan. 1, 2014 and Feb. 28, 2014.

The county did not conduct a supplemental actuarial analysis related to these new contracts. Dan Smith, who cast the lone vote against the contracts, had cited a lack of information about the impact of the changes as one reason why he didn’t feel comfortable supporting the agreements. From The Chronicle’s report of the March 20, 2013 meeting:

A 10-year contract “severely binds future boards and dramatically eliminates the flexibility that they have to respond to situations that may face them seven or eight years down the road.” There are some benefits to that as well, [Dan] Smith noted, but he’s not able to find enough data or information that would make him comfortable with that length of time. It would be different with a two-year contract, which gives the county the chance to respond to changing conditions, he noted. With a 10-years contract and the unknowns surrounding the costs and benefits of the various provisions, “I’m just not comfortable moving forward with that at this time.”

D. Smith also cited concerns about legal questions “that continue to nip away at this.” He wished the legislature would just leave this issue alone, but instead they continue to pick at it “week after week after week.” He didn’t know how it will play out, but “I do know that if we did this contract in the traditional way … we wouldn’thave a bull’s-eye on our back for that.”

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, county administrator Verna McDaniel stated via email that the county had sought outside legal counsel on the issue. She indicated that the county’s position is: There was no need for an actuarial analysis because no changes were made to the existing pension benefits, and the law does not require an analysis for the new defined contribution system that will be offered to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014.

Communications & Commentary: Retreat Follow-up

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the follow-up to a board retreat held on March 7. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Priorities Emerge at Board Retreat."] He noted that the board has set a course for the next 10 years on one of the budget’s largest components – labor costs. The 10-year contracts are rare in the state, he noted, but now the other budget components must be put in place for the county’s long-term stability. [For background on those labor agreements, see: "New Labor Contracts Key to County Budget"]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he has received a report from the retreat’s facilitator, Mary O’Hare, but he hasn’t had a chance to review it yet so he hasn’t sent it to other commissioners. He plans send it out and possibly schedule a presentation on it. Rabhi added that it’s essential to have another retreat and a more focused discussion. That will likely happen in May, he said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), chair of the board’s working sessions, reported that he would send out a revised schedule of upcoming sessions, and asked commissioners to let him know if there were topics they’d like to discuss.

Peterson said he hoped there would be time at the retreat for commissioners to get to know each other and learn about their priorities. Rabhi replied that he’d gotten feedback from a few commissioners, who felt that the last retreat wasn’t focused enough on the board’s priorities. So the format for a second retreat will be different, he said, with more opportunity for commissioners to share their thoughts.

Communications & Commentary: Ann Arbor DDA

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), one of the commissioners representing Ann Arbor, told the board that he wanted to make everyone aware of discussions happening at the Ann Arbor city council regarding funding for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council’s action could have implications for the county, he said, so he wanted to put it on their radar.

Commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), whose district covers Chelsea and other parts of the county’s west side, asked Rabhi to elaborate. What might the implications be for the county?

Rabhi said his understanding of the proposal is that the funding mechanism would change so that the DDA would capture fewer tax revenues in its district, and more dollars would come back to the county. The downside, he added, is that there would be less money for the DDA to do their work in downtown Ann Arbor. It’s just something to be aware of, Rabhi said.

For Chronicle coverage related to the proposed Ann Arbor DDA ordinance changes, see: “Planning, DDA: City Council to Set Course?” “DDA Tax Capture Change Gets Initial OK” and “DDA Ramps Up PR after First Council Vote.”

Communications & Commentary: Land Bank

Ronnie Peterson reported that he had asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to be involved directly with the new land bank committee. He’s also asked that she extend an invitation to communities that have been greatly impacted by the economic downturn, with neighborhoods that have seen home values drop – including Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township. He has asked that the meetings of the land bank committee be public, so that anyone can attend.

By way of background, at its March 20, 2013 meeting, the board voted to form a committee that will explore the feasibility of creating a land bank. The resolution named three people to the committee: Peterson, county treasurer Catherine McClary, and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development. The committee is directed to report back to the board by Aug. 7, 2013.

A land bank is a mechanism for the county to take temporary ownership of tax- or mortgage-foreclosed land while working to put it back into productive use. “Productive use” could mean several things – such as selling it to a nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity to rehab, or demolishing a blighted structure and turning the land into a community garden.

Communications & Commentary: Waste Knot Awards

Yousef Rabhi highlighted the upcoming annual Waste Knot awards, on Thursday, April 11 from 5-7 p.m. at Weber’s Inn. The Waste Knot program encourages businesses and organizations to increase waste reduction and recycling activities.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Jeff Krcmarik – the county’s environmental supervisor – reported that this year the county is also partnering with the Community Partners for Clean Streams and recognizing the 2012 Environmental Excellence Award winners. The event’s guest speaker will be Josh Bloom, a building contractor who specializes in LEED-certified buildings. Locally, Bloom designed and built the new LaFontaine auto dealership in Dexter.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

The only speaker during public commentary was Thomas Partridge, who criticized commissioners for not adopting a comprehensive, people-oriented agenda that focuses on the most vulnerable people in the county, including the disabled, senior citizens, mothers with children, and everyone who suffers from the difficult economic climate. Yet meeting after meeting, commissioners bring county managers and outside contractors, like the auditors, to make presentations, he said, while not sending resolutions to the state legislature calling attention to the waste of requiring annual audits. There are many unmet needs, he said, including needs for affordable housing, and accessible public transportation to that housing.

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

Absent: Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

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

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

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

Republican Alicia Ping and Democrat Wes Prater currently serve Districts 3 and 4, respectively, on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. They will face each other in the Nov. 6 general election due to redistricting of the board that takes effect in the next election cycle. They’ll both vie for the new District 3. The filing deadline for candidates was the day before the board’s May 16, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The 2012 budget update covered the first three months of the year, but also looked at projections for the full year. Overall revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted  in 2012 – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated, but offset by revenue shortfalls in other areas. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 million.

But expenditures for the general fund are $893,527 more than budgeted, primarily due to $669,000 in 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.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution in 2013. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, told commissioners that she’ll have a much clearer picture of the budget outlook when she gives a second-quarter update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. She listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely, including medical costs, state revenue-sharing, personal property tax reform, and actuarial valuations for the retirement plan and retiree health benefits.

The board also took an initial vote to set the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, which is also unchanged from 2011. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes, and it’s typically passed without discussion. But this time Wes Prater raised concerns about a $29 million fund balance for the parks and recreation department, saying it was too high and wondering whether it indicated that the tax levy for parks should be lowered. Several other commissioners – including those who serve on the parks & recreation commission (which oversees those funds) – defended the fund balance, noting that several major capital projects are in the works that will tap that money.

In another budget-related action, commissioners gave final approval to the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. The Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. In a separate vote, the board approved adding Webster Township to the consortium, which includes the city of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and several townships.

Two residents spoke during public commentary, objecting to funding for Planned Parenthood that was included in the annual plan. That particular funding had already been approved last year by the board, as part of a coordinated funding model that pools includes money from the county, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the city of Ann Arbor to fund several dozen human services nonprofits.

Two commissioners commented on issues related to animal control services during the May 16 meeting. Barbara Bergman noted that there had been a “failed meeting” of a task force on May 9 – only she and board chair Conan Smith had attended from the board, although the task force is open to all commissioners. [See Chronicle coverage: "Low Turnout for Animal Control Task Force."] The intent is to set policy that will guide a request for proposals that the county plans to issue later this year, for its next contract to provide animal control services. Those services are currently handled by the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), in a contract that expires at the end of 2012. [A subsequent task force meeting on the morning of May 23 drew five of the 11 commissioners, and will be reported in a separate Chronicle article.]

A separate work group on animal control services is being led by the sheriff’s office. That group is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. It includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances. Commissioner Rob Turner, who serves on the group, reported that the HSHV has agreed to work with the county’s finance department to come up with a cost breakdown for the services it currently provides.

The May 16 meeting also included a brief swearing-in ceremony for Felicia Brabec, who won a May 8 special election to represent District 7. Brabec had been appointed to the board last October following Kristin Judge’s resignation.

First-Quarter Budget Update

Tina Gavalier, Washtenaw County’s finance analyst, gave a first-quarter financial update that contained mixed news. The county’s fiscal year is based on a calendar year – the update covered the first three months of 2012, through March 31. [.pdf of chart showing general fund projections]

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the presentation by saying that the main message is “stay the course.” While the good news is that property tax revenues are higher than expected, those revenues are still in decline, she noted, and the county must continue to monitor its expenditures.

Gavalier began by observing that the first-quarter projections tend to be very conservative, because not very much information is available yet.

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Revenues

Revenues for the general fund are now projected to be about $1.165 million more than budgeted – thanks in large part to about $2.5 million more in property tax revenues than originally anticipated. Total revenues for the 2012 general fund are expected to reach $99.9 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 highlighted some of the revenue variances for specific units. Revenues for the sheriff’s office are projected to be about $949,000 less than budgeted. About two‐thirds of that amount – or roughly $660,000 – is due primarily to the 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. It's now expected to begin this summer.] Other items that contributed to the shortfall include no revenue so far for towing contract administration fees (contract amendments are now 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 $226,000. Gavalier said that’s due to lower-than-budgeted court equity funds that are disbursed by the state. A projected shortfall of about $135,000 in the 14A District Court is due to lower court fees and fines, attributed to a declining trend in case filings. Now, the District Court’s 2012 revenue from fees and services is expected to align with 2011 and 2010 actual amounts of about $2 million.

First-Quarter Budget Update: General Fund Expenditures

Gavalier then said she wanted to remind 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.

First-quarter Washtenaw County general fund budget projection. (Links to larger image)

Turning to overall expenditures, Gavalier reported that expenses are $893,527 more than budgeted for the general fund. That’s primarily due to $669,000 in 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. She said the board will be asked later this year to approve a $200,000 reserve for inmate hospital care, which will require a budget adjustment.

Gavalier noted that the general fund expenditure projections include an assumption that there will 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 will 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.

Other highlights on the expense side include about $238,000 so far this year in tax refunds – the total budgeted amount for refunds in 2012 is $1.5 million. Also, the Washtenaw Trial Court is expected to exceed the cost reductions it had planned for 2012 and show a surplus by year’s end.

The 2012 budget had anticipated a surplus of $1.889 million, but the administration is now projecting a surplus of just $272,238. That surplus is intended to carry over into the 2013 fund balance – so the county faces a $1.617 million shortfall in the amount it had budgeted for the fund balance contribution. Currently, the county has a $14.5 million fund balance.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Non-General Fund Items

Gavalier gave an overview of several county operations that are not supported by general fund revenues. Units that are projected to be on budget include facilities management, Friend of the Court (due to trial court consolidation and cost containment efforts), the office of community & economic development, the prosecuting attorney’s office, and the office of veteran’s relief.

Projecting a surplus are building inspection operations and risk management – assuming there are no major settlements or disasters. Regarding the building inspection unit, that unit owes about $780,000 on an amount it previously borrowed from the county’s capital reserve. Any contributions to the unit’s fund balance over $51,000 must be used to repay the debt. Because the building inspection fund balance stood at about $162,000 at the end of 2011, about $111,000 will be returned to the capital reserve fund.

Finally, two units – public/environmental health, and programs supported by the Act 88 millage – have projected shortfalls but had budgeted to use their respective fund balances in 2012 to cover the overages, Gavalier said.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Issues to Watch

Gavalier listed out several areas that the administration intends to monitor closely. 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 will be the first month that the county will start to see how claims have adjusted under the new medical plans, she said. 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. Currently, Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed budget includes a partial allocation for 2013 – of just under $1.2 million – with specific compliance incentives and defined eligibility requirements outlined in order to receive those funds. The state Senate and House of Representatives are deliberating on funding amounts and criteria, she said.

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 County Employees Retirement System, or WCERS) 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.

First-Quarter Budget Update: Board Discussion

Several commissioners had questions, while also praising Gavalier for the clarity of her presentation. Felicia Brabec asked about last year’s 118 retirements, and wondered if there are any estimates yet on the impact to the county’s retirement plans. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s difficult to guess at this point.

Dan Smith asked about the items that factored in to the projections – how many have already occurred, and how many are just anticipated? As an example, he cited the consolidated dispatch operations, which they know will happen later this year. Gavalier said the picture will become much clearer as the year progresses. She noted that commissioners will get a second-quarter budget update at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting. ”I will be more confident in August when I present than I am right now,” she said.

From right: Commissioners Rob Turner, Ronnie Peterson, Leah Gunn, and Barbara Bergman.

Smith then pointed to the anticipated 2012 surplus of $272,238, which is about $1.6 million less than the amount budgeted for the year. He asked whether Gavalier expected the surplus to increase. Yes, she replied, as the finance department gets a handle on medical expenses. She said she suspected the surplus would get larger.

Rob Turner wanted to know details about why the dispatch consolidation was delayed. It has an impact on the budgets for both the county and city of Ann Arbor, he noted. Could it be delayed even further? He also wondered what’s being done to address any roadblocks.

McDaniel noted that aggressive hiring is underway for the new dispatch positions, and she promised to bring the board a more detailed report at a future meeting.

Wes Prater asked about the $2.4 million budgeted lump sum reduction – he wondered where those cuts will be made. Gavalier replied that the reduction was built into the 2012 budget based on assumed savings from labor negotiations that hadn’t wrapped up by the time the budget was passed in late 2011. Savings in medical expenses are assumed to be a large part of that reduction, but until claims based on the new medical plans start coming in later this year, the administration won’t know exactly how much will be saved.

Prater also highlighted the projected personnel costs for 2012, which are an estimated $2.15 million higher than budgeted – a projected $65 million, compared to the budgeted $62.85 million. What accounts for those higher costs? Prater asked.

Gavalier reported that a big portion of those costs relate to overtime and part-time employees at the sheriff’s office. As the county works to fill positions that were vacated because of retirements, they’re using overtime and part-time staff as an interim measure. She again stated that although the general fund isn’t hitting its original budgeted surplus, a surplus is still projected for the year – just a smaller one than anticipated at this point.

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

Annual Millage Rate

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2012 county general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.236 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2011.

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

Annual Millage Rate: Board Discussion

Commissioner Wes Prater expressed concern that the county parks & recreation department was building up a fund balance that he felt was higher than necessary. He noted that the fund balance stands at $29.795 million, according to the county’s comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR).

Prater wondered whether perhaps the entire millage for parks & rec did not need to be levied. The department shouldn’t act like a bank, he said, and he suggested that the parks & rec director could be asked to explain it. [Bob Tetens, director of parks & recreation, typically attends all meetings of the board, but was not at the May 16 meeting because of family commitments.]

Several commissioners defended the use of millage proceeds. Dan Smith noted that he serves on the parks & recreation commission, along with commissioners Barbara Bergman and Rolland Sizemore Jr. He assured Prater that the department has a detailed plan for specific projects that will benefit residents throughout the county. It was a plan that came to the county board as part of the budget process last year, he said. The fund balance is large now because the department is getting ready for several major capital projects, Smith added, including a new enlarged “spray and play zone” at Independence Lake Park.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman of Ann Arbor also serves on the county parks & recreation commission.

[The parks & recreation department developed a five-year master plan in 2010 – see Chronicle coverage: "County Seeks Input on Parks Master Plan." For more recent actions, see Chronicle coverage of the parks & recreation commission meetings in April and May of 2012.]

Bergman pointed to new projects as well as maintenance, and noted that the county board doesn’t have a say in spending the millage: “It’s not our money.” The voters approved those millages, she said. The parks & rec commission isn’t acting as a bank, Bergman added – they are acting as stewards.

Yousef Rabhi also cited the parks & recreation department’s role as “conscientious stewards.” He pointed to The Chronicle’s coverage of the May 8, 2012 parks & rec commission meeting, where commissioners had discussed shifting more of an emphasis from acquisition to stewardship. As someone who works in this area, Rabhi said, he felt it was a wise conversation to have. [Rabhi is currently workday coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor's natural area preservation program.]

Leah Gunn noted that the millage supports both parkland and natural areas, and projects like the possible recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti. Voters have been very supportive, she said, and the millage should be maintained as it is.

Prater responded by saying he wasn’t trying to claim money for the county’s general fund or anything else. He just wanted to take a look at the funding. If everything is as other commissioners have described, he said, then it’s well documented and those documents should be easy to provide. He again pointed to the $29 million fund balance, and said he didn’t believe in keeping fund balances so high. It’s not good business, he concluded.

Outcome: The initial vote to set the annual millage rate passed unanimously, but Wes Prater indicated that he wanted more information about parks & recreation before he’d support final approval. The board also voted to set a public hearing for the millage rate at its June 6 meeting. Commissioners are expected to take a final vote on the millage at that time.

Urban County Annual Plan

Two items on the May 16 agenda related to the Washtenaw Urban County.

Commissioners were asked to approve the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. A public hearing on the plan had been held at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. The annual plan describes how the Urban County expects to spend the federal funding it receives from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs, operated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). [.pdf of 2012-2013 draft annual plan] [.pdf of list of planned projects]

The board also authorized Webster Township to join the Urban County. The Washtenaw Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. Current members include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Salem, Superior, York, Scio, and Northfield. Webster Township will be among an additional seven municipalities that will become part of the Urban County as of July 1, 2012. Other new members will include the city of Saline, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Dexter, Lima, Manchester, and Saline.

“Urban County” is a HUD designation, identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, making them entitled to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs.

The Washtenaw Urban County executive committee meets monthly and is chaired by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. The program is administered by the staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community & economic development.

Urban County: Public Commentary

The annual plan includes a list of funding for human services nonprofits, awarded through the relatively new coordinated funding model, a two-year pilot program that runs through June 2013. Partners include the Urban County, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The model focuses funding on six priorities that have been identified for the entire county: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food.

For 2012-2013, about $4.1 million in funds are being awarded to 63 programs – these funds were approved by the county board in late 2011 as part of their two-year budget planning process. Only a portion of the funds are provided via the Urban County. [.pdf of nonprofit funding]

Among the programs to be funded are two awards to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan: $14,400 for family planning for low-income women, and $53,040 for prenatal care services. That funding was the target for some of the public commentary at the May 16 meeting.

Paul Dobrowolski of Saline and Brigid Kowalczyk of Ann Arbor both spoke against funding for Planned Parenthood. Dobrowolski, who had also spoken in opposition to the funding a year ago, again asked that the programs not be given taxpayer dollars and that the grants be ended immediately. He argued that Planned Parenthood had plenty of other funding, and that the organization was being misleading about the types of services it provides. He also noted that 41% of clients for prenatal care come from outside of Washtenaw County. He urged commissioners not to support funding for Planned Parenthood.

Kowalczyk noted that a package of bills introduced in the state legislature aim to prevent women from being coerced into having an abortion. Many women feel coerced, she said, and there are examples of people – including NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and opera tenor Andrea Bocelli – whose mothers had been urged to abort them, but didn’t. Women don’t want health care that doesn’t respect life, Kowalczyk said. A better way is to fund organizations like Family Life Services, Hope Clinic and St. Joseph Mercy Hospital that provide alternatives to abortion, she said, and assist women through their pregnancies. Women deserve better, she concluded, and future county taxpayers should be welcomed with joy and expectation.

Thomas Partridge of Ann Arbor also addressed the Urban County annual plan during public commentary. He praised the amount of federal funding that was being received, but said the plan leaves unanswered the question of whether this funding is adequate for affordable housing, transit, health care and other needs of low-income residents. He called for more state assistance to support the most vulnerable population in the county.

Urban County: Board Discussion

Two commissioners responded to the criticism of Planned Parenthood funding. Barbara Bergman spoke at length about the need to preserve choices for women. She noted that her beloved granddaughter is adopted, and expressed gratitude that her granddaughter’s birth mother had chosen to deliver her. No one wants abortion, Bergman said, but until there’s adequate sex education and universal health care, she hoped women would have the options they need.

Yousef Rabhi urged anyone who’s driving down Washtenaw Avenue past the intersection at Hill to check out The Rock, which Planned Parenthood has recently painted.

Other questions about the plan were more general. Felicia Brabec noted that the Urban County works from a five-year strategic plan, and this coming year will be the last year of the current plan. She wondered what direction the next five-year plan would take.

Brett Lenart, housing and infrastructure manager at the office of community & economic development, replied that later this year the staff will start developing the next five-year plan, with broad goals that will guide specific projects. The goals will likely be similar to the current plan, he said, with a focus on affordable and supportive housing. The staff is also aware that it can’t take the county’s existing housing stock for granted, so that will likely be an element of the next strategic plan too, he said.

Alicia Ping asked when the next opportunity would be for other municipalities in the county could join the Urban County. Those decisions are made in three-year cycles, as mandated by the federal government. The next round will be open in mid-2015, Lenart said.

Wes Prater asked who pays for the matching funds related to the Urban County plan – $220,010 in in-kind costs from the county, plus a $172,306 local match. Lenart explained that matching funds for HOME grants typically come from the value of taxes that have been waived, as well as from donations of labor and materials toward projects. Matching funds for HUD’s emergency shelter grants come from the county’s human services funding. Other coordinated funding sources also count as matching funds.

Outcome: The annual plan for the Washtenaw Urban County was unanimously passed, as was the addition of Webster Township to the consortium.

Bond Re-Funding

Two resolutions related to re-funding of bonds previously issued by Washtenaw County were on the May 16 agenda. One of the actions – advised by the county’s bond counsel, John Axe with Axe & Ecklund of Grosse Pointe Farms – consolidates two previous bond issues and is expected to save $889,000 over the life of the bond repayments.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger, and Greg Dill, infrastructure management director.

In 2004, the county board had approved a bond sale of $6.365 million to fund energy efficiency improvements in county facilities. Chevron Energy Solutions was hired to oversee that effort, which is known as the Chevron project. About $4.69 million in principle is owed on that bond. [Commissioners were last updated on this project at their June 2010 working session.]

In 2005, the board approved a bond sale of $11.475 million to re-fund a 1999 bond issued for projects that included capital improvements for the juvenile detention center, buildings at 110 N. Fourth and 200 N. Main, and the environmental services building on Zeeb Road. About $7.835 million in principle is still owed on that bond issue.

Because of current low interest rates, Axe has advised the county board to authorize the sale of a single re-funding bond issue not to exceed $12.35 million. Commissioners gave initial approval to that action, as well as to a separate resolution authorizing continued disclosure on the re-funding bond issue, as required by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). The re-funding bonds will be called the County of Washtenaw Capital Improvement Re-funding Bond Series 2012.

Axe attended the meeting, but was not asked to the podium to answer questions.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners approved both bond-related items. A second, final vote is required and will likely be on the board’s June 6 agenda.

Sugar Creek Drain Bond

On the agenda was an item giving final approval to pledge the county’s full faith and credit for up to $270,000 in bonds to fund an extension of the Sugar Creek drainage district. The financing request came from water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin, whose office is managing the project. It had been given initial approval at the board’s May 2 meeting.

The project – which in total is budgeted at $349,899 – is being done at the behest of the Washtenaw County road commission. It entails relocating a portion of the county drain, including a section of 1,850 feet adjacent to Platt Road between Judd and Stoney Creek roads in York Township. A second phase includes removing sediment and vegetation, as well as making wingwall repairs, at the drain crossings of US-23, McCrone Road, and Gooding Road.

The Sugar Creek drainage district covers parts of York Township, Augusta Township and the city of Milan. The bonds will be repaid in part by assessing property owners in the district – 70% of the cost of the bonds will be paid in this way. [.pdf map of drainage district] The remainder of the funds will come from York and Augusta townships, the city of Milan, Washtenaw County, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and two railroads – Ann Arbor Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railroad. The county’s share of the cost is $24,203 – half of that will be paid by the county road commission.

A contract for the work has been awarded to Mead Brothers Excavating of Springport, Mich., the lowest responsible bidder.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the Sugar Creek drainage district bonds.

Project LIFT Funding

Commissioners were asked to authorize the application for a $1,348,853 federal grant from the U.S. Dept. of Labor to fund Project LIFT, a jobs training and service program for juvenile ex-offenders run by the county sheriff’s office. The program aims to serve 100 youth. [.pdf of program description]

A staff memo noted that while Washtenaw County

… has the best employment rates compared to its neighbors, it also has the highest rate of criminal recidivism in the state, with 80% of released prisoners being re-imprisoned 2-3 years later. In addition, many at-risk youth reside in communities that serve as a revolving door for offenders returning to society from our jails and prisons. With community-based reintegration in Washtenaw County still in its infancy, there is a need to engage youth before they are introduced to the criminal justice system as adults, within their own communities, that will deter them from criminal behavior.

According to the staff report, the sheriff’s community action team estimates there are 12-13 gangs active in Washtenaw County, with 9-10 gangs active in one neighborhood alone. The largest gang has an estimated 25 members.

There was only one question on this item, from commissioner Felicia Brabec. She pointed to information in the staff memo, which stated that the Washtenaw County Trial Court had identified 900 young people aged 18-21 who have been convicted in juvenile court, but have never been convicted of an adult offense. Of those, Project LIFT would only serve 100, and Brabec wanted to know what selection criteria would be used.

No one from the sheriff’s office was on hand to answer Brabec’s question, so county administrator Verna McDaniel promised to follow up and get that information.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized application of federal funds for Project LIFT. A final vote is expected at the board’s June 6 meeting.

District 7 Swearing-In

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum was on hand to swear in Felicia Brabec in a short ceremony near the beginning of the May 16 meeting.

At the county board’s May 16 meeting, Felicia Brabec was sworn in as District 7 commissioner after winning a May 8 special election. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum (foreground) officiated.

Brabec won a May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn to represent District 7 (Pittsfield Township) on the 11-member county board. It had been the only election for the county board, for a term that will run through the end of 2012. (County commissioners typically serve two-year terms.)

The unusual timing of the race stemmed from the October 2011 resignation of former District 7 commissioner Kristin Judge. The board appointed Brabec to replace Judge at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting. Brabec had been encouraged by Judge to apply for the vacancy, and was one of two people interviewed for the position. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Meets District 7 Candidates"] There was a special primary election for the seat on Feb. 28, followed by the special general election on May 8.

Communications & Public Commentary

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

Communications: Animal Control Services

Two commissioners commented on issues related to animal control services. Barbara Bergman noted that there had been a “failed meeting” of the animal control services task force on May 9 . Only she and board chair Conan Smith had attended from the board, although the task force is open to all commissioners. The meeting was canceled when it became clear that no other commissioners would attend. [See Chronicle coverage: "Low Turnout for Animal Control Task Force."]

Smith did not attend the May 16 board meeting, so Bergman asked Alicia Ping – the board’s vice chair, who was running the meeting in Smith’s absence – to convey to Smith that a new meeting time should be set “PDQ.” The board needs to address policy issues related to animal control services so they don’t get “cut off at the knees,” Bergman said. “Frankly, I’m a little angry.”

When Ping mentioned that Smith had previously passed out a schedule of meeting times, Bergman indicated that Smith no longer planned to hold those sessions, in light of the low turnout for the first one. [Subsequent email from Smith confirmed dates for additional meetings – on May 23, June 13, July 25, Aug.22 and Sept. 12. A report of the May 23 meeting will be provided in a separate Chronicle article.]

Rob Turner, during his liaison report, gave an update on a work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, that’s tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services. The work group includes representatives from HSHV, the county, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances.

A meeting was held on May 15, where Turner said the group heard a presentation by HSHV. He said he conveyed the county board’s charge to the group – that the goal is to develop a cost structure, similar to the process of developing the cost structure for a police services unit, which was approved by the board in last summer. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw OKs Price for Police Services"]

Initially, HSHV representatives said they didn’t think they could do it, Turner reported. But they know that they have to do it, he said, and they’ve agreed to work with the county’s finance department to come up with a cost breakdown. It’s a difficult task, he said, and he’ll report back to the board after the next work group meeting.

The work group and task force are part of a broader process that began last year when the county board – as part of developing the 2012-2013 budget – decided to cut funding for animal control services, which it has handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV). The board subsequently approved a contract with the HSHV at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting. That contract expires at the end of 2012, and the county plans to issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

Communications: Public Commentary

In addition to the public commentary reported above, Thomas Partridge of Ann Arbor spoke during both opportunities for the public to address the board. He noted that he is a candidate in the Democratic primary for the state House of Representatives in District 53. [Partridge will run against incumbent Democrat Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner who's seeking his second two-year term in the House.] Partridge called for renewed energy and a new set of attitudes for providing services to those in need – attitudes of respect, integrity, and reaching out to residents rather than standing back or even retracting from them. The first priority should be affordable housing, he said.

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

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 6, 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 calendar listing 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 would not have a sustainable budget 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!

Commissioners gave final approval to the Urban County’s annual plan for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 with a $3.59 million budget. A public hearing on the plan had been held at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. The annual plan describes how the Urban County expects to spend the federal funding it receives from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs, operated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

[.pdf of 2012-2013 draft annual plan] [.pdf of list of planned projects]

The board also authorized Webster Township to join the Urban County. The Washtenaw Urban County is a consortium of local municipalities that receive federal funding for projects in low-income neighborhoods. Current members include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Salem, Superior, York, Scio, and Northfield. Webster Township will be among an additional seven municipalities that will become part of the Urban County as of July 1, 2012. Other new members will include the city of Saline, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Dexter, Lima, Manchester, and Saline.

“Urban County” is a HUD designation, identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, making them entitled to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs.

The Washtenaw Urban County executive committee meets monthly and is chaired by county commissioner Yousef Rabhi. The program is administered by the staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development.

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