Commissioners Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Smith brought forward a proposal to allocate money from the general fund’s reserves to pay for previously cut social service programs, but the proposal didn’t win support from Ping or most other commissioners on Aug. 7. (Photos by the writer.)

Following an unexpected proposal from the floor and considerable discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to authorize a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart]

Despite the better-than-anticipated revenue picture, the administration is still projecting a deficit of $3.9 million for next year’s 2014 budget.

Generally, mid-year budget adjustments are recommended by staff and are typically dispatched with minimal discussion. However, a proposed amendment by Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9) would have transferred money from the general fund’s unearmarked reserves to restore over $1 million in funding to programs that had been previously cut. He argued that restoring this funding was possible in light of $2.3 million in higher-than-expected property tax revenues this year.

Several commissioners expressed general support for Smith’s intent, but cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations. They had seen the proposal for the first time that night. Smith argued that he had asked for the budget adjustment resolution to be pulled from the agenda prior to the meeting, because he had wanted more time for discussion. Chastising other commissioners for not taking action to spend the unanticipated revenues, Smith noted that the board had identified human services as a priority, but was instead funding things like software and facilities. He told commissioners it was “one of the worst nights I’ve ever had on this board.”

The board voted down his proposal, but then postponed a final vote on the overall budget adjustments until its Sept. 4 meeting. Several commissioners indicated an interest in working with Smith to address some of his concerns before then.

The 2013 budget was also a highlight during a second-quarter update by the county’s financial staff, who reported that they’re now expecting a $245,814 general fund surplus for the year. In addition, the 2013 general fund budget is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance. [.pdf of 2Q budget presentation]

In other business, commissioners held a lengthy debate over a resolution for a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County Trial Court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. An original resolution had outlined funding sources for the project. However, prior to the meeting some commissioners expressed concern about the use of capital reserves to help fund the purchase, so an alternative resolution was brought forward at the meeting that did not include the references to funding sources.

However, Dan Smith (R-District 2) objected to passing a resolution that approved the purchase but did not include a funding plan. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was concerned that there had been no clear source of funding identified for the system’s annual licensing fee, estimated at $188,933.

An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4 meeting. That amendment was not enough to win support from D. Smith and Ping, however.

The resolution received initial approval on Aug. 7, but did not garner sufficient votes for final approval. It will be considered again on Sept. 4.

The board also debated – and ultimately approved – two long-term leases: (1) the 10-year lease of a county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge Ave. in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District; and (2) a 9-year lease with Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. for space in the City Center Building at 220 E. Huron in Ann Arbor.

Other action included approval to back up to $3.3 million in bonds to pay for five drain-related and “green infrastructure” projects in Ann Arbor, and authorization to amend a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township related to a sewer system in those townships.

Several grants were accepted during the meeting: (1) about $2.5 million in federal workforce development funding; (2) a $665,704 federal grant to pay for two outreach workers with the Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP), who will focus on increasing children’s participation in federal Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), known as children’s Medicaid; and (3) a $20,000 capacity-building grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation for work on the Washtenaw food policy council.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau, was on hand with several representatives of the United Association (UA) Union of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Sprinkler Fitters, Steamfitters, and Service Technicians. The UA is holding its 60th annual training program in Washtenaw County from Aug. 10-16. It’s the 24th year that UA has held its training program here. More than 2,500 participants will generate an estimated $5 million into the local economy, Kerr said: “The UA leaves this community in much better condition than when they came at the beginning of the week.”

2013 Budget Adjustments & Update

The Aug. 7 agenda included a resolution from the county administrator to authorize a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903. This type of budget adjustment is not unusual during the year, and is typically dispatched with minimal discussion. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart] Board approval is required for budget changes greater than $100,000 or a variance of more than 10%, whichever is less.

The county’s finance staff cited several factors related to the adjustments, including the fact that property tax revenues are $2.3 million higher than anticipated when the budget was approved in December 2012. The county is also receiving $205,344 more in state funding than was originally budgeted, from state liquor tax revenues.

On the expense side, $551,998 was earmarked to help pay for the trial court’s new records management software system. Those funds come from a refund to the court by the state of Michigan. There will also be an increase of $102,672 in expenses due to a higher substance abuse allocation mandated by Public Act 2 of 1986, and related to the higher liquor tax revenues that the county received. Those funds will go to the county’s designated substance abuse coordinating agency.

County administrator Verna McDaniel also noted that the 2013 general fund budget is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance.

During a second-quarter budget update for 2013, the county’s financial staff reported that the county is now expecting a $245,814 general fund surplus for the year. [.pdf of 2Q budget presentation] Tina Gavalier, a financial analyst with the county, told commissioners that about half of the projected revenue surplus should not be viewed as structural, and instead comes from one-time occurrences. At this point, the fund balance at the end of 2013 is expected to reach $17.033 million, or 16.6% of general fund expenditures.

2013 Budget Adjustments: Ways & Means – Conan Smith Amendment

The item was first discussed at the board’s ways & means committee meeting, which immediately precedes the regular board meeting. Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that the county would not need to use its fund balance as had been previously anticipated for 2013. So he wanted instead to use roughly $1.45 million of the fund balance to return funding to departments that had been previously cut, and that had tapped their own fund balances in the 2013 budget cycle.

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

He felt that restoring this funding was possible in light of $2.3 million in higher-than-expected property tax revenues. The programs he proposed funding were the sheriff’s office community corrections grants ($152,772), public and environmental health ($625,060) and workforce development ($650,000). His proposal, presented from the floor, had been seen by county staff for the first time just a few hours before the meeting started, according to several staff members.

Smith argued that these units deliver direct services to residents and rely on those fund balances. Public health, for example, sometimes needs its fund balance for emergencies, he said. He characterized his proposal as reimbursing the fund balances for these departments.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) asked why the board should do this now, rather than wait and incorporate these suggestions into the upcoming budget that’s being developed for 2014. Smith replied that the adjustments he’s proposing aren’t structural – he’s simply looking at 2013 and the surplus revenue that the county is receiving this year. He said his goal is to ensure that these departments don’t draw down their reserves, but instead use money that’s available through tax revenue that the county is getting in 2013. He noted that the office of community & economic development (OCED) was planning to use $650,000 from its fund balance to pay for an upcoming department move out of the Annex building. Restoring money to OCED will allow it to keep those reserves for future needs, including direct services to residents, he said.

In response to a question from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), county administrator Verna McDaniel said she didn’t know how Smith had arrived at the figure of $625,060 for public and environmental health. She reported that about $604,000 in structural reductions had been made in public and environmental health for the 2012 and 2013 budgets. If Smith’s changes are approved, she said, it would actually add $625,060 to the projected 2014 deficit of $3.9 million.

Sizemore wondered why the board would give money back to departments, when the county is facing a deficit and might have to make cuts within the next few months. “Why are we in a hurry about doing this tonight?” he asked.

McDaniel pointed out that if Smith’s amendment were approved, the money would be taken from unearmarked reserves in the county’s fund balance. She reminded commissioners that the original cuts had been structural.

Finance director Kelly Belknap stated that the sheriff’s office had decided to use fund balance for the 2012 and 2013 budget, but the $604,000 in structural reductions for public and environmental health had been a cut in the general fund appropriation to that department, not the department’s fund balance. The department had planned to use about $152,000 from its fund balance as part of the 2012-2013 budget. She also was unaware of how Smith had come up with the $625,060 figure.

Smith argued that when the board approved the current budget, it included a decrease in the fund balance for public and environmental health from $1.9 million to $1.3 million. He felt that was a good decision, because it reflected his own values of using reserves to provide services rather than cutting those services. But now that the county has additional revenue, he said, the county should restore the department’s fund balance.

McDaniel pointed out that Smith’s action would result in spending down the county’s unearmarked reserves in its fund balance. At this point, she said, the county won’t need to tap its fund balance for 2013, although the year isn’t over yet. But she noted that whatever is spent beyond what’s already in the budget – including Smith’s proposal to return money to these departments – will come out of the general fund reserves.

That’s right, Smith replied. But he noted that when the board passed the original budget, it intended to spend money from the county’s unearmarked reserves. “We’re just doing what we budgeted,” he said. And actually, they’d be spending less of the reserves than they had originally planned, he argued.

Belknap pointed out that the 2012 and 2013 budgets were developed in the summer of 2011. At the end of 2012, the fund balance for public and environmental health had actually grown to $2.051 million. She noted that part of that increase reflected the fact that the public health and environmental health departments had merged. For 2013, the projected use of that department’s fund balance is almost $143,000, she noted.

Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, reported that there was an unusually high number of retirements at the end of 2011, and those positions were kept unfilled. That saved money for the department without reducing direct services, he said. Fleece added that the upcoming budget for 2014 will include the use of about $243,000 in the department’s fund balance. Smith expressed skepticism that having fewer employees doesn’t impact service delivery.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Smith then suggested reducing his proposed $625,060 return to public and environmental health to $386,000. That would cover the department’s previous use of fund balance and proposed use for the coming year, he said.

This change was considered a friendly amendment.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) weighed in, saying that Smith’s overall proposal was new information to him. For the 2012 and 2013 budgets, the county had made about $17 million in cuts, he noted. Other departments didn’t use their fund balances to meet their targeted budgets, he said, so Smith’s proposal would be returning money to departments that didn’t make structural cuts, but used their fund balances instead. If the money is going to be reallocated now, shouldn’t the entire county operation be considered? Rabhi asked.

LaBarre agreed with Smith’s intent, but said he wasn’t able to follow all of the process from the board table in terms of the broader implications of this action. “I’m thoroughly confused,” he said, and he asked Smith to talk about how this decision hits into the county operations as a whole, and how it fits with the county’s budget principles.

Smith replied that the board’s previous set of budget principles prioritized human services and public safety. His proposal addresses those units that dipped into their fund balances, he said. The county received surplus revenues, so reallocating those revenues is aligned with the county’s values, Smith argued.

Smith said his original hope was that the board wouldn’t take up the budget adjustment item that night. He suggested tabling the item and having a broader discussion of how to allocate the $2.4 million surplus. [The property tax surplus, according to county finance staff, is $2.3 million. An additional $100,000 in revenue surplus comes from fees and other sources.] LaBarre indicated support for that approach.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said that procedurally the budget adjustments resolution could be adjourned to a date certain.

LaBarre moved to adjourn the item until the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

Sizemore wanted to move it back even later, saying the board needed more time. Rabhi expressed concern that the delay would affect the staff’s ability to do county business. He felt the board should act on the budget adjustments that night.

Outcome on motion to adjourn the budget adjustments to Sept. 4: The motion failed on a 4-5 vote, with dissent from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) then called the question to end debate and force a vote on Conan Smith’s amendment to the budget adjustments resolution.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Brabec, Sizemore and C. Smith.

The board then immediately voted on C. Smith’s amendment to the budget adjustments.

Outcome on C. Smith’s amendment: The amendment failed on a 3-6 vote, with support only from C. Smith, D. Smith and Peterson.

2013 Budget Adjustments: Ways & Means – Dan Smith Amendment

Saying “since this was so much fun, I think we should do it again,” Dan Smith proposed an amendment to strike $551,998 in the expenditure column. That amount was an adjustment that the administration had proposed to pay for the trial court software. Since the board hadn’t yet decided how to fund that software purchase, D. Smith didn’t think the budget adjustment should include that amount. The motion was supported by Conan Smith.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that the $551,998 check had already arrived from the state as a refund to the trial court. It’s been recorded as revenue, so if there’s no expenditure line, “the budget won’t balance,” she said.

Alicia Ping wondered why the money couldn’t be put into the general fund’s fund balance, rather than being returned to the trial court.

Tina Gavalier, a financial analyst with the county, noted that the $551,998 had been deposited into the county’s tech fund, earmarked for the trial court’s software system. Approving the proposed budget adjustment would not mean that the board is approving the expenditure for the trial court software, she said. That action would require a separate vote.

From left: Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

C. Smith suggested putting the amount into the “other revenues and reimbursements” line on the revenues side, and in the general fund’s unearmarked reserves line on the expenditures side – as adjustments to the 2013 budget. He proposed amending D. Smith’s amendment to that effect. D. Smith agreed with the proposal, calling it a technical adjustment.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed frustration: “Why in the heck are we even messing with this? It’s the court’s money.” The trial court will eventually need that money for its software system, he noted. And if the county board doesn’t authorize the expenditure of that amount, it won’t matter what line item it’s in.

He noted that the meeting looked like it would last past midnight. “We’re having a lot of communications on things that we should have settled before we got in this room,” Sizemore said. “It seems like we do more talking in this room than we do outside this room to get some stuff done.” Chief judge Donald Shelton was the person who contacted the state to get a refund for the software system, he noted, so he felt that it was the court’s money. Sizemore said the board was “spinning its wheels.”

Ronnie Peterson asked several clarificational questions, noting that he trusted C. Smith and that Smith “always gets his way at the end of the day.” C. Smith replied: “Not tonight.”

Felicia Brabec wondered how D. Smith’s proposed adjustment would impact the county’s lump sum agreement with the trial court. “That would be open for discussion,” replied Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director. Brabec clarified with Belknap that the $551,998 had originally been paid to the state out of the trial court’s lump sum budget. So the amount that was refunded by the state was still considered part of the trial court’s lump sum budget.

Dan Dwyer, the trial court administrator, stressed that the $551,998 is part of the trial court’s budget. “I certainly didn’t come prepared to talk about what might happen under some crazy scenarios,” he added. Until he talked to Shelton, Dwyer didn’t feel like he could answer any questions other than to say the money is part of the trial court’s budget. “I’m not certain the board has the authority to remove that money out of my budget.” But the court won’t be spending it on anything other than a new case management system, he said.

Ping wondered why the board was even discussing this. “If it’s their money, it’s their money,” she said. Belknap explained that technical adjustments like this are required for auditing purposes. The money might be part of the lump sum agreement, she said, but these adjustments are still needed to account for the money, because the trial court budget is part of the overall general fund.

At this point Andy LaBarre called the question to end debate and force a vote on C. Smith’s amendment to D. Smith’s amendment, which would move $551,998 into the line item for unearmarked reserves.

Outcome on calling the question: It passed, over dissent from Sizemore.

Outcome on C. Smith’s amendment to D. Smith’s amendment: It failed on a 4-5 vote, with support only from C. Smith, D. Smith, Ping and Rabhi.

The board then considered Dan Smith’s original amendment, to strike the $551,998 from the expenditure side. Verna McDaniel pointed out that since Conan Smith’s amendment was rejected, then passing D. Smith’s amendment would create an unbalanced budget.

D. Smith disputed whether it would create an unbalanced budget, saying his intent is to not make the expenditure. “Our budget would be equally unbalanced if I got out my checkbook tonight and wrote a check to Washtenaw County government,” he said. The county regularly receives additional revenue that it doesn’t anticipate, and eventually accounts for that. He contended that his amendment simply removes the amount as an expenditure. The budget will eventually be reconciled, he noted.

Rabhi called the question on D. Smith’s amendment.

Outcome on calling the question: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Martinez-Kratz.

Outcome on D. Smith’s amendment: It failed on a 3-6 vote, with support only from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping.

At the end of the ways & means committee meeting, the board took a vote on giving initial approval to the 2013 budget adjustments.

Outcome on 2013 budget adjustments (initial approval): The resolution passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping.

2013 Budget Adjustments: Regular Board Meeting

When the board considered the 2013 budget adjustments for a final vote at the regular board meeting – which immediately followed the ways & means committee meeting – Conan Smith spoke at length, chastising the other commissioners for not taking action to spend the unanticipated revenues.

“I’m sitting over here and I’m having one of the worst nights I’ve ever had on this board,” he began. The county has taken in almost $3 million in new revenues, he noted, but the only expenditure the board considered that night was on software. And last month, they voted to spend $5 million on facilities. “But the human services? The things that the people need? We’re not going to lift a finger for,” Smith said.

He noted that the board has talked about building the general fund’s fund balance, but not about using the surplus to help people who are struggling. Smith said he’s been on the board for 8.5 years, and there has never been a growing budget until now. “I’ve always had to lead cut budgets, that were real cut budgets because we didn’t have the money coming in,” he said. “And this year it’s different.” The tax base grew, but the board isn’t going to use that money to help people, he said. “I just can’t accept that today. I just can’t believe it.”

Smith talked about cuts that had been made for the 2013 budget, including community corrections grants, public health and programs for the elderly and homeless. He said he spent two years as chair on the workforce development and community action boards. “I had to walk them through cutting $750,000 out of workforce development that goes to help people find employment,” he said.

The county board had the opportunity to restore funding to these programs that night, Smith said, “to actually help real people. When somebody’s heat is getting shut off in December of 2013, or if someone loses their job and comes to the county for services, he said, “remember the vote we took at ways & means tonight.” Until that vote, he said, he had believed that commissioners held human services as a high priority.

He then proposed an amendment, this time increasing the proposed spending to $1.743 million. His amendment proposed allocating funds from the general fund reserves into community corrections ($152,000); public and environmental health ($386,000); workforce development ($754,000); programs for the elderly, people facing homeless and those in need of utility assistance ($252,000); and housing programs ($199,000).

Other commissioners again expressed general support for Smith’s sentiments, but – as they had earlier in the evening – cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations, which they had seen for the first time that night.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Smith in concept, but said each commissioner has their own priorities. His priority is to coordinate youth programs within the county, because right now, services are being duplicated, Sizemore said. Instead of just voting on Smith’s proposal, the board needs to look at all the county’s programs, he added.

Felicia Brabec told Smith she was struggling with this issue. She agreed that human services are crucial, but the board has also been talking about the importance of being strategic in how to support those services. Are these the best programs to which the board should restore funding? Brabec supported the idea of allocating more resources, “but I don’t want to do it in a rushed way.”

From left: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) and Jason Morgan, director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

Andy LaBarre asked Smith why there’s a need to make these funding decisions now, instead of in the broader budget context for the coming year. LaBarre said Smith had made one of the most compelling verbal arguments he’s heard in person for funding these programs. “It genuinely made me feel somewhat rotten for not doing it earlier,” he said. But if the board makes that decision now, LaBarre added, “I feel like we’re setting ourselves up for perhaps problems in just a few months.”

Smith replied that this action relates to the 2013 budget, not the 2014 budget that’s being developed. “We have needs today,” he said. It’s the immediate human need that Smith said he wanted to address – people who are homeless, who are jobless, and who could be helped by county services.

Smith said he respects the need to budget strategically. “If there’s anybody at the board who’s been fierce about that, it’s me,” Smith said. At ways & means, he had asked to restore the reserves for three departments, Smith noted, “but I couldn’t get that vote. So I want to make it real. This is what we’re talking about – people’s lives.”

In response to a question from Ronnie Peterson, county administrator Verna McDaniel said that Smith’s proposal would result in variances that would impact the 2013 budget by making transfers from the general fund’s unearmarked reserves.

Peterson indicated that he shared Smith’s concerns, but wanted more time to discuss it in the context of the 2014 budget.

Yousef Rabhi said he agreed with Smith’s intent. When the county gets additional revenues, the tendency is to spend it all, he noted. But the decision needs to be made within the overall budget process for 2014 through 2017, he said. Rabhi understood the immediacy of the needs, but “as responsible stewards, we need to make sure that we’re doing this in a responsible way.” The county is more effective in the community if it’s a sustainable organization over the long-term, he said. If the board restores funding for these programs now, “we’re opening a Pandora’s Box,” Rabhi said, with the possibility that everyone comes back and asks for more money.

Public safety has also been identified as a budget priority, Rabhi noted, so the decision needs to be made in a broader context. What’s more, the year isn’t over, and a lot of things could happen that might change the current 2013 budget projection. He didn’t want to go down the road of funding “pet projects” for each commissioner. “We’re a more planful organization than that,” Rabhi said.

Smith had made a compelling argument, Rabhi added, but it’s not appropriate given the short timeframe and the fact that other commissioners haven’t been engaged in the decision.

Brabec felt it would be a smarter strategic decision to consider the organization as a whole, and not be reactive. She wondered if Smith would be open to that.

Smith replied that he’d asked for this item to be pulled from the agenda before the meeting, “so we wouldn’t have to have this conversation, and you all decided not to do that.” He noted that LaBarre had made a motion to table the item until Sept. 4, but that motion was voted down at the ways & means committee. “I’m not the one saying ‘Don’t think about this.’ I was the one saying ‘Let’s think about this.’”

Rather than putting aside money to help the county’s cash flow or improve its bond rating, Smith said he wanted a conversation about how to allocate the surplus revenues. He wanted that conversation now, and didn’t want to wait until January to have it.

In response to a question from Peterson, Smith said he’s proposing to use money from the general fund’s fund balance. That balance stands at about $16 million. “Where the money comes from doesn’t matter,” Smith said. “It’s the impact on the community that matters.”

Peterson clarified with Smith that the previous reductions to these programs had resulted from cuts due to reductions in federal and state funding, as well as cuts to help balance the general fund budget.

Brabec noted that at any point, the board could decide to use the fund balance to support county programs. The decision didn’t have to be made that night. The decision isn’t tied to the budget adjustment resolution, she said.

The board then proceeded to vote.

Outcome on C. Smith’s amendment to the budget adjustments: The vote was 2-7, with support only from C. Smith and Peterson.

C. Smith then moved to postpone the final vote on the overall budget adjustments until the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

Outcome on the motion to postpone: The board voted unanimously to postpone final action on the 2013 budget adjustments until Sept. 4.

Trial Court Software

Commissioners were asked to approve the selection of a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County Trial Court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System would replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, according to a staff memo.

The board’s original resolution included a funding proposal for this system, from the following sources: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, prior to the meeting some commissioners expressed concern about the use of capital reserves, so an alternative resolution was brought forward at the meeting that did not include the references to funding sources.

A lengthy memo from court administrator Dan Dwyer described the history of the current software and listed its shortcomings, including an inability to compute or apply late fees on unpaid accounts, and the fact that it does not support electronic filing or online access to case information by the public. [.pdf of Dwyer's memo] The trial court was involved in a pilot project with the state of Michigan to develop a new records management system – but that project was not completed and the trial court pulled out of it in February 2013. The trial court subsequently received a refund from the state for money that the court had spent on that pilot project.

A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in April 2013, and four proposals were received. Tyler Technology’s Odyssey case management system was selected based on a range of criteria, according to Dwyer, including the firm’s stability, experience, and its approach to implementation and project management. The firm’s annual maintenance cost of $188,933 was the lowest of the two qualified bidders.

The trial court is an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court. It also includes, as of July 1, a new specialized business court. The trial court’s chief judge is Donald Shelton.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Ways & Means

The item was first considered during the board’s ways & means committee meeting, which immediately precedes the regular board meeting. Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he didn’t see the point of voting on the item if no funding source is identified. He suggested holding the item until funding details are worked out.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who chairs the board of commissioners.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) replied that the intent is to recognize the court’s request and need, and acknowledge that the system from Tyler Technology was the one selected. However, the funding mechanism needs to be revisited to find the best way to fund it, he said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) echoed D. Smith’s concern about approving the item without a plan for funding. She noted that there had been some plans brought forward in the past about improving roads, but the board didn’t act on those plans because there was no funding identified. She indicated that the board should be consistent in its approach.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told commissioners that he bore some responsibility for extracting the mention of funding from the resolution. He said he’d raised some of his concerns “admittedly late in the game.” Rather than derail the whole project, he said, the revised resolution is intended to provide another month to work out the funding details. He felt confident that the county staff will be able to produce a funding alternative within that time.

Greg Dill, the county’s director of infrastructure management, said that if commissioners approved the resolution, he’d consult with county administrator Verna McDaniel and finance director Kelly Belknap to come up with appropriate funding options. He said the staff can continue to work with the vendor as well, developing timelines and implementation. C. Smith urged commissioners to support it, and not to vote against it “because of my last-minute machinations on it.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) didn’t have a problem either way – voting that night, or waiting – but he wanted to make sure the current resolution wouldn’t create a problem for the trial court. Sizemore observed that chief judge Don Shelton seems to feel strongly about the project.

Dan Dwyer, the trial court administrator, said Tyler Technology can deliver the system in a short timeframe, but court officials would appreciate the board taking an initial step on this project. Rabhi noted that if the board wanted to, it could vote on the original resolution, which included a funding proposal. It might not be the best funding mechanism, he added, and that’s why it was extracted from the resolution. “I understand the weird dynamic here,” Rabhi said.

C. Smith suggested that the resolution could be amended to state that the board approves the selection of Tyler, and directs staff to come up with a project plan and budget to be presented on Sept. 4.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) joked that he didn’t want to be held in contempt of court. “I don’t want Judge Shelton calling me tonight,” he said, alluding to a previous meeting when the board’s consideration of eliminating the trial court’s lump sum agreement had resulted in Shelton calling some commissioners during and after the meeting.

But Peterson pointed out that this was a rare approach – to approve a project but not its funding. He was concerned about it setting a precedent, and noted that the actual costs would likely be more than the $2.3 million mentioned in the resolution. Dill replied that he would bring back an itemized list of costs for the “total cost of ownership,” including the costs for the software, implementation, and annual licensing fees. The $2.3 million amount doesn’t include the licensing cost, he said.

Peterson noted that the project will include ongoing legacy costs, which the board can’t control. Dill pointed out that any software would include an annual fee. Peterson said it was a budgeting issue, and that although he would vote for it that night, the issue would re-emerge when the board discussed the trial court’s budget later this year. “If you think this discussion is something, wait ’til the budget,” Peterson said. Saying he trusted Judge Shelton, Peterson noted that the question is how to keep the county afloat and fiscally sound, and he wanted to know what the county’s responsibilities are for this or any other agreement.

Dan Smith proposed tabling the item, which would allow the board to take it off the table later in the meeting after language for an amendment has been developed.

Outcome on the tabling motion: On a voice vote, commissioners tabled the item until later in the meeting.

Later in the ways & means meeting, the board considered whether to take the resolution back up off the table.

Outcome on taking the trial court software resolution off the table: It passed on a 5-3 vote, over dissent from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping. Rabhi was out of the room when the vote was taken.

Rabhi returned to the room, saying he and C. Smith had crafted language for an amendment to the resolution, to resolve some of Ping’s concerns. The final resolved clauses would be amended to this language:

Be it resolved that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners approves the selection of the Odyssey case management system from Tyler Technology;

Be it further resolved that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners directs the county administrator to develop a project implementation, operations and maintenance plan and to identify funding options available to the board of commissioners to pay for the Tyler Technology Odyssey case management system, to be presented at the 9/4/13 ways & means committee and board of commissioner meetings.

The intent is to put an action item in the resolution, Rabhi said. The original resolution stated that the board approved the purchase “in concept,” he noted. The amended resolution would provide more concrete direction to the staff.

Ping asked whether the $2.31 million mentioned in the resolution includes the annual licensing costs. No, Dill replied. He clarified that the amount for annual licensing is about $188,000.

IT manager Andy Brush reported that the $188,000 is already included in the $1.5 million annual IT maintenance budget for all software countywide. Every department contributes to that maintenance fund, as part of the cost allocation plan (CAP). Brush also noted that the court’s new case management system will include the ability for customers to do e-filing, which will generate revenue for the county. He characterized the $188,000 cost as a conservative estimate, since it will be offset by new revenue – an estimated $40,000 to $60,000 per year.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Ping said she remained concern that the board would be approving a project without a funding plan in place, and that the cost doesn’t include an increase of $188,000 in expenditures each year. She wondered whether that $188,000 would be paid for out of the court’s lump sum budget. “I’m not trying to get all up in the court’s business,” Ping said. But the board is worried about an upcoming budget deficit, and hasn’t yet figured out how to cover its pension and retiree health care liabilities. “It’s a little difficult to swallow, when I’m worrying about public safety out in the west side of the county,” she added. [Ping represents District 3, which includes portions of south and western Washtenaw.]

Ping wanted the funding strategy to include the annual licensing and maintenance costs, so that the board would clearly know how that would be paid.

Brush pointed out that the county hasn’t paid licensing or maintenance costs for the trial court’s current system for eight years, because the previous vendor went out of business. Dill told the board that his staff would bring back a funding strategy for this project.

Rabhi reminded commissioners that a funding proposal had been presented with this original resolution, but some commissioners had wanted to see an alternative proposal that reduced the impact on the general fund. He said anyone who’s interested in being part of that discussion should contact Dill.

D. Smith said he appreciated the effort to address concerns via the amendment that Rabhi put forward, but he pointed out that there is still no funding strategy identified. So the resolution is either meaningless, he said, or it implicitly funds this project without any funding specified. “Neither of those alternatives are very palatable to me,” he said. D. Smith preferred voting on the item when funding has been identified, which is the board’s typical approach.

D. Smith called the question on Rabhi’s amendment.

Outcome on calling the question: It passed with unanimous support.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amendment: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent from Martinez-Kratz.

Outcome on trial court software resolution at ways & means committee: The board voted 7-2 to give initial approval to the trial court software resolution, as amended. Dissenting were D. Smith and Ping.

The board also was asked to approve adding the resolution to the regular board meeting agenda that same night, when a final vote could be taken.

Outcome on moving the resolution to the board meeting: It passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from D. Smith, C. Smith and Ping.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Board Meeting

When the item came up at the board meeting, the positions discussed earlier in the evening were restated. Alicia Ping again advocated for postponement. Yousef Rabhi reiterated that a funding plan had been presented, but staff is being asked to find a different way to pay for it.

Dan Smith noted that the board had previously postponed action on another item related to the trial court. [At its June 5, 2013 meeting, the board gave initial approval to issue a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. On July 10, 2013, the board voted to postpone a final vote until Oct. 16, 2013.]

D. Smith noted that the software system is a huge expenditure, and over the next four weeks the board can get answers to its questions about funding. He moved to postpone the item until Sept. 4.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed, with support only from D. Smith, C. Smith, Ping and Martinez-Kratz.

Ping again pointed out that the current resolution does not include a funding plan. What’s more, the funding plan that was in the original resolution didn’t address the annual licensing costs, she noted. “I think those are important things, so I’ll be voting no on this tonight.”

At least six votes were needed in order for the resolution to pass. That’s because the resolution had been forwarded for a final vote on the same night that an initial vote was taken.

Outcome on final approval for the trial court software system: The board voted 5-4 to give final approval to the resolution, but failed to achieve the necessary six-vote majority. Dissenting were Ping, D. Smith, C. Smith and Martinez-Kratz.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, clarified that the resolution automatically will be put on the Sept. 4, 2013 agenda for final approval, unless that board calls a special meeting to deal with it. There was no indication from the board that a special meeting would be called.

Budget Priorities

Felicia Brabec brought forward a resolution to amend the budget priorities resolution that the board had passed on July 24, 2013. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] It’s not a content change, she said, but it simply adds four words to the first resolved clause, to reflect the outcome of the discussion on July 24.

The amended section states [italics denote added text]:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts four ordered priorities to guide the development of the upcoming budget, which are as follows: (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 Washtenaw County residents, and (4) reduce environmental impact.

Dan Smith said he appreciated this amendment, but said he disagreed with the priorities. It would be simpler if public safety and justice were made the top priority, with the other priorities reordered after that.

Alicia Ping agreed with D. Smith, saying “these priorities aren’t my priorities.” However, she said that she realized the board would act on the priorities that the board sets, and she would work with the board on a budget that reflects these priorities.

Outcome: The board voted 7-2 to approve the amended budget priorities, over dissent from Ping and Sizemore.

Leasing Agreements

Commissioners took action on two leases at their Aug. 7 meeting: (1) leasing space for county operations in the privately owned City Center building in downtown Ann Arbor; and (2) leasing the county-owned Head Start building in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

Leasing Agreements: City Center

At its July 10, 2013 meeting, the board had approved a broad strategic plan for county facilities. Part of that plan called for relocating the office of community and economic Development (OCED), office of infrastructure management, and the public defender’s office out of their current space in the county Annex building at 110 N. Fourth Ave.

The lease at City Center, owned by Dahlmann Apartments. Ltd., is for office space on the fifth and second floors of the City Center for the public defender and office of infrastructure management. The City Center building is located at 220 E. Huron in Ann Arbor.

The county will pay $333,037 for the first year, with 3% increases each year after that. The term of the lease is nine years and five months, starting Sept. 1, 2013. [.pdf of lease agreement]

Leasing Agreements: City Center – Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was happy to see an early termination option in the lease agreement, which would allow the parties to end the agreement after five years, on Aug. 31, 2018. He’s concerned that the county continues to lease facilities, but has talked with Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, about these concerns. D. Smith said he understands that county-owned space is scattered around the county and isn’t suitable for this particular need. He hopes to move away from leasing, in general.

The City Center building on the southwest corner of Huron and Fifth.

Dill reported that since 2008, the county has reduced its operations by about 85,000 square feet of space, and most of those reductions were in space that the county had been leasing.

Dill pointed out that the county does not own a facility with 20,000 square feet that would meet the needs of the departments that are being displaced from the Annex. For example, the public defender’s office needs to be near the courthouse in downtown Ann Arbor. For the infrastructure management office, its partnership with the city of Ann Arbor means that the office needs to be near the computer server in downtown Ann Arbor. There’s more flexibility for the office of community & economic development, he noted, which will be relocated elsewhere.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked whether the rate was competitive at City Center. Dill replied that the staff was still negotiating the financial agreement, so he couldn’t provide all the details. But he described it as a very favorable lease, with flexibility in terms of the length of the agreement, and a generous build-out allowance of $450,000. It’s the very best option for the county, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked why the move was necessary. Dill explained that changes are being made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for moving the entire Adult MI program staff into the Annex; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Most of the clients served by CSTS operations that are moving into the Annex live within 3-5 miles of downtown Ann Arbor. “We’re putting the services where the need is, instead of having services scattered throughout the county,” Dill said.

Peterson wondered if sufficient parking was available for clients. Dill said the plan has made allowances for parking. He noted that most of the clients downtown wouldn’t need parking, but that plans for staff parking have been made.

Peterson pressed the issue of parking for clients, saying that many of them were in financial difficulty and shouldn’t have to worry about parking when they come to get county services. That’s why he liked the Ellsworth facility, which was easily accessible. Dill replied that the Ellsworth location will be filled to its capacity with appropriate operations, and noted that most of the CSTS services in the Annex will be for clients who walk there. Peterson expressed some skepticism that people would walk to the building, and said they definitely shouldn’t have to pay for parking.

Peterson also wondered if the lease with CSTS would be parallel with the lease at the City Center, for the same duration. Dill replied that the agreement with CSTS was still “an open-ended conversation.” When he noted that CSTS is a county department, Peterson said “that’s beside the point.” CSTS, like other county units, will be paying rent on the space – even if that space is owned by the county. If CSTS decides it needs more space at some point and moves out of the Annex, the county still has financial obligations related to that building. Government is shrinking, Peterson noted, and shouldn’t keep paying for space it doesn’t need or can’t afford.

Peterson noted that the Annex was originally intended for administrative offices, not for the delivery of services. He expressed concern that certain county departments previously had vacated the Ellsworth and Towner facilities, which the county had bonded for. The county needs revenue in order to pay its obligations on bonds for facilities, he said, and it can’t do that if those facilities are vacant. The county departments that moved “stuck us with a debt,” he said, and taxpayers don’t want their money going to pay for buildings that are empty.

If a county department pays rent, it should pay it back to the county first, Peterson argued. “We’ve got a lot of vacant space – let’s fill our buildings up first.”

Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed with Peterson, that the leases with CSTS and City Center should match in duration. Regarding parking, Smith noted that the county owns a parking lot at Main Street and Ann Street that is leased to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and that the county plans to renegotiate that agreement. Dill indicated that he’s had a preliminary discussion with DDA executive director Susan Pollay. Smith suggested integrating into that negotiation some kind of voucher program at the Fourth & Washington parking structure, which is a gated facility and only a block away from the Annex.

The Washtenaw County Annex building at 110 N. Fourth Ave.

C. Smith also suggested making capital improvements in county facilities – in energy efficiency, for example – so that it would decrease the cost of operations. Dill noted that since 2008, the county has reduced its operating budget by over $15 million, and has cut the headcount for infrastructure management by 17 full-time equivalent positions. Dill said the staff will continue to look for ways to decrease costs. But he noted that CSTS had added 39 new employees, and the space is needed to accommodate that.

C. Smith clarified that he was looking for savings across the entire county operation, not just in Dill’s department. In terms of policy, Smith said that when the county makes an investment, it should leverage county taxpayer dollars first. So when looking for space, the first priority should be using county-owned facilities. The second priority should be using space owned by other government entities – the city of Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti, or the state of Michigan, for example. Only after that should the county consider leasing space from the private sector. Dill replied that this approach is already part of the county’s operating strategy.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) clarified that the $333,037 rent includes utilities. He said he wasn’t happy about leasing spaces, but liked the idea of a five-year out clause.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he felt the board was on the same page about this issue. He praised Dill’s efforts, and noted that renting is a good intermediate step but not a long-term solution.

In response to a query from Rabhi, Dill explained that every department is assessed a fee as part of the cost allocation plan (CAP), which covers internal services like utilities, maintenance, and administrative costs, for example. All of that is already built into the budget, so no additional charges will be needed to accommodate the CSTS move, he said. The goal is to create as little strain on the general fund as possible.

In terms of a specific lease with CSTS, Dill indicated that he could work with the administration on that. Although leases are common for non-county departments who use county-owned space, he said it’s not typical to do a contract with a county department. That’s his hesitancy, Dill said. Rabhi encouraged him to explore that option.

Peterson said it’s nothing unusual to ask for a lease, noting that if CSTS had to find facilities elsewhere from a private landlord, the unit would need to sign a lease. He wanted to revisit the policy about how departments pay for their space. “We do not have the ability to give anything away, other than services to the public,” he said.

Peterson further questioned the $5 million of funding for the strategic space plan, and seemed surprised at the amount. [The plan had been approved unanimously by the board at its July 10, 2013 meeting, and had included a discussion in which Peterson had participated.] On Aug. 7, Peterson indicated a desire to revisit that $5 million budget allocation, which included $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. The county is facing a budget deficit in 2014, he noted, and nothing is untouchable.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) thanked Dill for his team’s hard work. She pointed out that the Dahlmanns pay a lot of taxes to this community. “They’re not some conglomerate out of New York City,” she said.

C. Smith clarified with Dill that although CSTS is a county department, it is funded by the WCHO. Dill indicated that an agreement about the space is being worked out with WCHO. Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) agreed that it’s important to secure an agreement with the WCHO.

Leasing Agreements: Head Start

The board was asked to approve a 10-year lease of a county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge Ave. in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.pdf of lease agreement] The WISD is taking over management of the Head Start program from the county, which has administered it for over four decades. After considerable debate, the board made the decision in late 2011 to relinquish the Head Start program.

The county took out bonds to pay for the construction of the $2.29 million Head Start facility in 2002. Ten years remain on the bond repayment for a total of $1.66 million.

WISD will begin making payments in 2014. Annual payments vary, beginning with $166,862 by Oct. 1, 2014. [.pdf of rent payment schedule] After the final payment, the county would deed the Head Start building and surrounding 11-acre property to the WISD. During the term of the lease, WISD will pay for utilities and basic maintenance, but the county will be liable for structural issues with the building, including roof repairs, broken windows, and other repairs – unless the repairs are caused by WISD action.

Leasing Agreements: Head Start – Board Discussion

Conan Smith noted that only $25,000 remains in the county’s Head Start fund, yet the county will be making the next annual bond payment of about $142,176 for the Head Start building. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that amount had already been budgeted from the county’s capital reserves in anticipation of this transition.

Dan Smith noted that this is the second item on the Aug. 7 agenda involving the WISD. [The other item involved a Medicaid outreach program.] He was pleased to see the county working more closely with that organization.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved both lease agreements related to City Center and Head Start.

Bonding for Ann Arbor Drain, Rain Garden Projects

Backing for up to $3.3 million in bonds to pay for five drain-related projects in Ann Arbor was on the Aug. 7 agenda for approval, in five separate resolutions.

From left: Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and John Axe, an attorney who provides bond counsel services to the county.

The projects will be managed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. Three projects relate to stormwater control along the Allen Creek, with the goal of reduced flooding downstream and decreased e. coli and phosphorous entering the Huron River. They include: (1) up to $435,000 for stormwater control along South Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets; (2) up to $1.155 million for stormwater control along Madison Avenue between South Seventh and Main streets; and (3) up to $575,000 for stormwater control along South Forest from South University to an area north of Hill Street.

The county board also was asked to approve bonding for up to $465,000 to design and build rain gardens in Ann Arbor, and up to $700,000 to plant trees throughout the city. No specific locations were identified for these projects, which are part of the Huron River Green Infrastructure District initiative.

All five projects have been approved to be funded through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s Clean Water Revolving Funds low-interest loan program.

Bonding for Ann Arbor Drain Projects: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) thanked water resources commissioner Evan Pratt for his work on these projects. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked Pratt, pointing out that these projects are located in Ann Arbor and are crucial in addressing one of the county board’s priorities on environmental protection.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) noted that this is one of the first green infrastructure projects that the board has approved. He asked Pratt to talk about the intent of the green infrastructure program and how it works. Pratt described it as an extension of past projects, focused more on the city of Ann Arbor. He highlighted the fact that all but one of these projects on the Aug. 7 agenda include 50% loan forgiveness from the MDEQ’s Clean Water Revolving Fund. He said that more than 105 rain gardens have been built over three years, and he expects another 40 rain gardens to be installed this year. All of those have an incremental benefit on the county’s water quality mandate, he said, but the rain gardens also help with flooding issues.

The green infrastructure drain district allows these kinds of projects to be done outside of the city’s boundaries as well, Pratt explained. C. Smith described investments in green infrastructure as one of the best kinds of environmental investments the county can make. Physical infrastructure is so expensive, while planting trees and building rain gardens is gentler on the planet and serves a great purpose, he said.

Pratt explained that it’s a permanent benefit, because rain gardens allow water to soak into the ground so that it doesn’t cause flooding further downstream. Green infrastructure is state-of-the-art in his industry, Pratt added, and he encouraged commissioners to drive around and see what the rain gardens look like. Plants were just put in for rain gardens on the north side of Miller Avenue, he reported. Street drainage is one of the most polluted kinds of runoff, and the rain gardens help filter that. It’s more visible to the public than the “invisible” underground pipes, Pratt noted, so it will be important to maintain those areas.

John Axe, a Grosse Pointe Farms attorney who has served as the county’s bond counsel for several decades, was on hand at the meeting but did not formally address the board.

Outcome: All drain-related projects were unanimously approved.

Food Policy Grant

Commissioners were asked to accept a $20,000 capacity-building grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation for work on the Washtenaw food policy council.

The grant will pay for training of food council members, a “foodshed mapping” project, and development of an educational and public outreach effort. The grant will be administered by a staff member of the county’s public health department, who has a seat on the council. The department will provide a $15,571 in-kind match for the grant.

The food policy council was created by the county board on March 21, 2012. Most of its members were appointed on June 6, 2012, when the county board also approved the council’s bylaws. [.pdf of food policy council bylaws] The council aims to support local small and mid-sized farmers by fostering policies that encourage local food purchasing and production. Council activities might include: recommending policy changes at the local, state and national levels; providing a forum for discussing food issues; encouraging coordination among different sectors of the local food system; evaluating, educating, and influencing policy; and launching or supporting programs and services that address local food needs.

County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who also serves on the food policy council, had informed the board on March 6, 2013 that the county would be applying for this grant. At that meeting, commissioner Ronnie Peterson had expressed interest in having a broader discussion to develop a process for seeking funds for projects that other commissioners might want to bring forward. That discussion has not yet occurred.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board approved receipt of the food policy grant.

Staff Increase for County Clerk

An increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications – was on the Aug. 7 agenda for final approval.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (a 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on Aug. 7 commissioners gave final approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to search quickly and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

The staffing request had received initial approval at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting. At that time, commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) had pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

There was no discussion on this item at the Aug. 7 meeting.

Outcome: The changes in the clerk’s staff were unanimously given final approval.

Grant for Medicaid Outreach

Commissioners were asked to authorize receipt of a $665,704 grant to pay for two outreach workers with the Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP), who will focus on increasing children’s participation in federal Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), known as children’s Medicaid.

The grant covers a two-year period, from July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2015. It will fund a county public health and WHP program called Coverage Counts: Connecting Teens, Immigrant and Homeless Families to Insurance. The program will operate in Washtenaw and Livingston counties. According to a staff memo, 5,000 children are currently eligible for Medicaid and 5,100 parents will become eligible for enrollment under Medicaid expansion.

The grant program will include collaboration with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) and the Livingston Educational Services Agency (LESA), as well as the Livingston public health department and the Livingston Health Plan.

The two grant-funded positions will have a salary range of $36,820 to $52,404.

Grant for Medicaid Outreach: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) pointed out that the county is once again hiring staff. He understood the positions are supported with grant funding, but that source might go away. The county has already seen that happen in other cases, he noted, and it puts pressure on the board to retain the employees even without grant funding. It also requires the county to pay for more space as its employment grows. Each hire has an impact, he said, noting that he has no objection to any single hire. “But taken as a whole, it continues to be concerning as our headcount slowly inches up … over months that turn into years.”

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked for clarification about when the employees would be hired. Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan, reported that the county has already been awarded the grant, and was awaiting board approval in order to receive it. The jobs would be posted after the board takes action, she said, and the positions probably wouldn’t be filled until mid-September.

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to accept receipt of this grant.

Employment Services Grants

Two federal grants related to the county’s employment services were on the Aug. 7 agenda: (1) a $2.094 million grant from the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth Programs; and (2) a $436,063 grant from the federal Employment Services Program. Both programs are administered by the county’s office of community & economic development.

The WIA grant last year had been significantly higher, at $2.548 million, but was cut this year due to federal sequestration. Through this program last year, the county served 235 adults, 297 dislocated workers, and 372 youth. With reduced funding, this year the program is expected to provide training services to 105 adults, 155 dislocated Workers, and 295 youth, along with new enrollees.

The grant from the Employment Services Program has also been cut, from $470,755 last year. According to a staff memo, this grant pays for job search assistance, assessment, job referral and job placement services; re-employment services to unemployment insurance claimants; and recruitment services to employers. Last year, there were about 225 daily visits to the Michigan Works Service Center for these services.

Employment Services Grants: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked about the 225 daily visits to the Michigan Works Service Center, which is located in Ypsilanti. She wondered how that compares to other communities. Mary Jo Callan, OCED director, reported that some service centers in more populous communities – like Detroit, Wayne County and Oakland County – see over 1,000 visits per day. For Washtenaw County, the numbers translate into about 11,000 unduplicated residents each year. Most people come back multiple times, she explained, and some people never officially enroll in the program. Washtenaw Community College provides the bulk of those services, she said, and WCC staff are embedded in the Ypsilanti office.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Brabec also asked about the cut in WIA funding. Sequestration cuts had been anticipated, Callan replied, but are just starting to hit the county now. These grants were effective July 1, 2013. At the federal level, the funding was cut about 5%. But because Michigan’s unemployment rate dropped, less money was awarded to this state, Callan said. On average, all workforce development grants in Michigan took about a 17% cut compared to last year.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the services for youth. Callan explained that a large portion of grant funding is for youth ages 14-22. Services include tutoring, mentoring, skills training, internships and direct employment. Internships often lead to full-time employment at the same company, she noted. There’s also a new initiative called Career Connections, which Callan described as a “low-intensity mentoring program.” A recent networking event brought together about 40 youth and adult professionals from various fields, with Elizabeth Parkinson – marketing vice president for the Detroit Lions – as the keynote speaker. The county also funds B-Side of Youth‘s computer training program, which Callan said is similar to one that was described earlier in the evening by Tyrone Bridges. [Bridges' public commentary is reported later in this article.]

In response to another question from Ping, Callan said the programs are advertised in schools, including recommendations from school counselors. Outreach is also done through nonprofits that serve high-risk youth, social media, and peer-to-peer word of mouth.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) reported that he’s working with Callan and other county staff to develop a countywide youth-based program that would coordinate the county’s various initiatives. He expects to bring forward a proposal later this year.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved receipt of both grants.

Township Sewer Contract Amendment

The amendment of a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township was on the agenda for initial approval. [.pdf of original contract]

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given initial approval by county commissioners on Aug. 7 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

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

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave initial approval to the contract amendment. A final vote is expected on Sept. 4.

Historic District Commission Appointment

Yousef Rabhi nominated Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society, to serve on the Washtenaw County Historic District Commission. Cwik fills a position slotted for the general public, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

There was no discussion on this item.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the appointment of Terry Cwik to the county HDC.

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: UA (Plumbers & Pipefitters)

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau, was on hand with several representatives of the bureau as well as from the United Association (UA) Union of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Sprinkler Fitters, Steamfitters, and Service Technicians. The UA is holding its 60th annual training program in Washtenaw County from Aug. 10-16. She noted that it’s the 24th year that UA has held its training program at Washtenaw Community College.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau.

More than 2,500 participants will generate an estimated $5 million into the local economy, she said. There will be a community block party on Aug. 12 hosted by the bureau, held on Main Street starting at 6 p.m. That same day there will be a UA 5K run and pub crawl to benefit the Semper Fi Fund, which provides financial support to wounded veterans and their families. “The UA leaves this community in much better condition than when they came at the beginning of the week,” Kerr said. She introduced several representatives from WCC, UA Local 190, UA staff, and bureau board members.

Chris Haslinger, UA director of training, spoke to the board and characterized the relationship between the WCC and UA as a true partnership, including the creation of online classes and the ability to earn college credits by participating in the UA training program. He noted that this is a comprehensive year-round training program, not a one-week convention. There are also two locals – UA Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 190, and UA Sprinkler Fitters Local 704 – whose members live and work here.

This year, there are over 400 new students attending this program, Haslinger said, which is a record for UA. This year, there’s also a group from Australia who are participating, as well as representatives from the World Plumbing Council, with people from India, China and Australia.

Haslinger thanked the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs, the county commissioners and WCC for their year-round support. He received a round of applause at the end of his comments. The board subsequently passed a proclamation welcoming the UA and thanking the association for its contributions to the county. [.pdf of proclamation]

Several commissioners also spoke in appreciation of UA, the CVBs and WCC. Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that he’s working with the CVBs to develop a guide for motorcycle riders in the county, which he thought would interest UA members. Ronnie Peterson, noting that he represents the Ypsilanti area, encouraged UA officials to give feedback about how the county can make their experience even better. He pointed out that he attended the first welcoming for the UA training program more than 20 years ago. Yousef Rabhi thanked the UA for its year-round commitment to Washtenaw County over so many years.

Communications & Commentary: Computer Program for Teens

During public commentary, Tyrone Bridges introduced himself as program director for a local nonprofit that teaches kids how to use and repair computers. Five teens who participate in the program also attended the meeting.

Some of the teens who developed a program that teaches computer skills to senior citizens. They attended the Aug. 7 meeting of the county board of commissioners.

Bridges said the students had created an inter-generational program that’s been honored by the city of Ypsilanti. The program involves students teaching senior citizens how to use computers. But the students who developed the program don’t have jobs, he said. They volunteer every day during the summer, he noted, and are being kept out of trouble. “We’re begging the county to look into your heart and look into your budget to see if there’s some wiggle room” to help fund the program, Bridges said. He added that he’s tried to reach commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. “to make other things happen.”

Sizemore responded to the commentary, saying he wanted to make sure that Bridges and the computer program were part of a broader effort to help this county’s youth. Conan Smith recalled that several years ago, Bridges had approached the board for funding but didn’t have a 501(c)3 status. [At the board's Feb. 18, 2009 meeting, Bridges had told commissioners that he had applied for $6,500 community development block grant, and was told that he wasn’t eligible because his group hadn’t been audited.]

Bridges replied that his group had been a 501(c)3 nonprofit for 24 years, and had recently received funding from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. C. Smith replied that perhaps Bridges could talk with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, to see if there were opportunities for capacity-building grants through the coordinated funding program. “It’s modest enough that it should be fundable,” C. Smith said. He thanked Bridges and the teens for the work that they do, calling it innovative and creative. “You’re touching people’s lives in important ways.”

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Nov. 5, 2013 write-in candidate for the Ann Arbor city council seat in Ward 5. He noted that the meeting’s agenda lacked items related to pressing issues, like affordable housing, transit and health care. He told commissioners they were ignoring their responsibilities in very significant areas, saying that it was negligence to ignore the civil rights of residents.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 4, 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 board approved the 10-year lease of a county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge Ave. in Ypsilanti to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.pdf of lease agreement] The WISD is taking over management of the Head Start program from the county, which has administered it for over four decades. After considerable debate, the board made the decision in late 2011 to relinquish the Head Start program.

The county took out bonds to pay for the construction of the $2.29 million Head Start facility in 2002. Ten years remain on the bond repayment for a total of $1.66 million.

WISD will begin making payments in 2014. Annual payments vary, beginning with $166,862 by Oct. 1, 2014. [.pdf of rent payment schedule] After the final payment, the county would deed the Head Start building and surrounding 11-acre property to the WISD. During the term of the lease, WISD will pay for utilities and basic maintenance, but the county will be liable for structural issues with the building, including roof repairs, broken windows, and other repairs – unless the repairs are caused by WISD action.

In a separate resolution, the board approved a lease with Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. for space in the City Center Building at 220 E. Huron in Ann Arbor.

At its July 10, 2013 meeting, the board approved a broad strategic plan for county facilities. Part of that plan called for relocating the office of community and economic Development (OCED), office of infrastructure management, and the public defender’s office out of their current space in the county Annex building at 110 N. Fourth Ave. The lease approved on Aug. 7 will be for office space on the fifth and second floors of the City Center for the public defender and office of infrastructure management.

The county will pay $333,037 for the first year, with 3% increases each year after that. The term of the lease is nine years and five months, starting Sept. 1, 2013.

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: Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator; and Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith. Smith proposed several amendments to the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, which form the foundation for a new county public transit authority. All of the amendments were defeated. (Photos by the writer.)

After a 2.5-hour debate, county commissioners on a 7-4 vote gave initial approval to a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation that lay the foundation for a broader public transit authority in this area – tentatively called the Washtenaw Ride Transportation Authority. Voting against the agreement and articles of incorporation were Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner. The board also set an Aug. 1 public hearing to gather feedback on the agreement. A final vote is expected to take place at that Aug. 1 meeting.

The other parties in the agreement include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which both would contribute existing millages to the new authority. The fourth party to the agreement is the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is spearheading this effort and would shift about $200 million in assets to the new entity. The governing bodies of those three parties have already approved the transit documents. [.pdf of four-party agreement and articles of incorporation]

The board debated several amendments put forward by Dan Smith, but none of the amendments secured enough votes to pass. One of the main arguments against making any changes came repeatedly from Leah Gunn, who noted that amendments made by the county board would require that the other three parties reconsider the documents. She called it a “foolish waste of time.”

Smith argued that this was the first time that formal, representative input has been heard from communities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The amendments were intended to make the new transit authority more attractive to smaller municipalities, who’ll have the option of opting out. Smith raised concerns that the current governance structure doesn’t provide the best possible representation for taxpayers.

Another issue drawing heated discussion related to Head Start, which provides pre-school services to 561 local children, ages 3-5, and their families. Last year, the board voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the transition to a new administrator – a process overseen by the federal Head Start program – hasn’t moved as quickly as expected. So the county agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013.

On July 11, the county board was asked to approve changes to the program from Aug. 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013 – as part of authorizing a federal grant application for the program. Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against the changes, and objected strenuously to any program cuts. He voiced his concerns at length, and asked – as he has in the past – that independent experts be brought in to discuss how the changes will impact the children. He also vowed to try to keep Head Start under the county’s administration, rather than relinquishing control. The issue will be addressed at an Aug. 2 working session, but it’s unlikely that the board will reverse its decision to cut ties with Head Start.

Other commissioners objected to Peterson’s contention that they didn’t care about poor children. Rob Turner urged board chair Conan Smith to form a coalition of local educators and government leaders to tackle the problem of educational disparities within the county.

Separately, the board passed a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

In other action, commissioners heard public commentary and gave initial approval to exempt bed & breakfasts and cottages from Washtenaw County’s 5% accommodations tax. In a separate vote, the board set a public hearing for Aug. 1 to seek input on the proposed ordinance change. A final vote on the resolution is expected at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

That Aug. 1 meeting will also include a public hearing and vote on a brownfield financing plan for a residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The apartment complex is located at the site of the former Fox Tent and Awning, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley, and is being put forward by Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co.

In another development-related matter, the board authorized a contract with Sylvan Township related to debt repayment on bonds issued 11 years ago for a water and wastewater treatment plant. It’s another attempt to establish an arrangement under which Sylvan Township will repay the county for covering bond payments – contingent on Sylvan Township voters approving a 20-year, 4.4 mill tax that’s on the Aug. 7 ballot.

Countywide Transit

The long, complex process to develop a countywide transportation system inched forward last week, with the county board’s initial consideration of a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation for a broader public transit authority based on Act 196 of 1986.

The effort has been led by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Representatives from AATA – including CEO Michael Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein – attended the county board’s July 11 meeting.

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

For recent general Chronicle coverage of this transit effort, see “Differences on Countywide Transit Debated,” ”County Board Updated on Public Transit Plans,” “Ann Arbor Council Re-OKs Transit Docs” and “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”] Additional information is also available on the Moving You Forward website devoted to the expanded transit effort.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Two people – both of them candidates for the Michigan House of Representatives in District 53 – spoke in support of expanded public transit.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor, a former county commissioner who is running for his second two-year term representing District 53. He faces Thomas Partridge in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary. In the foreground is Jesse Bernstein, chair of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board.

Jeff Irwin, a former county commissioner from Ann Arbor who is running for re-election as state representative for District 53, told the board that it was nice to see so many friends. He urged them to deeply consider the countywide transit plan, as a way for communities to come together. If you look at the proposed service plan, he said, the services line up well with the amount of funding that various communities will be providing. It’s important that financial contributions are commensurate with services.

Irwin noted that there might be questions about legislation in Lansing that could affect aspects of the county plan, but he urged the board not to hold up the plan by waiting for action at the state or federal level. It’s time for the county to control its own destiny, he said. Irwin doesn’t believe there will be any changes in Lansing regarding revenue options from gas or sales taxes, although he said he’d continue to work to provide other options for public transit. He also didn’t believe legislation setting up a regional transit authority (RTA) would be passed this year. And even if it does pass, Irwin didn’t think it would include Washtenaw County. More likely it will address issues related to the tri-county area of Oakland, Macomb and Wayne counties. Including Washtenaw would add a layer of complication, he said.

Irwin concluded by saying he’d love for Lansing to get it right, but this is an important issue and the county should move forward on its own.

Thomas Partridge, a frequent speaker at various local government meetings, addressed the board during the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary. He described himself as a long-time advocate for affordable transportation, and he urged the county board and the AATA to bring a millage proposal to voters as soon as possible, to get tax revenue for public transit. He said he’s running for state representative because he’s dissatisfied with the current leadership in Lansing. It’s time for significant improvements in transportation of all kinds, he said.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion

Before the discussion began in earnest, Conan Smith jokingly “called the question” on the resolution – a parliamentary move that essentially means “Let’s vote now.” It was a move that would be repeated seriously by other commissioners multiple times throughout the debate, in an effort to push forward the item.

The bulk of the 2.5-hour discussion focused on several amendments brought forward by Dan Smith. He had circulated the amendments before the meeting, and earlier versions had been discussed at the board’s June 14 working session. In very general terms, the amendments centered on the following topics: issues of local versus regional control; the process by which local communities could opt-out or opt-in to the new transit authority; parity between Ann Arbor and other municipalities; and how details of the service and funding plan would be communicated.

This report organizes the discussion thematically, summarizing the comments and concerns raised by commissioners.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – General Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he hoped the documents would be approved that evening. He noted that Pete Murdock, an Ypsilanti city councilmember, was attending the meeting, and that two Ann Arbor city councilmembers [Sabra Briere and Jane Lumm] had attended the June 14 working session. Other than that, no elected officials had come to the county board about this issue, he said, so he didn’t want to hear any whining from them after it passed.

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock attended the July 11 meeting of the county board, but did not formally address commissioners.

Ronnie Peterson clarified that the agreement is costing the county “zero dollars.” He asked whether the documents have been available for any citizen or organization to review. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that the documents have certainly been reviewed by the four parties involved in the four-party agreement, and have been available as part of public agendas.

Peterson also asked what the county’s obligations and responsibilities are, after the board approves the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. The main obligation, Hedger said, is to file the articles of incorporation after hearing from AATA that all the conditions of the four-party agreement have been met. At that point, the Act 196 authority is a separate legal entity, and the county has little to do with it unless it is dissolved. The county would have no financial obligation, Hedger said. There could be a liaison from the county to the Act 196 board, but there would be no formal role in governance.

Noting that the county doesn’t have a dime committed to this venture, Peterson praised AATA staff and said they’ve done a marvelous job of putting this together. He’s been advocating for an expanded public transit system for 20 years, and it’s a great thing for the county.

Wes Prater commented on the transparency of the process so far. It’s true that the four parties have been involved, he said, but this meeting was the first time that the board had seen these documents. And of the 28 municipalities in the county, Prater believed only six had seen the documents.

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, clarified that the information had been sent out to all communities in the county. When the staff began developing details of the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, they worked with a committee with representatives of the four parties as well as the unincorporated U196 board.

Dan Smith noted that the board’s action in approving the documents “sucks in” the townships, because after the articles of incorporation are filed, it requires action by the local governing bodies to opt out of the transit authority. The township boards haven’t formally weighed in on the articles of incorporation, he said. This county board meeting is the first time that formal, representative input has been heard from communities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, he said.

City councils for Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti both amended the documents, D. Smith observed. And since it appears that a millage vote won’t be on the ballot until 2013, there’s time for the county board to amend the documents as well. Municipalities will be making decisions about whether to opt out based on the articles of incorporation, he said. His amendments were intended to make it more attractive for municipalities outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to participate.

Felicia Brabec asked if AATA had followed up on some concerns she’s raised at the June 14 working session, about coordinating transit service plans with Pittsfield Township officials. Ford said they’re still working on it, and AATA staff is working closely with the Pittsfield Township supervisor [Mandy Grewal].

Wes Prater objected to seeing continued changes that have just “popped up” in the documents. He cited the question of whether portions of a municipality can opt out – at the precinct level, for example. Originally, commissioners had been told that only the entire jurisdiction could opt in or out. But AATA staff had recently given them a response to questions, he noted, which stated that individual precincts could opt in or out.

From left: Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Jesse Bernstein, and Michael Ford of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Jesse Bernstein, chair of the AATA board, responded to Prater. As soon as the staff realized that the Act 196 legislation allowed for individual precincts to opt in or out, the AATA provided that information. It gives individual units of government more flexibility.

Prater wondered why this had come to light only recently, even though AATA has been working on this effort for two years. He also noted that Washtenaw County is creating this new transit authority, so why doesn’t the county have the right to determine how the authority operates? And how does the county opt out?

Prater also objected to the fact that communities that have already decided to opt out of the initial planning phase will have to formally opt out again, after the articles of incorporation are filed.

Bernstein stated that the AATA has been in contact with communities throughout the county. ”We are not going to surprise anybody with this,” he said. The plan won’t move ahead until there’s consensus on services and on how to pay for expanded service. If there’s no agreement about how to fund the new authority, the AATA will continue to operate as it has, he said, and continue to expand services as it can.

Some commissioners, including Rob Turner, stated that they did not want to give the documents final approval that evening. [Resolutions are considered and voted on first at ways & means, a committee on which all commissioners serve and which meets immediately prior to the regular board meetings. Typically resolutions are considered for a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. However, the board only meets once a month during the summer, so it's often the practice that resolutions will be given both initial and final votes on the same night. If an item isn't put on both the ways & means and the board agendas before the meeting, it takes eight votes for the board to push forward a resolution from ways & means to be considered for a final vote that same night at the board meeting.]

Turner said he wanted the time until the final Aug. 1 vote for municipalities in his district to review the documents.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Qualifications)

Dan Smith’s first amendment to the articles of incorporation would ensure that people appointed to the Act 196 board are residents of Washtenaw County. [Throughout this report, deletions are indicated with strike-through; additions are in bold italics.]

SECTION 4.07: BOARD QUALIFICATIONS

All Authority directors shall be residents of Washtenaw County and at least eighteen years old, shall be representative of public transportation interests as they exist in the County and other qualifications as detailed in the Bylaws of the Authority. Notwithstanding the above, any of these requirements may be waived by a governing body authorized to appoint directors under section 4.01 by resolution concurred in by not less than 2/3rds of that governing body’s directors. Directors may not hold office in violation of Michigan’s Incompatible Offices Act, MCLA 15.181-.185, or other similar law.

Wes Prater supported the amendment, saying it simplified the qualifications and made sure the appointees are residents of the county.

Felicia Brabec wondered why this amendment was needed. D. Smith replied that as they’d discussed at the June 14 working session, the Act 196 board will have taxing authority, so it’s important for the leadership requirements to be strong. He had originally advocated for even stricter requirements – that the directors should be residents of the districts that they were appointed to represent. But based on feedback from the working session, he had modified his original amendment. If experts are needed, then they can be brought in as consultants or a subcommittee, he said.

Leah Gunn had a question for Michael Ford – AATA’s CEO – about this and all possible amendments. Would any amendment by the county board require that all other three parties reconsider the articles of incorporation and four-party agreement? Yes, Ford replied. In that case, Gunn said she didn’t see any reason to change the language that had already been approved.

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

Barbara Bergman echoed Gunn’s comments. She asked when a millage might be put on the ballot for voter approval. AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein said there was no specific date targeted, although it appeared that they wouldn’t meet the timeline for a November 2012 ballot measure. [The deadline for certifying ballot language to the county clerk for a Nov. 6 ballot proposal is 70 days before the election – Aug. 28.] There are ongoing discussions with local districts, and he hoped the board would pass the agreement so that the project could move forward. The next step would be to nail down services and cost, so that when a millage is sought, people will know what they’re getting, he said.

Bergman noted that amending the documents would cause a delay in the process, and she didn’t support any of the amendments. She said she’d “work on squashing these amendments one by one.”

Yousef Rabhi asked Ford about the intent behind the phrase “shall be representative of public transportation interests as they exist in the County and other qualifications as detailed in the Bylaws of the Authority.” What do the bylaws say?

Ford replied that the bylaws haven’t been finalized. Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, noted that the intent in that phrase is to allow each appointing body to have the power to choose their representative, and not put constraints on those bodies. Rabhi said that was important, and he didn’t think the phrase should be deleted.

Conan Smith said he’d oppose the amendment, too. A two-thirds majority requirement is a pretty high bar for any local government unit, he said, but if that much support can be mustered to appoint someone younger or who lives outside Washtenaw County, then the appointing body should be able to do that. It’s their voice that should be represented, he said, not the county board’s.

Dan Smith agreed that the appointing body’s voice is important, but this is also an issue of overseeing taxpayer dollars, he said. The Act 196 authority board will have the ability to put a millage on the ballot. He told Rabhi that he hoped each appointing body would choose a representative with an interest in public transit, but that decision shouldn’t be a requirement. Smith also pointed out that they don’t yet know what the bylaws entail, nor do they know the process by which bylaws can be changed.

Alicia Ping supported the amendment, saying she represents nine communities that are not part of the four-party agreement. [Ping represents District 3, covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw.]

Bergman called the question, to end deliberations and force a vote. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with Wes Prater dissenting. A roll call vote was then taken on the amendment itself.

Outcome on amendment regarding board qualifications: It failed on a 5-6 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Removal of Director)

The second amendment proposed by Dan Smith would eliminate the ability of the Act. 196 authority board to remove one of its directors. The intent of the amendment is to keep the power to remove directors in the hands of the local appointing entities.

SECTION 4.04: RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, AND REMOVALS
A director may resign at any time and such resignation shall become effective upon the Authority’s receipt of a written resignation notice, unless the notice specifies a later date. The Authority Board may, upon a 2/3rds vote of its other directors, remove a director prior to the expiration of that director’s term of office for persistent failure to perform the duties of that director’s office, gross misconduct in office, other reasons as specified in the bylaws, conviction of a felony involving extortion, or financial misconduct. A director may be removed from office with or without cause at any time by the same local body or process that appointed the director.

Wes Prater described it as a common-sense amendment. It makes sense that the Act 196 board shouldn’t be allowed to remove one of its own members.

Conan Smith observed that virtually every public body has an impeachment process – the county board of commissioners could remove any of its members, for example. When Dan Smith had originally proposed this amendment at the working session, it has received some support among other commissioners, so Conan Smith said he raised the issue with the committee that has helped develop these Act 196 documents. [Members of the committee are: Sabra Briere and Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council); Paul Schreiber and Pete Murdock (Ypsilanti mayor/city council); Conan Smith and Alicia Ping (Washtenaw County board); Jesse Bernstein and Charles Griffith (AATA board); David Read and David Phillips (U196 board).]

The feeling was that the bar was sufficiently high in the current unamended item – with a two-thirds majority required to remove a director. One safeguard is that if the Act 196 board removes a director, the appointing entity can simply reappoint that person again, Conan Smith said. They can get into a pissing match, he said, and at some point the Act 196 board will see it’s in their best interest to simply keep the person on the board. But the common sense approach is to never vote to remove a director – that’s not how people usually do things, he said. People try to work things out without taking that step. The practical reality is it will never be a power that’s used, he concluded.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with Dan Smith dissenting. A roll call vote was then taken on the amendment itself.

Outcome on amendment regarding director removal: It failed on a 3-8 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Termination of Agreement)

Dan Smith said this amendment is to ensure that all political entities are treated in the same way as Ann Arbor.

12. Termination of Agreement.
…
b. Discretionary Dissolution or Withdrawal Conditions. The Washtenaw County Board will also be allowed to dissolve the New TA if there is no Authority-wide voter approved funding passed before December 31, 2014, or voter approval passes Authority-wide but the same is defeated in the City of Ann Arbor any member political subdivision. The City of Ann Arbor may also withdraw from the new TA Agreement using any of the methods authorized by MCL 124.458. In the event the City of Ann Arbor exercises any of the foregoing rights, the City of Ann Arbor may immediately terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other parties.

Barbara Bergman characterized it as a “killer” amendment, which would paralyze the process. She was emphatically against it.

Ronnie Peterson said you either want to be married or you don’t. He didn’t understand why the county board needed to be involved – he trusted the leadership of other communities. Other than from some county commissioners, he hadn’t heard objections to the proposed documents from any other elected official. If the county had received correspondence objecting to the plan, he hadn’t seen it. He didn’t understand why they were spending so much time talking about it, and said they shouldn’t be micromanaging the AATA. If the board decides to amend these documents, it should be because of advocacy from the local communities, and he hadn’t seen that. Peterson said he was troubled by the attack on the AATA.

County commissioner Conan Smith.

Wes Prater wondered why Ann Arbor is given a right that other political entities don’t have. It’s not treating everyone equally, he said, and in general the agreement is slanted toward Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Conan Smith asked whether the four-party agreement or articles of incorporation restricted the county board from taking any actions it is in general empowered to take. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said that generally, there were no such restrictions.

In that case, this amendment is moot, Smith said – the county board can dissolve the transit authority at any time. Hedger clarified that the articles of incorporation lay out how the transit authority can be dissolved, so action by the county board would be problematic, he said. “Problematic, but not illegal,” Smith replied.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 8-2, with dissent from Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was out of the room.

Outcome on amendment regarding terminating the transit authority: It failed on a 4-7 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Dan Smith. 

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Timeline, Papers of Record)

Dan Smith said the problem with this whole process is that local taxpayers aren’t being allowed to decide whether to participate. It’s the elected officials who are making decisions. The state’s Headlee Amendment was intended to put decisions about tax increases directly into the hands of voters, he said. If this countywide transit process allowed voters to weigh in on whether to join the authority, that would be fine. But it’s the governing bodies who make that decision. If the Northfield Township board doesn’t opt out, for example, and the overall millage passes, the township’s property owners would have to pay the tax – even if every single Northfield Township voter voted against the millage.

Smith noted that the reason many municipalities don’t show up to these county board meetings is because they’ve already opted out. Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator, replied that AATA would honor those opt-out decisions [after the new authority is formed]. Smith said he wasn’t sure that would be legally sufficient, without further action by the governing bodies. But he added that his biggest problem is that voters can’t vote directly on whether to participate.

With that, he offered up an amendment to the county board’s resolution regarding the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation. [Because it was part of a county board resolution, not the documents themselves, the amendment would not need approval from the other three parties.]

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners hereby adopts and authorizes the County Administrator to file the Articles of Incorporation within sixty (60) days creating a new transportation authority for Washtenaw County upon notification from AATA that the contingencies in the 4-party Public Transportation Agreement have been met.
…
1. AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the Washtenaw County, including but not limited to AnnArbor.com, the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the Washtenaw Legal News, and the Heritage Newspapers serving portions of Washtenaw County, and the paper of record, if any, for each jurisdiction;
2. Letters of notice will be sent to each city, village and township elected official in the county at their address of record alerting them to the County’s intention to file the Articles of Incorporation on a date certain. Those letters shall indicate
a. Whether or not the jurisdiction represented by that official is included in the boundary of the New TA;
b. The process by which that jurisdiction may either withdraw from or join the New TA; and
c. The date on which the Articles of Incorporation will be filed and, if relevant, the date by which the New TA must receive official notice from the jurisdiction if that jurisdiction votes to opt-out of the New TA.

Gryniewicz said AATA would be happy to put notices in any publication. She said the amendment was otherwise also compatible with Act 196 legislation.

Conan Smith indicated that he fully supported this amendment. Leah Gunn said the main problem is that any amendment made by the county board will require action by the other three parties – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and AATA. It’s a foolish waste of time, she said, and she urged Dan Smith to withdraw the amendment.

Yousef Rabhi asked why the 60-day filing deadline was added. Dan Smith replied that the reason commissioners were voting down his amendments is because they wanted the process to move forward quickly. This will ensure that it does.

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told the board that after the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation are approved, AATA will need to finalize its service plan and financial plan before the articles can be filed. He didn’t want to put a timeline on that process.

Rabhi offered an amendment to D. Smith’s amendment, striking the mention of a 60-day timeline. He also thanked Smith for his work in bringing these amendments forward, saying that Smith is a very thoughtful person and the discussion wasn’t personal.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amendment: It received no second, and died for lack of support.

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

In response to a question from Ronnie Peterson, Ford again stated that he preferred not to have the 60-day limit. Peterson said there should be flexibility, and that a 60-day deadline was a hassle. Peterson then asked about the other changes being proposed. Ford expressed some frustration, saying that after the June 14 working session he had followed up by meeting with representatives from the other three parties, and there had been no support for any of these proposed amendments. ”We went through this exercise,” Ford said.

Alicia Ping noted that she had made a big deal during the working session about the ability for communities to opt in at a later date. Gryniewicz said that information could be included in the letter of explanation about the process, which will be sent to municipalities.

Ping said she was sure the board would pass the agreement and articles of incorporation, but it was important to voice these concerns.

Rabhi questioned why the amendment removed the word “join.” That’s because when the articles of incorporation are filed, all municipalities will be part of it, D. Smith said – there’s no action required to “join.” The action that’s required relates to opting out.

Barbara Bergman called the question. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Outcome on amendment to the board resolution: It failed on a 4-7 vote, with support from Wes Prater, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Amendments (Amending Articles of Incorporation)

Dan Smith noted that this was another amendment that had been discussed at the June 14 working session. It limits the Act 196 board’s ability to amend its articles of incorporation.

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Rob Turner supported this change. He was concerned that a coalition of just three districts – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – would have sufficient votes (10 out of 15) to make changes. Other municipalities would be joining the authority based on the articles of incorporation, but then those articles could be changed almost immediately by just a small subset of the communities involved.

Leah Gunn and Barbara Bergman both objected to the amendment, with Gunn again pointing out that any amendment would require approval from the other three parties in the four-party agreement.

Felicia Brabec wondered why the amendment required both the political subdivision and the county board to ratify changes. Dan Smith said he was trying to accommodate feedback he’d heard at the June 14 working session. He didn’t care which entities had to ratify it – he just didn’t want the Act 196 board itself to have that sole power.

Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz said this was one of the amendments that had been discussed with the committee that has helped develop these Act 196 documents. The group felt strongly that the representatives appointed to the Act 196 board should be the ones who have the authority to change the articles of incorporation.

Conan Smith added that the committee had struggled with this issue. It doesn’t make sense for the county board to be the amending body for the articles of incorporation – there might be commissioners who represent districts in which no municipality is participating in the transit authority. It’s also burdensome if amendments to the articles of incorporation need to be ratified by each political subdivision, because unanimous approval would be difficult. This might be one of those things to take on faith, he said. There’s no incentive to make changes to the articles of incorporation that would deter entities from participating.

After some additional discussion, Brabec proposed an amendment to Dan Smith’s amendment [Brabec's addition in bold caps, deletion in strike-through]:

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each APPOINTING ENTITY  member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Gunn again raised concerns that any amendments would require reconsideration by the other three parties in the four-party agreement. Dan Smith pointed out that the AATA could have expanded service on its own, but because AATA wanted to be countywide, they needed to create this new authority. That’s what the county board now needs to sort through, to ensure that the organization that’s set up will function long after the commissioners around the table have moved on, he said. It’s cumbersome, he acknowledged, but they need to make sure it’s fair for all of the municipalities in the county.

Ronnie Peterson argued that other municipalities have been asking AATA for a seat at the governance table for a long time. Ann Arbor is willing to change how AATA operates to allow that to happen, he said.

There was then some discussion about the meaning of “appointing entity” – whether it meant each transit authority district, or each governing entity within those districts. It was never fully clarified.

Yousef Rabhi called the question on Brabec’s amendment. The vote on calling the question passed 10-1, with dissent from Wes Prater.

Outcome on Felicia Brabec’s amendment: It failed on a 5-6 vote, with support from Brabec, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr.,  Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

There was no additional discussion on Dan Smith’s original amendment.

Outcome on amendment regarding how to amend the articles of incorporation: It failed on a 3-8 vote, with support from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith.

Countywide Transit: Board Discussion – Final Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. told Michael Ford of the AATA that he didn’t like how the AATA had handled this entire process. There should have been more input from the board of commissioners all along, he said.

Barbara Bergman countered that she wanted to praise Ford for how he’s handled the process.

Dan Smith observed that even though a two-thirds vote has been considered a high bar for actions taken by the Act 196 authority board, in reality a two-thirds majority of seats is held by a potential coalition of just three communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, with a total of 10 votes on the 15-member board. [Ann Arbor will have 7 seats, Ypsilanti will have one, and the Southeast District (Ypsilanti and Augusta townships) will have two.] It’s understandable that weight is given to Ann Arbor because of the assets that Ann Arbor is contributing, he said. But the structure also diminishes the voices of other communities. The governance of the Act 196 authority is still a problem for him.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi.

Yousef Rabhi said that as an advocate for Ann Arbor, he supports having Ann Arbor represented at the table in a way that’s commensurate with its assets and population. [Rabhi is one of four commissioners whose districts cover portions of Ann Arbor.] He thinks the Act 196 board composition is well-weighted.

Ann Arbor has been paying 2 mills since the mid-1970s, Leah Gunn said, and is going to transfer $200 million worth of assets to the new authority. She said she’d think other communities would be saying “Thank you, Ann Arbor.”

Wes Prater noted that those assets have been used primarily to provide service in Ann Arbor. The city’s residents, not the out-county residents, have enjoyed the fruits of AATA, he said. Even the expanded service will focus primarily on urban areas, he said. Prater predicted that 12-14 communities will opt out of the transit authority, as they learn more about the services and costs. And some communities who stay in will end up with less service than they expected, he said, and they’ll be unhappy.

Sizemore reiterated his comment that he didn’t want to hear local elected officials whine. “Well, they will,” Prater replied. “I know they will,” Sizemore said.

Alicia Ping said she planned to vote against the agreement because none of the amendments were adopted, and she was representing the nine municipalities in her district who were unlikely to participate initially. However, she said she thought it would be good to have a broader transit authority in place so that communities could join later, if they wanted.

Outcome: On a 7-4 vote, the board gave initial approval to a four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, without amendments. Dissenting were the board’s three Republican commissioners – Alicia Ping, Dan Smith and Rob Turner – as well as Democrat Wes Prater. The board also set an Aug. 1 public hearing to gather feedback on the agreement. A final vote is expected to take place at that Aug. 1 meeting.

Head Start Extension

Following up on previous discussions about the future of Washtenaw Head Start, the county board was asked to approve changes to the program from Aug. 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013 – an interim period during which the county will continue to manage Head Start before handing it over to another administrative entity. The action was part of authorizing a federal grant application for the program.

Separately, the board was asked to pass a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson talks with Cheryl Perry, a management analyst in the county administrator’s office. Perry, who has served as support staff for the county board, will be transferring to work for Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director.

The local Head Start program provides pre-school services to 561 children, ages 3-5, and their families – both directly, and through delegating to other providers, including local school systems. The majority of the program would be funded with a $4.028 million federal grant in the coming year, out of a total budget of $4.55 million. The interim plan calls for eliminating 7.8 full-time jobs, and leaving another three jobs vacant. Because of vacancies and retirements, only three employees will be affected, according to a staff memo. The changes will result in one teacher and one teaching assistant per room – previously, there were two teaching assistants and one teacher per room.

These changes had been forecast at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. County administrator Verna McDaniel had told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013. As part of the budget process last year, the county board had voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the process to find another entity to administer Head Start has taken longer than expected, so the county reached an agreement with federal officials to operate the program another year.

In May, McDaniel reported that the agreement waives a 20% local match of about $750,000 that the county had previously been required to provide. She had noted that there would be staff changes proposed as a result of the new interim agreement. At the time, several commissioners praised the decision for easing the eventual transition to a new Head Start administrator, but Ronnie Peterson had expressed concern that the program’s high standards would be compromised.

Head Start Extension: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson noted that he had previously asked for outside consultants to come in and evaluate the Head Start program, in light of changes that are being proposed. He had hoped that those assessments would be done, but it appeared that they hadn’t. It would have helped the board make decisions based on the welfare of children, not just on cost, he said. Peterson added he was sure that experts from Eastern Michigan University, the University of Michigan or other institutions could be found to offer their services without charge.

Peterson spoke at length about the importance of the Head Start program, and of keeping the high standards that the county had previously met. He opposed reductions of teaching staff, and said he’d vote against them. The county has a healthy cash flow, he said. They are able to find money for other programs, so they should be able to find money for Head Start.

Board chair Conan Smith responded to Peterson, saying that although he wasn’t an expert on early childhood education, he could address the budgetary questions. Smith said the expectation is that the county won’t be able to deliver the same level of service in the coming year – there’s no question about that. As the board went through the budget process last year, for financial reasons they decided to move out of the business of early childhood education, he said. But they also made the decision because they recognized that the county isn’t an expert in that area – there are others in the public and private sector who can do a better job.

Smith noted that the current situation came up because there were some stumbling blocks that arose during the transition to another administrator. He appreciated that the county could continue to guide the program for another year – if not, it would have been administered by a third party on an interim basis. As a community member who cares about the population served by Head Start, Smith said he’s grateful that the county can provide resources for another year. It’s not the same program – it was a financial decision, not a programmatic one – but it ensures that local influence is maintained as a stop-gap measure. So the local Head Start team was asked to identify changes that would have a minimal negative impact on children during this period, Smith said.

Peterson replied that Smith’s answer was a good one for the media, but it was the board of commissioners that had decided to let go of Head Start in the first place. There had been no discussion with the Head Start policy council, or parents, or the staff, he said. Peterson didn’t buy the idea that the county was “rescuing” Head Start for this interim year, given that the county had created the situation. He said it was a disgrace for him to be on the board, and he would fight to bring back Head Start. He certainly wouldn’t vote in favor of the proposed cuts.

From right: County commissioners Leah Gunn and Felicia Brabec.

Felicia Brabec wanted to know who was involved in making the decisions about which jobs to eliminate. County administrator Verna McDaniel said her staff as well as human resources staff had worked with the program’s interim director, Cassandra Sheriff. McDaniel pointed out that federal requirements call for only one teacher per classroom. The county’s previous practice of having one teacher and two teaching assistants had been above those standards. The bulk of positions being eliminated are teacher aides.

Sheriff came to the podium and Brabec asked how she felt about the changes. Peterson objected, saying that Sheriff was being put in the middle of this debate. Sheriff replied that there had been many discussions with parents, the Head Start policy council and staff about these transitions. It’s always better to have more teachers, she said, but these changes seemed inevitable, given the situation. “Floating” teaching positions have been created to help in the classrooms – that hadn’t been necessary when there were three people per class, she said. With retirements and vacancies, most of the staff had been moved to other jobs within Head Start, she noted, and they were unable to find a position only for one part-time janitor.

Sheriff also said that services hadn’t been compromised, and the organization was still thriving.

Leah Gunn pointed out that Sheriff was, in fact, an expert in early childhood education. She thanked Sheriff for what has been a tough year, and said that Sheriff had done an extraordinary job.

At this point, Peterson indicated that he had been willing to end the debate, but that other commissioners had opened the door for further discussion. He asked Sheriff at what point had teaching staff been reduced. There was a back-and-forth exchange and some confusion – Sheriff seemed to initially think Peterson was asking when the decision to reduce staff had been made, and that happened in April or May, she said. Peterson interpreted that to mean that staff reductions had actually occurred in May, and he wondered why the board hadn’t been informed. Sheriff and McDaniel both clarified that the changes wouldn’t be made until the 2012-2013 school year, which begins in the fall.

In that case, Peterson said, Sheriff didn’t yet know what the impact would be on the children. Wes Prater objected, saying that Peterson was badgering Sheriff. Peterson replied that other commissioners had brought her to the podium and opened up the topic. She was an interim administrator and had only held that job for a few months, he noted. She was not a professional evaluator, he said, and he had asked earlier this year that a professional evaluation be conducted of potential changes to the Head Start program.

Prater asked whether the full board had approved Peterson’s request for an independent evaluation of Head Start. Peterson noted that no one had objected when he asked for it – he accused Prater of being rude, and asked him to be respectful. Peterson said the person who designed the staff reductions shouldn’t be the one to assess and evaluate it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., who was chairing the meeting, told commissioners that they needed to pass this resolution in order to apply for the federal grant money to run the program in the coming year. But he said the administration would respond to Peterson. ”I assure you we’ll get answers for you very soon,” Sizemore said. Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working session, agreed to put the topic on the agenda for the Aug. 2 working session.

Barbara Bergman noted that the program will continue to meet federal standards, and that it was a positive thing to be turning over the Head Start program to educators. Sheriff is doing a terrific job, Bergman said. She took umbrage at being accused of not caring about the children.

Prater observed that every decision about Head Start has been approved by the board. It’s the board that makes these decisions, not one or two commissioners, he said. That’s the way things work.

Leah Gunn wondered whether an assessment was necessary at this point. The changes won’t take effect until the fall, so what’s the point in evaluating it now? Wait until it’s underway, she advised. Gunn also pointed out that Head Start programs are evaluated by federal officials all the time.

Conan Smith offered Peterson a compromise, suggested that Peterson vote in favor of the program’s federal grant application but against the staff reductions. He said it’s important to have Peterson’s voice in support of the federal funding. He noted that the reduction equates to about 1% of the Head Start budget, and he didn’t think the impact would be great enough to warrant an evaluation.

Peterson replied that he wouldn’t support a reduction in staffing. He noted that commissioners have spent months discussing how to handle animal control services, and no one has complained. [For recent coverage on that topic, see "Work Continues on Animal Control Policy."] Yet when he wants to talk about children in poverty, “I get nothing but pushback,” Peterson said, adding that he felt sickened to see that attitude among his “progressive friends” on the board.

County commissioner Leah Gunn.

Gunn said she took it very personally that Peterson assumed other commissioners didn’t care about or advocate for children. She noted that the board had created a children’s well-being fund before Peterson was elected. She pointed out that she had served as the board’s representative on the Head Start policy council when Peterson was an alternative on the council, and he had attended only one meeting. His accusations are “very personal and very insulting,” she said.

Peterson replied that rather than go to meetings, he goes to the Head Start classrooms. He noted that something the board did in 1998 – when the children’s well-being fund was created – didn’t reflect the situation in 2012. A commissioner’s vote now indicated how they felt about children in poverty, he said.

Rob Turner, a former Chelsea school board member, said he’d been impressed when Conan Smith had asked him for guidance on ways that the county can address disparities in graduation rates. [That suggestion occurred during final budget deliberations at the board's Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.] Turner then read excerpts from a recent report in the Chelsea Standard, which provided data on local school performance on the Michigan Merit Exam and ACT (American College Testing) – two measures of “college readiness.” Among the data he cited, the percentage of students deemed “college ready” ranged from 47.3% in Saline and 43.2% in Ann Arbor to a low of zero percent in the Willow Run school system.

Turner noted that his niece teaches in the Willow Run system, and has to teach basic things like how to be polite. The home situations are different in different parts of the county, he said, and these issues need to be addressed. He called on Smith to form a commission with educators and others from across the county, to tackle these educational challenges, especially in the county’s most impoverished communities.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve the application for federal Head Start funding. Ronnie Peterson voted against the reduction in staff that was part of the program’s annual plan.

Head Start: Support for WISD

A separate resolution on the agenda supported the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) as the next local Head Start administrator, beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

Dan Smith said he thought the resolution was appropriate, given that the county had administered the program for 47 years.

Outcome: The resolution of support for WISD passed unanimously.

Change to Accommodations Ordinance

The county collects a 5% excise tax from hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts and other small accommodations businesses, which is then distributed to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention & visitors bureaus and used to promote tourism and convention business. Collection and enforcement is handled by the county treasurer’s office, and has been stepped up over the past two years. A move to exempt bed & breakfasts and cottages from the tax was on the board’s July 11 agenda for initial approval.

In addition to exempting cottages and bed & breakfasts with less than 14 rooms, the change would also exempt individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Bill Nickels, chair of the county’s accommodations ordinance commission.

According to the county treasurer’s report to the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, in 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The money is primarily distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus (CVBs) based on a 75/25 percentage split – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563). The county treasurer retains 10% of the tax to cover collection and enforcement expenses.

The accommodation ordinance commission (AOC) recommended approval of the ordinance change at its June 5 meeting. A staff memo states that the AOC had recently reviewed enforcement and administrative costs, and did not believe it was cost effective to enforce the ordinance with these smaller establishments. The staff memo also states that the local CVBs support this change, in part because the CVBs do not actively market these establishments.

The leaders of both local CVBs – Mary Kerr of Ann Arbor and Debbie Debbie Locke-Daniel of Ypsilanti – attended the July 11 meeting but did not formally address the board. The county treasurer, Catherine McClary, did not attend the meeting.

By way of background, the county board has made periodic changes related to the accommodations tax over the past several years. In December 2008, the board voted to increase the accommodations tax that it collects from 2% to 5%, a change that took effect in March of 2009.

The county keeps a portion of those tax revenues to pay for the cost of collection and enforcement. Until November 2009,  the county kept 5% of accommodations tax revenues for that purpose. But in November 2009, the board approved a five-year agreement with the CVBs, from 2010 through 2014, that increased the county’s share of the accommodation tax revenues from 5% to 10%.

At the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, commissioners amended the county’s contract with the CVBs to address the process for distributing excess funds that might accumulate from the county’s 10%, if that amount exceeds the expenses required to administer and enforce compliance with the tax. Beginning in May 2013, the county will continue to retain 10% of the tax proceeds, plus 10% of any remaining fund balance. If additional funds accumulate in the fund balance, they are to be returned proportionally to the two convention & visitors bureaus – 75% to Ann Arbor, and 25% to Ypsilanti.

In February 2012, the county drew on those excess administrative funds, voting to allocate $200,000 to help fund a Pure Michigan campaign focused on the Ann Arbor area. At the time, more than $350,000 had accumulated in the administrative fund from the county’s share of the accommodation tax revenues.

Accommodations Ordinance: Public Commentary

Bill Nickels, chair of the Washtenaw County accommodation ordinance commission, told the board that the AOC voted to support the proposed exemption. Of the $17 million collected over the past four years, he noted, only about $126,000 came from bed & breakfasts. He indicated that it’s not an amount that’s worth spending the county staff time and expense to collect. Nickels also reported that recently, the county treasurer – Catherine McClary – decided to expand the definition of accommodations to include private homes that lease out rooms on special occasions. That would affect about 40 homes, he said, and would increase the expense of audits and enforcement. All of this led to the AOC’s conclusion that including these types of small establishments in the accommodations ordinance is not cost effective, Nickels said.

Joan Knoertzer, proprietor of the Library Bed & Breakfast in Ann Arbor, told commissioners that she spoke for herself and many other owners of bed & breakfasts. She’s been in business 12 years, and the last time the county board was voting on a change to the accommodations ordinance, she had found out about it about a half hour before the meeting by reading it in the newspaper. This time, she’d been notified directly – she thanked the county for that. Owners are very happy about the proposed exemption, she said. The audits by the county treasurer’s staff went from being done quarterly to monthly, and are very intrusive and time-consuming. She said the owners hadn’t realized that the previous ordinance change would result in more audits like this. These small business owners support Ann Arbor from the bottom of their hearts, she said, and serve as ambassadors and concierges for the city. She strongly urged that the board approve this exemption.

Pat Materka of the Ann Arbor Bed & Breakfast said she wanted to reinforce what Knoertzer had reported. Revenues from the accommodations tax has been great for promoting larger hotels, she said, but the impact on smaller businesses has been negligible. The collaborative, positive relationship that they have with the Ann Arbor convention & visitors bureau has been interfered with by the county treasurer’s policy of auditing – it’s been intrusive, abusive and unnecessarily contentious, she said. It would complicate things even more to start harassing private homeowners who rent out rooms – it doesn’t make sense, Materka said. All bed & breakfast owners gratefully support the ordinance change, she added. She hoped the county board would let owners do what they love – offer hospitality.

Accommodations Ordinance: Board Discussion

There was no discussion among commissioners on this resolution.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the proposed ordinance change. In a separate vote, they set a public hearing for Aug. 1 to seek input on the revision. A final vote is expected at the board’s Aug. 1 meeting.

Contract with Sylvan Township

Commissioners were asked to authorize a contract with Sylvan Township related to debt repayment on water and sewer bonds. It’s another attempt to establish an arrangement under which Sylvan Township will repay the county for covering bond payments – contingent on Sylvan Township voters approving a millage.

County commissioner Rob Turner represents District 1, which includes Sylvan Township.

In May of 2012, the county had picked up a $175,000 interest payment that the township couldn’t afford to make, related to $12.5 million in bonds that were issued 11 years ago – and backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to build a water and wastewater treatment plant in the township. The treatment plant in Sylvan Township was intended for future development. Under a previous contract with the county, the township was obligated to make the bond payments. [.pdf of June 20, 2001 county board resolution authorizing the bonds]

The project has a long and contentious history, including litigation and changes in ownership. In very broad strokes, the development that was expected to support the bond payments never materialized and the township has been struggling to make payments.

A staff memo accompanying the July 11 resolution describes some of the background leading up to the current situation:

The two companies who were to build the new housing to be served by the projects were Magellan and Hamill. In June, 2003, the County discovered that the developers failed to pay the first installment on the special assessment for the projects and that the Township had entered into development agreements with the developers which credited future connection fees to the developers rather than to the bond debt service. Magellan ultimately agreed to an amended development agreement removing the credit of future connection fees and reducing the assessment on Magellan property from $4.6 million to $3.2 million dollars. Hamill refused to execute a similar amended agreement and eventually sold its interest in the development property to Norfolk Development Corporation (which also purchased part, but not all of the development properties from Magellan).

In 2007 and 2008, the special assessments on the development properties went delinquent. The County Treasurer advanced funds to the Township to cover this delinquency. Currently, the Township owes the County Treasurer $1,169,616.62 which includes interest for these unpaid advanced special assessments.

In August, 2007, Magellan and Norfolk sued the Township in Washtenaw County Circuit Court claiming that the special assessments for the project were illegal under a number of theories. The suit was heard by the Circuit Court, Court of Appeals and ultimately remanded back to the Circuit Court. As a result of the litigation, the sewer special assessment was nullified, and certain past water special assessments were nullified with future water payments being upheld.

Township officials put a millage proposal on the November 2011 ballot to levy a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax that would fund the bond payments. But Sylvan Township residents rejected the millage by a vote of 475 to 328. As soon as the millage failed, it became clear that Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – would not be able to make its payment in May of 2012. Because the county had backed the bonds with its full faith and credit, it is ultimately responsible for making the payments, even if it isn’t reimbursed for those payments by the township.  The county has an interest in making the bond payments to avoid having its AA+ bond rating negatively affected.

Even if the November 2011 millage had passed, proceeds alone would not have been sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, however – forcing the county to tap its capital reserves as well. The millage proceeds were also intended to repay the county to cover any amount used from the county’s capital reserves, as well as interest. The proceeds would also have been used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

At their Oct. 19, 2011 meeting, county commissioners gave final approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. However, the contract was contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax, so the contract was nullified in the wake of the November 2011 vote. A staff memo accompanying the October 2011 contract resolution indicated that if the millage failed, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation. Such legal action could result in a court-ordered assessment on township residents. According to a staff memo for the July 11 resolution, the county is still pursuing “legal remedies” to the situation, but hopes to find other ways to resolve the issue.

Currently $9.7 million in principal is owed, plus interest – another $175,000 interest payment in November and two interest payments totaling $350,000 in 2013.  Factoring in the $1.2 million that was advanced by the county treasurer to the township in 2007 and 2008, a total of $11.425 million is owed to the county.

The contract brought to the board on July 11 is nearly identical to the one it approved in October of 2011. It’s contingent on township voters approving a 4.4 mill tax for 20 years that will be on the Aug. 7 ballot. The county will use its capital reserves to make the bond debt payments, and the township will repay the county with proceeds from the millage. The township’s repayments will continue for seven years past the debt repayment schedule, to cover interest as well as the repayment of $1.2 million advanced by the county treasurer.

Sylvan Township Contract: Public Commentary

Kurt Koseck told commissioners that he’d spoken to them previously [at the board's Nov. 16, 2011 meeting]. He had watched their May 2, 2012 meeting and been impressed with the communications there. Up until this point, a lack of accountability on this issue had motivated him to become involved, to run for office and to attend these board meetings. [Koseck, a Republican, is among the four candidates running for two spots on the Sylvan Township board of trustees in the Aug. 7 election.]

Koseck said he’s been amazed by the lack of communication between the Sylvan Township board and the county board. He noted that at the county board’s May 2 meeting, board chair Conan Smith had said that the county is a partner with Sylvan Township. Koseck thanked Smith for acknowledging that the county had some culpability in this situation.

From left: Sylvan Township residents Tim Kelley and Kurt Koseck.

The county hasn’t been accountable, he said, but it clearly had been involved in the project. Koseck noted that consultants for the project were hired by the county but paid for by the township. It had been a $12.5 million project – and prior to that, the largest project that the township had undertaken was to build the township hall, for about $700,000. So the county was clearly the superior partner in this arrangement, he said.

Koseck also asked whether the county followed its full faith and credit policy in 2001, when it backed the Sylvan Township bonds. He wondered whether the policy had been re-examined since then, to make sure the situation can’t happen again.

Another Sylvan Township resident, Tim Kelley, told commissioners that he has reviewed a lot of the history related to this situation. The voters were never asked to approve this project, yet it was financed and built, he said. Now, property owners are being asked to pay for it. The resolution and contract being considered now by the county board doesn’t include property owners, he noted. The only way that the voters have a voice is in the millage vote. If the millage is approved, Kelley asked the board to keep an open mind about broadening the tax base for this debt service to the fullest extent possible. Until 2004, there were additional property owners in Sylvan Township – but now those properties have been annexed into the city of Chelsea. He said those property owners should also pay, and “enjoy the fruits of this fiasco.”

Sylvan Township Contract: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi noted that the county has already spent a lot of money on this project, and he wanted assurance that this contract would secure funds for all the money the county was owed now and into the future. Absolutely, replied county administrator Verna McDaniel. Over the 20-year period, all of the bond payments and interest will be covered.

Rob Turner added that the county will also be repaid for the taxes that are owed, plus interest on that amount.

Rabhi thanked Turner for his time and energy in resolving this situation, and said he hoped that the millage would be passed. It would be a better alternative than ”the other mess we could get into,” he said – an allusion to legal action against the township.

Turner said there are people in the township who would disagree with Rabhi, and who think that Turner is the enemy because he wasn’t a stronger advocate in saying that the county is culpable and should pay. He said he’s had people tell him that the county should help out Sylvan Township in this situation just like the county helped the Dexter area after the tornado touchdown in March. Assuming the millage is approved, Turner said this contract will smooth out the repayment and make things less painful for taxpayers. If property values go up, or if future development occurs in the township, the millage revenues will repay the county even faster.

There are only about 100 hookups to the water and wastewater treatment plant, but the rest of the township’s property owners will be paying for it – even though they don’t benefit from it, Turner said. It’s a hurtful situation for people, and a bitter pill to swallow. It will be a difficult millage vote, but Turner has heard people say they’ll support the millage because it’s better than the alternative. If a court ends up assessing property owners, it could be a lot higher than a 4.4 mill tax, he noted.

Felicia Brabec said she had been interested in Turner’s view of the likelihood that the millage would pass, and he’d provided some insight. Maybe the tide is turning, she said. Brabec also wondered what the impact will be on the county’s capital reserves. Are there projects that can’t be funded, because money is being used for the Sylvan Township bond payments?

McDaniel replied that the county has the capacity to make the Sylvan Township bond payments, and to cover its other bond obligations as well. [She did not provide details about the balance at the July 11 meeting, but had previously told The Chronicle in May 2012 that the capital reserve fund's available balance stood at about $4.7 million.]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to authorize the contract with Sylvan Township.

Workforce Development Funding

On the July 11 agenda were several items related to funding for workforce development programs, administered by the county’s office of community and economic development.

The board was asked to approve an annual employment services plan for programs provided at the Michigan Works! Career Transition Center in Ypsilanti. [.pdf of employment services plan] The plan is required in order to receive federal funding, allocated by the state’s Workforce Development Agency. This year, the county will receive $470,755 for the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Also on the agenda was the county’s application for $2,548,864 in funding for federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs for adults, dislocated workers, and youth from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. That’s a decrease from $2,995,151 awarded in the previous fiscal year.

The county board also was asked to authorize the receipt of an additional $350,000 from the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker program – funds that were unspent by other entities from a fiscal 2010 federal program, and that are being reallocated. For a similar reason, additional federal funding was also available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Regional Economic Impact Workforce Investment Act National Emergency Grant. The county will receive $258,919 more than originally budgeted to provide employment services for displaced workers.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved all workforce development agenda items.

Community Corrections

The annual plan and application for funding of Washtenaw County’s community corrections program was on the agenda for approval at the July 11 meeting. The plan covers the period from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013 with a $1,037,788 budget.

Community corrections is operated by the sheriff’s office and includes a variety of programs. Goals include: (1) reducing prison sentences for eligible offenders; (2) reducing jail crowding so that priority for jail beds will be reserved for dangerous offenders; and (3) reducing recidivism by providing credible alternatives to incarceration. Services range from pre-trial intervention to jail-based programs and treatment initiatives for probationers and parolees.

Of the $1.037 million budget, $430,719 is expected to be funded by the Michigan Dept. of Corrections, with an additional $260,890 estimated to come from fee revenue, $240,983 from the county general fund, and $105,196 from the community corrections fund balance. Because people who participate in these programs would otherwise likely be in the county jail, the sheriff’s office estimates that community corrections saved the county $4.756 million in 2011 by eliminating the need for 55,953 jail bed days at $85 per day.

Community Corrections: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the funding in the plan had already been factored into the current budget. County administrator Verna McDaniel indicted that it had been.

Barbara Bergman, who has served on the community corrections advisory board, thanked the program’s director, Renee Wilson, for her work. Wilson has been running the program with diminishing resources from the state, she said, but Bergman didn’t know how much longer that could be done. Keeping people out of jail is a tremendous service, Bergman said, and it’s unfair for the state to keep asking the county to do more while not providing adequate resources.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the annual plan and application for funding for the community corrections program.

Water Resources Projects

The board was asked to approve backing the bonds for four projects proposed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, including three in Ann Arbor.

Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, talks with Peter Ecklund of Axe and Ecklund, bond counsel for projects on the July 11 agenda.

The three Ann Arbor projects are: (1) stabilizing Traver Creek as it runs through the Leslie Park Golf Course, costing up to $1.805 million; (2) providing stormwater retention and infiltration from the road surface using porous asphalt on Willard Street, in the Allen Creek drain district and costing up to $345,000; and (3) providing bio-retention and stormwater capture via reforestation as part of a Huron River “green infrastructure” project, costing up to $345,000.

The Ann Arbor projects require the county to give its full faith and credit, although the payment of bonds will be funded through special assessments in districts tied to each project. The most high-profile of these project will involve work at the Leslie Park Golf Course. Most recently, the city’s park advisory commission was briefed on this project at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

The fourth project backed by the county is for a five-year North Lake improvement project in Dexter and Lyndon townships. Costing up to $305,000, it would include controlling invasive and nuisance species, such as the Eurasian water milfoil, and maintaining a lake level control structure. The bond payments would be made with revenues from a special assessment of the district benefiting from the lake improvements.

Water Resources Projects: Board Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. teased Janis Bobrin, the water resources commissioner, asking her if she was just trying to get a lot done before she left office. [Bobrin, a Democrat who has served in that elected position for more than 20 years, is not seeking re-election this year. Two Democrats – Harry Bentz and Evan Pratt – are competing for the position in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, with the winner facing Republican Eric Scheie in November.]

Yousef Rabhi asked what kind of restoration was being planned with the Huron River green infrastructure project. Bobrin replied that the city of Ann Arbor will be implementing the project, planting trees in the right-of-ways and other city-owned areas.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized bonding for all four water resources projects.

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to set a hearing for Aug. 1, 2012 to get public input on a brownfield financing plan for a residential development at 618 S. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

The apartment complex – located at the site of the former Fox Tent and Awning, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley – is being put forward by Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co., and will be marketed to young professionals. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

Previously approved by the Ann Arbor city council on June 18, the project’s brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in conjunction with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012. Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA TIF work in a similar way. The developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project, then receive reimbursement for eligible expenses. The brownfield plan includes developer reimbursements of $3.7 million over 21 years.

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

For additional background on the project, see Chronicle coverage: “618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support” and “Ann Arbor City Council OKs 618 S. Main.”

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen told commissioners that this is the time of year when public bodies sometimes put through controversial items that have been put aside, but that reemerge in the summer like cicadas – when many people are out of town. He said he was happy to see that’s not the case for the county board.

He wanted to talk about brownfields, and noted that there was a lot of activity in Ann Arbor. There’s a danger of mission creep, Mogensen said. The brownfield designation started out as a way to deal with contaminated sites, but now includes other categories as well. It’s important to ask what the public benefit is from making a brownfield designation. By the time the county holds a public hearing, the likelihood of a brownfield plan being turned down is unlikely, he said. Mogensen said he wasn’t asking that the board turn down this particular proposal, but he did ask that they act as an oversight body, and not overlook their responsibility. It’s important not to expend public money to finance projects if the projects could not otherwise get financing, he said.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted to set a public hearing for the 618 S. Main project at their Aug. 1, 2012 meeting.

Appointments

The board was asked to make two appointments to the county’s local emergency planning committee: Stephen D. Field and Martin Donaldson, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014.

Board chair Conan Smith noted that it’s difficult to recruit people to this committee, and he was grateful that they found two people who would serve.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved appointments to the  local emergency planning committee.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Separately, the board unanimously passed a resolution supporting the selection of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District as the next local Head Start administrator. The selection will be made by federal Head Start officials.

The local Head Start program provides pre-school services to 561 children, ages 3-5, and their families – both directly, and through delegating to other providers, including local school systems. The majority of the program is funded with a $4.028 million federal grant. The interim plan calls for eliminating 7.8 full-time jobs, and leaving another three jobs vacant. Because of vacancies and retirements, only three employees will be affected, according to a staff memo. The changes will result in one teacher and one teaching assistant per room – previously, there were two teaching assistants and one teacher per room.

These changes had been forecast at the board’s May 2, 2012 meeting. County administrator Verna McDaniel had told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013. As part of the budget process last year, the county board had voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the process to find another entity to administer Head Start has taken longer than expected, so the county reached an agreement with federal officials to operate the program another year.

In May, McDaniel reported that the agreement waives a 20% local match of about $750,000 that the county had previously been required to provide. She had noted that there would be staff changes proposed as a result of the new interim agreement. At the time, several commissioners praised the decision for easing the eventual transition to a new Head Start administrator, but Ronnie Peterson had expressed concern that the program’s high standards would be compromised.

At the July 11 meeting, Peterson again voiced his concerns at length, and asked – as he has in the past – that independent experts be brought in to discuss how the changes will impact the children. He also vowed to try to keep Head Start under the county’s administration, rather than relinquishing control. The issue will be addressed at an Aug. 2 working session.

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

From left: County commissioners Ronnie Peterson and Rob Turner. Turner has been the board's point person for dealing with a debt crisis in Sylvan Township. (Photos by the writer.)

Chief among those was a report on the debt crisis in Sylvan Township. The county picked up a $175,000 interest payment on May 1 that the township couldn’t afford to make, related to $12.5 million in bonds that were issued 11 years ago – and backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to build a water and wastewater treatment plant there.

Rob Turner – who represents District 1 on the county’s west side, where the township is located – reported that township officials hope to seek voter approval in August for a 20-year, 4.4 mill tax to cover the remaining payments. However, some commissioners expressed skepticism that township voters would approve a tax now, after rejecting a similar proposal in November. The county is also pursuing legal action for breach of contract, and is working with the township to reach a consent agreement that can be submitted to the court to outline a repayment strategy. If the millage doesn’t pass, it will be up to a judge to determine a tax levy. Commissioners were told that township residents will be assessed for the debt, one way or another.

In another report to the board, county administrator Verna McDaniel told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the Washtenaw Head Start program, through July 31, 2013. As part of the budget process last year, the county board had voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the process to find another entity to administer Head Start has taken longer than expected, so the county reached an agreement with federal officials to operate the program another year.

McDaniel reported that the agreement waives a 20% local match of about $750,000 that the county had previously been required to provide. Because of that decrease there will be program changes, though details haven’t yet been worked out. While several commissioners praised the decision for easing the eventual transition to a new Head Start administrator, Ronnie Peterson expressed concern that the program’s high standards would be compromised.

The board also got an update on ongoing efforts to address how the county handles animal control services, in preparation to issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year. Those services are currently being handled through a contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which ends on Dec. 31, 2012. Board chair Conan Smith passed out a schedule for the board’s animal control policy task force meetings, with the first one set for Wednesday, May 9 from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave. The policy task force meetings will be open to the public.

Financial reports were also on the May 2 agenda, including the 2011 audit and an update on long-term liabilities. Wes Prater voiced concern that the county now has dramatically more in long-term liabilities than it did just five years ago. Total legacy liabilities, including pension and retiree health care benefits, have increased from $302.198 million at the end of 2007 to $346.572 million at the end of 2011.

Other items addressed during the meeting included: (1) an update from Yousef Rabhi on plans to put Project Grow gardens on the county-owned Platt Road site of the former juvenile justice center; (2) approval of up to $270,000 in bonds to fund an extension of the Sugar Creek drainage district in York and Augusta townships; (3) a resolution of support for the U.S. Clean Air Act; and (4) public commentary regarding the dangers of DTE Energy’s “smart” meters.

Commissioners also honored Hazel Bowman for her 25 years of volunteer service in the county’s foster grandparent program, giving her a standing ovation.

Sylvan Township Bond

Verna McDaniel introduced the topic of Sylvan Township’s bond payments during her county administrator’s report, but asked commissioner Rob Turner to elaborate. Turner represents the district where Sylvan Township is located – District 1, on the county’s west side.

Sylvan Township Bond: Background

In 2001, $12.5 million in bonds were issued – backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to build a water and wastewater treatment plant in Sylvan Township that was intended for future development. Under a contract with the county, the township is obligated to make the bond payments. [.pdf of June 20, 2001 county board resolution authorizing the bonds] The township expected that connection fees from developers would cover those payments, but the development never materialized and the township has been struggling to make payments.

Township officials put a millage proposal on the November 2011 ballot to levy a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax that would fund the bond payments. But Sylvan Township residents rejected the millage by a vote of 475 to 328.

As soon as the millage failed, it became clear that Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – would not be able to make its payment in May of 2012. Because the county had backed the bonds with its full faith and credit, it is ultimately responsible for making the payments, even if it isn’t reimbursed for those payments by the township.  The county has an interest in making the bond payments to avoid having its AA+ bond rating negatively affected.

Even if the millage had passed, proceeds alone would not have been sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, however – forcing the county to tap its capital reserves as well. The millage proceeds were also intended to repay the county to cover any amount used from the county’s capital reserves, as well as interest. The proceeds would also have been used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

At their Oct. 19, 2011 meeting, county commissioners gave final approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. However, the contract was contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax, so the contract was nullified in the wake of the November 2011 vote. A staff memo accompanying the contract resolution indicated that if the millage failed, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation. Such legal action could result in a court-ordered assessment on township residents.

Currently $9.7 million in principal is owed, plus interest – another $175,000 in November and two payments totaling $350,000 in 2013 – and the $1.2 million that was advanced by the county treasurer. In total, $11.425 million is owed.

Sylvan Township Bond: Board Discussion

Rob Turner reported that as expected, Sylvan Township failed to make its May bond payment of $175,000, and that payment was made by the county. [McDaniel later clarified for The Chronicle that the payment was made out of the county's capital reserve fund, which has an available balance of about $4.7 million.] The county’s legal counsel had met with the township’s legal counsel to start working on a consent agreement related to repaying the county.

Meanwhile, Turner said, the township board plans to make another effort to pass a millage. However, the millage will be set at a lower rate – 4.4 mills – because property values are higher than previously expected. The news about property values was released in April, as part of the county’s annual equalization report.

Everything else, including the payment structure and contract with the county, would be the same as what was previously approved prior to the November vote, Turner said. Any new contract with the county would also be contingent on voters approving the millage, which township officials plan to place on the Aug. 7 ballot. That contract would require approval by both the township and county boards.

From left: Washtenaw County corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and board chair Conan Smith. Hedger has been on medical leave – this was the first meeting he has attended since January, and he received a round of applause from commissioners for his return.

Ronnie Peterson asked for further explanation of the township’s default, saying he couldn’t recall this kind of situation happening here in the past. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, reviewed the history of the bond and said that by not making its May 1 payment, the township breached its contract with the county. He explained that parallel paths are being pursued: the county is taking legal action against the breach of contract, and the township is planning to ask voters for a millage.

In response to another query from Peterson, Hedger clarified that the county made the $175,000 payment on May 1.

Turner reported that May 15 is the deadline for putting a millage question on the Aug. 7 ballot – that’s the preferred approach. If the millage fails, they’d still have time to get a court judgment that would assess a millage on township residents on their December tax bills.

Turner pointed out that this potential outcome has been discussed – it was a situation that has been known. If the millage fails again, it would be better to have a consent agreement filed with the court for approval, to avoid additional legal expenses on both sides.

Peterson – who represents a district that covers most of Ypsilanti – then said that because people like to dip into his community’s business, “let me dip a little, too.” Why hasn’t a consent agreement been reached before now? An obligation has been called, he said. Sylvan Township should be knocking on the county’s door. ”There’s nothing to negotiate – you’re in default,” he said. All communities are hurting badly, Peterson said, but this situation is non-negotiable.

Turner replied that township officials did approach the county several months ago. They knew well ahead of time that they wouldn’t be able to make their payments. But the county’s legal advice was to wait until that non-payment actually happened. The township isn’t fighting this, Turner said – they want to work it out with the county.

Alicia Ping asked what would happen if the millage fails again. What would be assessed on each property owner in the township?

Hedger replied that the point of the consent agreement is to determine that amount. He explained that the consent agreement, reached between the county and township, would be presented to a judge as a recommendation. If there’s no agreement, it’s in the hands of the judge to determine how much to levy.

Ping wondered why the judge couldn’t order 4.4 mills to be levied now, so that it could go on the June tax bills, rather than wait until the county had to make another $175,000 payment. All of the commissioners had sat around the table and made budget decisions, Ping said, and they understand that $350,000 is a lot of money. She didn’t have confidence that Sylvan Township voters would approve a millage they had rejected in November. So why not just ask for a judgment now?

Hedger said the county is pursuing  dual tracks – taking legal action over the breach of contract, while trying to reach a consent agreement that can be presented to the judge. He cautioned that the judge might not accept the recommendation in a consent agreement. Ultimately, it would be the judge who determines the amount to levy.

Ping said the county is asking other residents to be very patient. She asked whether this approach is the fastest way to get money out of Sylvan Township. It is, Hedger said.

Conan Smith said he wanted to highlight the work that Turner had done. Turner has regularly updated the board about the severity of the problem and the consequences of the millage failure, he said, while at the same time being cognizant of the residents and of the damage to their quality of life if the county were to unilaterally demand full payment. The county is taking a measured course, he said. They’re partners. It’s not exclusively the fault of the developer or the township board – the county board played a role too. They need to find a way to get through this situation that keeps the county whole but doesn’t create a dire situation for residents who are already feeling financial stress.

Smith told commissioners he felt content with the process. He doesn’t want to end up with the county picking up the tab, nor should the county try to punish the township. It was great that Sylvan Township’s leaders came forward and are willing to try again with the millage. The right course of action is to get through this without undue hardship while keeping finances stable, he concluded.

Felicia Brabec asked Turner if he had any sense that the voters’ mood had shifted on this issue since November. That’s a good question, Turner replied. There’s a group that has organized against the millage, but they’re also against any payment, he said. Last year, voter turnout was very low. The hope is that if there’s a larger turnout and people are better informed, the millage might pass.

Brabec asked if there are plans for further education before the millage vote. Turner said he’ll make himself available for another town hall meeting, though he said the township’s legal counsel doesn’t want to hold such a meeting. Prior to the November 2011 vote there were three public forums, with about 100 people attending each one, Turner said. The exchanges became personal against the township board. While Turner said he was treated with respect, a lot of anger was directed at township board members. The township’s legal counsel is also a resident of the township, which puts him in a difficult situation, Turner said.

From left: Greg Dill, the county's infrastructure management director, talks with county commissioner Dan Smith.

Dan Smith said he was happy that the county made the bond payment, and maintained the county’s good credit rating. That’s important, he said, because a good credit rating lowers the cost of funding activities like the Sugar Creek drainage project they were voting on that night.

Smith said he also approved of efforts to minimize the impact on Sylvan Township residents. A judgment issued every year could result in widely varying millage rates, he said. At least a voter-approved millage or a court-ordered consent agreement would provide some stability, and help with planning and budgeting.

It’s disappointing that no member of the Sylvan Township board has attended any county board meeting, D. Smith said. [Current trustees are Robert Lange, Luann Koch, Arlene Grau, Reuben Lesser Jr. and Scott Cooper.] This has been an extremely public matter involving tax dollars, he noted, and is fairly unique because public bodies are involved in negotiations. But the county board has heard nothing directly from the township – it would have been nice if they had come to a meeting two weeks ago or a month ago, and let commissioners know about the situation in person.

D. Smith then directed a question to Hedger, asking whether Hedger’s advice stems from the fact that the only ways additional taxes to repay the bond can be extracted are through a judgment issued by the court, or through a voter-approved millage. That’s exactly right, Hedger replied. In that case, Smith noted, it binds the hands of the county board as well as the township board, in terms of actions they can pursue.

Peterson said he’d appreciate it if information about situations like this would be shared prior to the meeting. If he were a resident of Sylvan Township, Peterson said, he’d be upset that people had been aggressive in the past but now “I’m paying the bill.” He wondered how the county board could have approved loaning money to an entity that didn’t have a way of guaranteeing repayment.

[According to minutes of the July 2001 meeting, when the board gave final approval to the Sylvan Township project, Peterson seconded the motion for all three resolutions related to the project – including issuance of the bonds. All three resolutions passed unanimously. The minutes do not record any discussion that might have occurred. In addition to Peterson, current commissioners who also served at that time are Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr., who was absent at that July 2001 meeting. Other commissioners at that time were Vivienne Armentrout, Dillard Craiger, Richard DeLong, Jeff Irwin, Martha Kern, Larry Kestenbaum, Christina Montague, Suzanne Shaw, Steve Solowczuk, and Joe Yekulis. Bob Guenzel was serving as county administrator.]

Peterson said the board should review its policies regarding when the county grants its full faith and credit to a project. If you don’t have cash reserves or assets to cover the payments, he said, you shouldn’t be borrowing money – that’s what caused the nation’s housing crisis. The board should have said no to the project, Peterson said. “We’re in it to our neck, but part of it is our fault.”

Turner responded to Peterson, saying “Amen!” He said he totally agreed, but at the time, everyone felt that the housing growth wasn’t going to correct itself. “That is an assumption that should never have been made,” Turner said.

The money will be paid back to the county, Turner said. It will be paid back by some people who didn’t even live in the township when this project was approved. It’s even more hurtful that residents could be forced to pay it without a vote. [That is, if a millage fails to win voter approval, a judge will make a ruling to assess residents instead.] The situation has a long and complex history – “it’s a mess,” Turner said. This could have been a successful project, he said, but everything went against it. His heart breaks for the people of Sylvan Township and the burden they’ll have to carry, he said.

Referring to the county’s May 1 payment on the bond, Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he didn’t know how the administration could write a check for $175,000 without informing him, and he hoped it didn’t happen again. He asked whether the county would recoup its legal expenses. Hedger said it’s not automatic, but they could ask to be reimbursed. Sizemore wrapped up the discussion by saying that he’d be very upset if something like this happens again.

Sylvan Township Bond: Board Discussion – Coda

Later in the meeting, Rob Turner said he didn’t want to beat a dead horse, but he wanted to clarify that everyone was in agreement about the plan to work with Sylvan Township on a contract similar to the one they had approved last year, laying out a plan for repayment if the millage passes. No one responded, which Turner took to mean assent.

Wes Prater said he thought Turner was doing the right thing, and that he knew Turner had spent a lot of his personal time working on this situation. Prater said he believed Turner was making headway. “Maybe the third or fourth time [the millage vote] will be successful, Prater quipped. He added that he really hoped it would work out this time.

Head Start Update

During her county administrator’s report, Verna McDaniel told commissioners that the county had agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the Head Start program, through July 31, 2013.

County administrator Verna McDaniel, left, talks with Diane Heidt, the county's human resources and labor relations director.

By way of background, last year – as part of the budget process – the county board voted to relinquish its 46-year administration of Washtenaw Head Start on July 31, 2012. The plan is for federal Head Start administrators to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to seek other interested entities that could take over the program.

The RFP wasn’t issued until April 19, McDaniel reported, and the selection process typically takes 8-12 months. That meant that on Aug. 1 of this year, an interim agency would have taken over the program, running it until federal officials selected a new grantee.

Rather than have two transitions, the county negotiated to extend its administration of Head Start until the next grantee is selected, McDaniel said. This will allow for a smoother transition and avert an interim management period. In exchange, federal officials have agreed to waive a required 20% local match. The program will be funded only through $3.8 million in federal dollars, for which the county must apply for as it has done every year. [McDaniel later clarified for The Chronicle that the match amounted to about $750,000, which the county has previously funded through a combination of cash and in-kind contributions.]

McDaniel said that her staff had met with union representatives earlier in the day to discuss the change, and the union is being very cooperative.

Head Start Update: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson wanted details about the impact of eliminating the 20% match. Classroom size is important to him, he said, as is the teacher-to-student ratio. The county has a nationally recognized program because of its high standards, Peterson noted. He did not want those standards to be compromised, and asked for regular reports during this transition period.

McDaniel said that eliminating the 20% match would not result in lower standards or reducing the number of students that participate.

Board chair Conan Smith noted that every year, the county must apply for federal funding to operate Head Start. County staff had not intended to do that for the coming year, but now they will, he said. The application must articulate any program changes, and the staff is working on that now. Because the 20% match is being eliminated, there will almost certainly be program changes “to the negative,” he said, but those details are still being worked out.

Smith pointed out that the will of the board last year had been to relinquish the program to save money. If they now decided they wanted to maintain the program in its same form, they’d need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said. So there will be changes to the program’s scope and delivery of services. The number of children in the program won’t be cut, and the county hopes to partner with other institutions like the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. If that happens, they might even be able to serve more children, he said. But the reality is the program will likely change, and the staff is working on a plan for that.

The alternative, Smith noted, is that an outside organization would come in and take over with fewer resources and inevitably the program would offer fewer services. Extending the county’s involvement gives commissioners the chance to guide the process, he said, and ensure that the children are taken care of. “Is it going to be the program we had last year? No, it is not,” Smith said. But they knew that when they made the decision during the budget process. No one feels good about the situation, he concluded, but that’s the reality of it.

Felecia Brabec said she echoed Peterson’s concerns, and she appreciated the hard work that was focused on the transition. She wondered if it would be possible to find out which entities respond to the RFP. McDaniel replied that typically, the federal officials receive four or five proposals, and she’d try to get details for the board.

Brabec pointed out that there are many educational institutions in this county that would be a good fit for Head Start. It would be good to support those applications, she said, rather than proposals from outside the area.

Yousef Rabhi described the extension as a great course of action, to ensure the program only goes through one transition, not two. It will preserve the program’s leadership and make less of an impact during the transition, he said.

Peterson then spoke at length about his concerns for the “county’s babies” who are born into poverty, and how he feels responsibility for their welfare. He hoped that the county would bring in Head Start experts to act as consultants and guide the county through this transition period.

Animal Control Services

During the May 2 meeting, commissioners were updated on ongoing efforts to address how the county handles animal control services.

Rob Turner, who serves on an animal control services work group led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, reported that a meeting for May 1 had been cancelled and rescheduled for May 15. The work group includes representatives of the county, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and other municipalities that have animal control ordinances. That group was created by the county board earlier this year and is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the cost of providing animal control services.

At the board’s April 18, 2012 meeting, commissioners had discussed the need for a policy task force on animal control issues to also convene. On Wednesday, board chair Conan Smith passed out a schedule for the task force meetings, with the first one set for Wednesday, May 9. He noted that the resolution passed by the board at their Feb. 15 meeting had set a May 15 deadline for an initial report from the task force. But since its first meeting will be just a few days before that, he said he wasn’t sure what kind of report they could make.

Six meeting dates are scheduled for the policy task force, all on Wednesdays from 8-10 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave.: May 9, May 23, June 13, July 25, Aug. 22 and Sept. 12.

Smith described the approach he wanted to take as a bit experimental, using the kind of interest-based process that the county uses in its labor negotiations. He has asked that the meetings be facilitated by staff of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center.

Topics to address include defining the county’s state-mandated services, selecting the non-mandated services they’d like to offer, and identifying the revenue sources available to fund those services. For example, if the county wants to provide animal control services for cats – which the county considers a non-mandated service – then they’d need to find out how much it costs to do that, and what revenues are available to pay for it, Smith said. Serviceability levels are important, he added, because that will be included in the request for proposals (RFP) that the county eventually issues. If the county learns that the desired service levels cost more than its ability to pay, some decisions will need to be made about that.

Another issue is to set policies for pursuing repayment through the courts for animal abuse cases. Smith said he hoped to have preliminary recommendations from the task force in August, with final recommendations in September.

The board had previously set a deadline of Sept. 15 for the sheriff’s work group to complete their recommendations, with a final task force report to be made by Oct. 15. Ronnie Peterson pointed to the amount of meeting time scheduled for the task force, indicating that six two-hour meetings seemed like a lot. Smith hoped it wouldn’t take that long to do the work – if it’s done sooner, “I’d be delighted,” he said.

Noting that there are two parallel tracks – the work group and the task force – Felicia Brabec asked how those two entities would communicate. Smith said he didn’t know yet, but that he planned to communicate with the sheriff, county administrator Verna McDaniel, and commissioner Rob Turner, who all serve on the work group. It’s important that the two entities are “cross-communicating,” Smith said.

Yousef Rabhi reiterated the importance of communication. He noted that the purpose of the May 15 initial report from the policy task force was to provide some direction to the sheriff’s work group. Smith replied that at the first policy task force meeting, they should clarify the scope of their work, which might help the sheriff’s work group to prioritize its research.

Wes Prater clarified with Smith that these meetings will be open to the public and noticed in accordance with the state’s Open Meetings Act. He felt that the work of the policy task force should be simple – establishing the types of services the county will provide, and the level of service. They should start with mandated services and go from there, he said.

Turner cautioned that the recommendations will need to be reviewed at a work session, followed by an initial vote at a ways & means committee meeting, then a final vote at a board meeting. After that, the RFP will be issued, and there needs to be time to receive proposals, review them and make a decision about awarding a contract. All of this needs to happen before the end of the year, when the current contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley ends. The board needs to be sensitive to this timeframe, Turner said. Otherwise, they’ll find themselves in the same position as they were last year.

2011 Finance, Audit Reports

There were three presentations at the May 2 meeting related to the county’s finances.

Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann.

In what’s become an annual ritual, 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 2010. The award is based on the county’s timely completion of its state-mandated comprehensive annual financial report, or CAFR. This is the 21st year that Washtenaw County has received a certificate of achievement.

Pete Collinson of the county’s finance department then gave a brief presentation of a set of financial reports: (1) a schedule of fund balances and net assets as of Dec. 31, 2011; and (2) a schedule of long-term liabilities over the last five years.

Collinson noted that the board had received a detailed report on 2011 year-end finances at its March 21, 2012 meeting. The county had used nearly $800,000 from its fund balance for the year, but the good news is that the amount was considerably less than anticipated. [The finance staff had originally projected that $5.3 million would need to be drawn from the general fund balance for the year – the board had approved the 2011 budget based on that assumption.]

The county also received favorable news from the equalization report in April, Collinson said, which means that 2012 property tax revenues will be higher than expected. He pointed out that the county also has $14.5 million in the fund balance for its general fund – or 14.2% of annual expenditures, “which is very good,” he said. [The total for all of the county's fund balances stood at $111.743 million at the end of 2011.]

Looking at the schedule of long-term liabilities, Collinson observed that the county’s bonded debt has decreased but its legacy liabilities – including pension and VEBA (Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association) – are growing. [VEBA is a 501(c)9 trust established to pre‐fund retiree health care benefits. Total legacy liabilities have increased from $302.198 million at the end of 2007 to $346.572 million at the end of 2011.]

Collinson said there were no significant findings in the audit report, and that all other issues raised in the audit had been addressed.

He highlighted the county’s state revenue-sharing reserve fund, which stands at $10.8 million. About $6.8 million of that will be used in 2012, with the remaining amount to be used in 2013. At that point, the fund will be depleted, he said, but it’s hoped that the state legislature will reinstate revenue-sharing at some level beyond that.

Collinson reported that the county staff had a conference call in late April with Standard & Poor’s and have been told that the county’s AA+ bond rating will remain unchanged – a very favorable rating, he said.

In wrapping up, Collinson noted that this report is coming to the board a little later in the year than usual. He pointed to significant finance staff turnover in 2011, as well as the fact that finance director Kelly Belknap had been “borrowed” by the administration during the year. [Belknap began serving as interim deputy administrator a year ago, following the medical leave, then resignation, of deputy administrator Bill Reynolds.]

Collinson introduced Mark Kettner from the accounting firm Rehmann, who briefly reviewed the 2011 audit and fielded questions from commissioners.

[2011 comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR)] [communication from Rehmann to board] [building authority 2011 financial statement] [department of public works 2011 financial statements] [water resources commissioner 2011 financial statements] [employee retirement system 2011 financial statements] [money purchase pension plan (MPPP) financial statements] [VEBA financial statements] [2011 Michigan single audit]

2011 Audit Report: Board Discussion

Wes Prater noted that the financial status looks good, with the exception of long-term liabilities. It’s of concern to look at the last five years and see that the county now has nearly $50 million more in long-term liabilities than it did in 2007, he said.

“That’s a tough nut,” Kettner replied, adding that he agreed it was a scary outlook. Those are challenges that are going to survive the people in this room, he said. Previously, the county had a defined contribution plan, he noted, but shifted to a defined benefit plan – that was a policy decision that had an impact on long-term liabilities. To offset that, changes have been made in labor agreements, shifting more of the costs to employees. But benefit programs remain the county’s primary liability, he said.

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Prater said that it’s troubling to see such a dramatic increase over the past five years. The county owes its employees for the work they’ve done, he said, but the long-term liabilities are an issue the board needs to address.

Kettner noted that part of the issue is tied to workers taking retirements earlier than anticipated. That’s a strategy that helps the county’s short-term financial situation by removing people from its payroll, he said, but people then start drawing their retirement benefits sooner. Perhaps it’s time to start asking whether the county’s actuarial assumptions – as well as assumptions about interest rates and investment returns – are realistic, he said. These are challenges for everyone, Kettner said, and no one has the answers.

Rob Turner said that assumptions of 7.5% investment returns are nearly impossible. Even if those returns are in positive territory at 3-4%, he said, the system is still in a hole because it was based on getting much higher returns. He said the county’s VEBA and pension boards are looking into this, and will be hiring a new actuary.

The employees’ retirement system liabilities stood at $40.49 million at the end of 2007 and are now at $84.2 million, Turner noted. Just in the last year, those liabilities had increased by $14 million. It’s also important to work with the labor unions representing county employees to address this issue, Turner said, adding that there are “handcuffs” related to that, too. It was addressed in the last labor negotiations, he said, and will be an ongoing issue.

Sugar Creek Drain Bonds

Acting on a request from water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin, commissioners were asked to give initial 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 project – which in total is budgeted at $349,899 – was requested by 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.

Sugar Creek Drain Bonds: Board Discussion

Wes Prater said he felt the board needed an explanation, since this was a “pretty big project.” Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, described it as a standard construction project, aimed at protecting the road from continued degradation. She noted that her office had been petitioned by the road commission to do the work because of drain problems related to erosion on the county road. The process had involved quite a bit of time negotiating with a property owner in the area where the work will be done, she said.

Prater pointed out that the project showed cooperation between two county departments, though he noted that the road commission is an autonomous unit. [The road commission operates independently from the county, but its three commissioners are appointed by the county board. The water resources commissioner is an elected position.] Prater noted that the project is located in his district – District 4 – and the work is needed.

Bobrin described the relationship between her office and the road commission as a great partnership. Prater agreed, quipping that “it took a while to get there.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously authorized bonding for the Sugar Creek drain project. A final vote is expected at the board’s May 16 meeting.

Support for Clean Air Act

A resolution on the May 2 agenda expressed support for the U.S. Clean Air Act, and opposed “attempts to weaken, dismantle, overrule or otherwise impede the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing or implementing” the act.

The resolution was requested by Dick Fleece, director of the county’s public health department. A staff memo accompanying the resolution notes that since the Washtenaw County Clean Indoor Air Regulation was implemented in 2003, the number of county residents using tobacco has dropped from 18% in 2003 to 12% in 2012. The memo notes that “supporting the Clean Air Act, along with national standards can provide protection from traveling air pollutants,” including emissions from Michigan’s 19 coal-fired power plants.

The only discussion on this item came from Yousef Rabhi, who said: “The Clean Air Act is awesome!” When the vote was taken, Rob Turner said he was voting against it because of concerns about the impact on business and employment.

Outcome: The resolution supporting the federal Clean Air Act passed on a 6-1 vote, with dissent from Rob Turner (R-District 1). Dan Smith (R-District 2) abstained. Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) and Leah Gunn (D-District 9) were absent, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had left the meeting early and was not present for the vote.

Food Policy Council Appointment

The May 2 meeting included a resolution to appoint Yousef Rabhi, a commissioner representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, to serve on the new Washtenaw Food Policy Council.

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi.

The county board approved the creation of the council at its March 21, 2012 meeting. The council’s goal is to support local “small and mid-sized farmers by fostering policies that encourage local food purchasing and production,” according to a staff memo. Among other activities, the council could also: recommend policy changes at the local, state and national levels; provide a forum for discussing food issues; encourage coordination among different sectors of the local food system; evaluate, educate, and influence policy; and launch or support programs and services that address local food needs.

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

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

The council will initially use grant funds from the Michigan Dept. of Community Health, passed through to the Washtenaw County public health department. The council eventually expects to secure financial support from private grants and philanthropic funds. The project will also seek significant in-kind and volunteer support, according to a staff memo.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the appointment of Yousef Rabhi to the Washtenaw Food Policy Council.

Urban County Annual Plan

A public hearing on the annual plan for the Washtenaw Urban County took place during the May 2 meeting. Only one person spoke: Thomas Partridge.

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 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. An additional seven municipalities will become part of the Urban County as of July 1, 2012: the city of Saline, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Dexter, Lima, Manchester, Saline, and Webster.

“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.

During the public hearing, Partridge said he was very interested in the plan because the Urban County receives state and federal resources for affordable housing. He was disappointed that the county board chair, Conan Smith, and other commissioners hadn’t personally invited constituents of the Urban County areas to speak at the public hearing. The meetings of the Urban County are out of the public view, Partridge said – the meetings are held at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., and are not recorded by Community Television Network (CTN).

Partridge advocated for getting an extension on the deadline for submitting the annual plan, because public input on it had been inadequate. No one had been on hand to explain the plan, he said, and it’s almost completely devoid of specific goals for adding additional rental and single-family housing units. Partridge concluded by calling for more public hearings held at locations throughout the county, including in Ann Arbor.

Communications and Public Commentary

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

Communications: Project Grow

Yousef Rabhi reported progress that’s been made on an effort to put Project Grow gardens on the county-owned Platt Road site of the former juvenile justice center. He said he was approached by Eric Meves, a Project Grow board member, who had expressed interest in the property. [Meves attended the May 2 board meeting, but did not formally address commissioners. He had previously made a presentation about Project Grow during public commentary at the April 17, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.]

The nonprofit already has 80 gardens at the nearby County Farm Park, Rabhi said. He pointed out that about 40 people are on a waiting list to get Project Grow plots, and the Platt Road property is available. The county wouldn’t need to do anything, because Project Grow volunteers would come in and till the soil, and install a separate meter on the water hookup so that they could pay for their water use. Project Grow would also add the county to its insurance coverage, so there would be no concerns about liability, he said.

Rabhi said it’s a great way to use the property until the county decides what to do with it, and that Project Grow understands that gardeners might need to leave at some point. [The possible disposition of the property at 2270 and 2260 Platt Road – which includes a vacant 42,320-square-foot building on 10 acres of land – was discussed at a March 8, 2012 board working session.] In this interim period, Rabhi said, having Project Grow gardeners on the site will help the county with security and lessen the likelihood of vandalism there.

Hazel Bowman was honored for her work with the county's foster grandparent program.

Communications: Hazel Bowman

During the May 2 meeting, commissioners passed a resolution honoring Hazel Bowman for her 25 years of work through the county’s foster grandparent program. County administrator Verna McDaniel read the resolution, stating that Bowman ”strengthens the fabric of our community through her work, gracious spirit and unfailing support of others.”

Bowman’s work over the years has included acting as a mentor, tutor and caregiver for children and youth with special needs at Clark Road Group Home, Jefferson Head Start, Henry Ford Elementary, and the Willow Run Early Learning Center.

Bowman received a standing ovation from commissioners and others in attendance.

The foster grandparent program connects qualified volunteers – U.S. citizens who are 60 or older, meet income guidelines, and are able to work 20 hours a week – with special needs children in public schools, hospitals, and day care centers. The foster grandparents receive a $212 monthly stipend, transportation assistance to the site, one meal each day of service, and a free annual physical.

Communications: Public Commentary – Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler told commissioners that she had spoken to the Ann Arbor city council about the growing problem of  DTE’s smart meters, which are now being installed in Michigan and other states, even though some customers don’t want them. There are protests and injunctions against the installation of smart meters in other communities, she said, but those aren’t widely publicized. It’s extremely critical that people are aware that these meters are unsafe, she said. Some people who are sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies see the effects immediately, with headaches, ringing in the ears and sleep disorders. Cost issues are another concern – some people have seen their electric bills increase dramatically after the meters are installed. The meters have also resulted in fires from faulty wiring, she said. “It’s going to impact every one of us,” she concluded.

Communications: Public Commentary – Most Vulnerable Residents

Thomas Partridge spoke during the two opportunities for public commentary. He described himself as an advocate for the vulnerable residents in the county, and urged commissioners to adopt a framework for supporting affordable housing, health care, transportation and education, especially targeted to the most vulnerable population. He criticized some county agencies for not having the best interest of residents at heart, citing specifically the Project Outreach Team (known as PORT), the Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS), and the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). Staff is too often neglectful and have callous attitudes toward residents, he contended.

Partridge also endorsed president Barack Obama for another term, and urged Obama to run on a more people-oriented platform to address unmet needs in health care, education, public transportation and housing, as well as giving emphasis to the needs of the disabled, senior citizens and college students with undue financial burdens.

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

At the Washtenaw County board of commissioners Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development. Kunselman was on hand to air concerns about the proposed countywide transit authority. (Photos by the writer.)

However, the issue emerged at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting when two people – including city councilmember Stephen Kunselman – spoke during public commentary to share their views with county commissioners. Among Kunselman’s points was a concern that Ann Arbor might end up shouldering the burden for countywide transit, if most other communities opt out.

A few commissioners responded to the public commentary. Alicia Ping – who represents a district covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw – indicated that many people in her district were not inclined to participate in a countywide transit authority. Wes Prater expressed concerns about the process so far, calling it convoluted and confusing.

The main action at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting also reflected ties between the county and Ann Arbor – a presentation and vote on the consolidation of county and Ann Arbor 911 dispatch services. The proposal, which was unanimously approved, called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city will pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees. The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that he believes the dispatch model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. This partnership between Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to one of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees – a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting. Negotiations continue with four remaining bargaining units that have not yet reached an agreement on a new contract.

The board also approved a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a development in Ann Arbor at the corner of Washtenaw and Platt, and formally accepted a $3 million grant to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. Arbor Hills Crossing will be located along that corridor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel updated the board on turning over the Washtenaw Head Start program to federal officials, a move that commissioners had approved last year as part of the budget process. The county will end its 46-year affiliation with Head Start on July 31. McDaniel reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District is interested in applying to take over the program locally, and that federal officials plan to issue a request for proposals (RFP) during the first quarter of this year.

Not mentioned during McDaniel’s update was the status of an investigation begun last year into actions of the program’s two top officials, director Patricia Horne McGee and Lovida Roach, the program’s second-in-command. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the allegations that prompted the investigation were “founded.” Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. Horne McGee retired at the end of 2011. Roach will remain on leave until the county relinquishes control of Head Start, and at that point she will also retire, Heidt said.

The meeting also included a transition of sorts. Commissioner Leah Gunn has typically taken on the parliamentary action of moving the agenda at each of the board’s meetings, which entails reading off the agenda items. Gunn, who is not running for re-election this year, announced that Wednesday’s meeting was her “farewell agenda” – she would be relinquishing that task for the remainder of her tenure on the board. [Her term runs through the end of 2012.] After she completed the task this final time, Yousef Rabhi teased her, saying Gunn “moved the agenda very well.”

Countywide Transit

There was no agenda item regarding the effort that’s underway to form a countywide transit authority, but the topic came up during public commentary, prompting some commissioners to respond.

A four-party agreement is being considered by Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963. For a discussion of the key differences between the two pieces of legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit.”

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The county board has not taken any action on the proposed countywide plan. However, commissioners have been briefed by AATA staff about the proposal, most recently at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation on the overall plan and the county’s role.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Stephen Kunselman introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor who serves on the Ann Arbor city council. He quickly read headlines and excerpts from news articles about public transit initiatives in other communities, including Grand Rapids and Detroit. He told commissioners that any community in Washtenaw County that opts in to the Act 196 authority would have its millage revenues dictated by the whims of Ann Arbor. [The proposed governance structure includes a 15-member board, with 7 of those board members appointed from Ann Arbor.]

Kunselman also said he’s not interested in Ann Arbor “going it alone.” He plans to propose an amendment to the four-party agreement that would stipulate if Ann Arbor is the only community that opts in, then the agreement would be null and void. His final point was that true regional transportation should go beyond the borders of Washtenaw County, but that it shouldn’t be carried on the backs of Ann Arbor residents.

[Kunselman has raised similar concerns at Ann Arbor city council meetings. At its Jan. 9 meeting, the council debated the proposed four-party agreement and ultimately voted to delay voting on the accord until its Jan. 23 meeting. The council also set a public hearing on the issue for that date.]

LuAnne Bullington also spoke on the topic of the countywide transit plan. Saying she’s an Ann Arbor resident who has used public transportation for decades and has attended numerous meetings on the issue, Bullington said she knows a lot about public transportation. She asked why the board wanted to set up an Act 196 authority, when AATA is already set up to provide public transportation to other parts of the county?

Out-county communities have said they don’t want it, Bullington contended. So why is this board pushing for it? [Throughout her commentary, she repeatedly addressed commissioners and called the countywide transit proposal "your plan."] Why does the board want Ann Arbor taxpayers to pay for it – why doesn’t the county pay? Why should AATA turn over its money to an organization that doesn’t exist yet? she asked. Bullington called the countywide transit proposal a “pig in a poke.”

Countywide Transit: Commissioner Response

A few commissioners responded to the commentary on countywide transit. Wes Prater – who represents District 4, covering the southeast portion of the county – said the county board has never taken any position of any sort regarding a countywide transit authority. Individual commissioners might have made statements for or against it, he said, but there has never been any action taken by the board. It seems to be driven by the mayor and city council of Ann Arbor, he said. A lot of money has been spent on consultants to develop the plan, he said. But Prater said he doesn’t believe a countywide authority will work. Four townships have already opted out, he noted, and he estimated that more than half of the county’s townships will eventually choose not to participate.

Alicia Ping – the commissioner representing District 3, which includes the city of Saline and townships in southwest Washtenaw County – reported that in her district, one mayor and one township supervisor have expressed interest in the countywide transit authority. But no one else in her district wants it, she said. Ping expressed skepticism that the authority could be considered countywide, if most communities in the county don’t join it.

Later in the meeting, Prater brought up the topic again. He said it was strange that during the discussions by AATA staff of a countywide system, no one mentioned the University of Michigan bus system. It seems like there’s a missed opportunity for collaboration there, he said. There are duplications in administration and tasks between the two systems, he said, and about 30,000 students supplementing the population of Ann Arbor.

[Even though UM also runs its own buses to provide service between its campuses, some collaboration already exists between the AATA and the university. AATA's M-Ride program, for example, allows UM students, faculty, and staff to ride AATA buses without paying a fare when they board. The program makes up about 40% of the AATA's fixed-route ridership. UM is also a part of a partnership to explore a high-capacity connector from Plymouth Road near US-23 down through downtown Ann Arbor along State Street to I-94. The middle part of that route would connect the UM north campus and central campus.]

Prater described the process of forming an Act 196 as convoluted. “When I get it figured out a little bit more, I’m going to be asking some more questions,” he said. It doesn’t seem like the out-county population is dense enough to support public transportation, Prater said, which leads him to believe that AATA and other supporters of the plan are just looking for additional tax revenues. He also noted that Gov. Rick Snyder has a plan for regional transit that would add yet another wrinkle. “It’s quite confusing,” he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said that having additional discussions about transit wouldn’t be a bad thing. He noted that an item originally on the Jan. 19 working session agenda – a discussion led by board chair Conan Smith about proposed state legislation for regional transit – would be postponed. Smith indicated that the state legislation has not moved forward yet. [See also Chronicle coverage: "AATA in Transition, Briefed on State's Plans"]

Countywide Transit: Working Session Follow-up

The following evening, at the board’s Jan. 19 working session, LuAnne Bullington returned to address the commissioners again during public commentary. She referred to the countywide transit plan as the mayor’s regional transit program – presumably a reference to Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje. She said she’d brought more documents related to the plan to give to commissioners, since it seemed to her that they weren’t informed.

Bullington questioned why there was movement forward on WALLY, a possible commuter rail service on a 26-mile route between Ann Arbor and Howell, in Livingston County.

[At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the AATA board passed a resolution that expressed general support for the idea of continuing to work with surrounding communities to move forward with the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. The resolution's one “resolved” clause required that the $50,000 allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board. At the AATA board's Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, CEO Michael Ford indicated that the WALLY project itself could not happen without some capital funding that had failed to materialize in the form of TIGER III grants. The AATA expects to see a plan for what to do about WALLY in February or March.]

Bullington said she’d been told that WALLY is dead. Yet the AATA has sent out a request for proposals (RFP) for a WALLY station that’s due Feb. 2, she said. [.pdf of RFP specifications for a WALLY railroad station feasibility study and engineering support for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.]

Bullington also wondered why the mayor is asking the county board to create a new transit authority, when the governor is talking about creating a bus rapid transit system for the four-county metro Detroit area, including Washtenaw County. And if the county is being asked to create the authority, why are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti being asked to approve a framework for it? she asked. She said that Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman had asked AATA CEO Michael Ford how much Ann Arbor taxpayers would pay for a countywide system, but contended he didn’t get an answer.

Why should there be a vote on a framework when it’s not clear what’s being voted on? she asked. She said the mayor used to sell real estate. Would anyone want to buy a $9 million house without seeing it? The cities are being set up for a bait and switch, Bullington contended. There shouldn’t be a rush about it, especially since the governor is expected to announce his transit plan in February, she concluded.

Responding to Bullington’s commentary, board chair Conan Smith said it would be worthwhile to schedule a working session about the intent of the four-party agreement. There have been some amendments proposed by other governing entities, he noted. Smith said he felt that the board should be asserting that the process isn’t being handled in the right way. If four different bodies can amend the agreement piecemeal, the process could take forever, he said. It would be better to have a negotiating committee work on the agreement, then take it back to the four governing bodies for an up or down vote.

Barbara Bergman expressed reluctance to get involved in negotiating an agreement, saying it’s not the county’s role to broker a deal.

Wes Prater said he felt like there are things going on that he doesn’t know about, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to explain how the county was involved. If the county is the enabling public entity, why aren’t county staff and commissioners involved in writing the articles of incorporation or the four-party agreement? he asked. Although individual commissioners have taken a stance, the county as an entity hasn’t taken part in developing this transit plan, he said. Prater wondered why the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, was working on it – at whose request was he doing that?

As he’d done the previous evening, Prater described the process as convoluted, and he wondered why it was so difficult and confusing when there were easier ways to proceed. “It looks to me like there’s some kind of scamming going on,” he concluded.

McDaniel responded by saying that any work the corporation counsel is doing is to review documents on behalf of the board.

Noting that he has attended information sessions held by AATA, Dan Smith said his understanding is that the county’s role is extremely limited, and that the board could decide to play no role whatsoever. By participating, the county would streamline the process, he said. It’s possible for the townships and cities to create a transit authority without the county’s involvement, he said, but it would entail more red tape. If the county’s role were more extensive, Smith said he’d have some concerns. As it is, they’ll just be filing paperwork “and that’s it,” he said.

911 Dispatch Consolidation

The board was asked to give approval to move forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor. The proposal called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city would pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees.

The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers and 12-15 part-time dispatchers. The county’s action on Wednesday called for creating 15 full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?”

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Presentation

Sheriff Jerry Clayton began his presentation by saying this consolidation is an example of good public policy. It improves services and creates efficiencies, and while both dispatch units were “magnificent,” he said, they’ll be enhanced by coming together.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton addresses the county board of commissioners. In the background is Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff's office.

It’s not a new idea, Clayton told the board – the possibility of consolidated dispatch has been kicked around for more than two decades. If communities want their own dispatch operations, that’s their right, he said. But it makes sense to streamline operations and save money.

Since 1990, the county has operated its own dispatch, and provided dispatch services under contract with Northfield Township, the Michigan State Police, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, and jurisdictions in the county that contract for police services. In 2009, the county restructured its dispatch operations, changing the number of supervisors and increasing the number of dispatcher positions.

In January of 2010, the county started providing dispatch services for the city of Ypsilanti. It was a decision largely driven by Ypsilanti’s difficult financial situation, Clayton said, and is an example of how the county tries to provide a safety net for communities. The savings allowed Ypsilanti to keep another police officer on the street, he said.

In May of 2010, the county dispatch co-located to the same site as the Ann Arbor dispatch operation – in the fire station across the street from Ann Arbor city hall. It was not part of a long-term plan to consolidate, Clayton said. Rather, it made sense to have dispatchers in the same room for better communication, he said, in part because crime knows no boundaries.

In March of 2011, public safety officials with the county and city of Ann Arbor began talks about how to find additional efficiencies. It was in the context of budget challenges that the city was facing, Clayton said. Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones asked the county for a proposal, and after further talks, Jones decided it made sense to contract out for services. The proposal was taken to city council last year, and approved at the council’s Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

This was a major move for the city, Clayton said. The dispatch operation is in some ways the lifeline of the police force, he said, and it shows great trust in the county to contract out that service. The decision was not made lightly, he said, in part because it would be very difficult and expensive for the city to reverse the decision in the future.

The consolidation is anticipated to save the city $500,000 annually, enabling Ann Arbor to retain more police officers, Clayton said. It allows the county to maintain an adequate dispatch staff – the operation has been understaffed for some time, and has had to rely on overtime hours. That issue can now be addressed, he said.

This chart shows cost savings associated with dispatch partnerships with Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. (Image links to larger chart.)

Clayton gave three examples of the cost savings from contracts with Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, and from the county’s co-location with Ann Arbor.

Clayton said the dispatch contract with Ypsilanti brings in $73,000 annually to the county, plus an additional $75,228 in 911 fees. Co-locating with Ann Arbor saved $430,000 every eight years by eliminating the need for a phone switch replacement, and saved another $80,000 every 10 years by eliminating the need to replace a logging recorder. The county also saw a one-time $440,000 savings from co-location by eliminating the need to buy equipment for the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS).

The new contract with Ann Arbor will bring in $759,089 annually to the county, plus an additional $678,000 in 911 fees that were previously paid to Ann Arbor.

Separately, each community that contracts with the sheriff’s office for police services pays for dispatch services too, Clayton noted. For each police services unit (PSU) – the term used to indicate one sheriff’s deputy plus overhead – the contract includes $10,707 for dispatch services. In 2012, there are contracts for 79 PSUs countywide, which will bring in an additional $845,853 for dispatch services.

Clayton outlined the benefits of consolidating dispatch services with Ann Arbor. It would save the city $500,000 annually, allowing Ann Arbor to maintain more police officers on the street. For the sheriff’s office, consolidation will relieve staffing shortages and reduce the use of overtime, as well as bring in additional revenues.

Consolidation also addresses some challenges of co-location, he said, including the lack of a common mission, common standards, and frustration over how the work is distributed. There will now be one approach to training and quality assurance, he noted. Performance will be measured uniformly, and reported regularly. Measurements will fall into four categories: (1) operations, including call volume, speed to answer and speed to dispatch; (2) financial, including overtime hours, performance to budget, and cost per 911 call; (3) service quality, such as satisfaction of law enforcement officers and citizens who use 911; and (4) development, including the number of certifications and hours of training per employee.

Clayton said he believes the model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. A partnership of Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

After showing some schematics of the operation’s layout, Clayton concluded his presentation by describing the proposed number of employees for the combined dispatch. The goal is to employ 30 full-time dispatchers, 12-15 part-time dispatchers, one manager and two supervisors.

As part of approving the overall project, the board was being asked to vote on a resolution that authorized creating 15 new full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

Clayton then fielded questions and comments from commissioners, who were uniformly supportive. This report organizes the board’s discussion thematically.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Logistics

Felicia Brabec called it a wonderful example of collaboration. She asked how the consolidation would happen logistically – what would happen to people who called in on the day of the switchover, for example?

The physical logistics won’t be a problem, Clayton replied. He said the city of Ann Arbor did a great job in designing the co-location facility, where both county and Ann Arbor dispatchers have been operating. For the caller, it will be a seamless transition.

But there are significant logistics to handle in terms of personnel, he said. The county currently employs 17 dispatchers. If the board approves the proposal, another 13 dispatchers will need to be hired. Clayton said he’s hopeful that some Ann Arbor dispatchers will join the new operation, but he knows that some are planning to retire, or are seeking jobs elsewhere.

He indicated that if half of the Ann Arbor dispatchers come over, that would go a long way toward easing the transition. The county had held a job fair the previous Saturday, Clayton said, and they had identified 15 potential candidates from that event who’ll be brought back for further interviews. [The job fair was held at the same time as an Ann Arbor City Democratic Party event, which a representative from the sheriff's office attended on his behalf to announce that Clayton will be running for re-election this year.]

Another piece of the transition is training, Clayton said. After Clayton took office in 2009, the previous training program for dispatchers was scrapped, and a new one was developed that includes three weeks of classroom training. In addition, there are over 250 core tasks that dispatchers must master and prove proficiency in, he said.

All of this must be coordinated with the city, Clayton said. He did not identify a specific date when the transition will occur, saying that it’s a floating date, as different activities of the dispatch operation are aligned.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Finances

Brabec referred to the budget that Clayton had presented, and asked why there’s almost an $800,000 difference between revenues and expenditures. [The proposed 2012 dispatch budget identifies $2,653,036 in revenues and $3,449,881 in expenditures.] Clayton said that roughly $800,000 in additional revenues will come from a line item in the police services budget – communities that contract with the sheriff’s office for patrol deputies pay for dispatch services as part of their contracts.

Yousef Rabhi described the consolidation as a phenomenal project. When he was out campaigning, he said, he told residents about the co-location of Ann Arbor and county dispatchers, and people thought it was a great move. Now, it’s taken to the next level, he said.

Mark Breckenridge, the county's director of emergency management, and dispatch operations coordinator Sarah Taylor.

Rabhi asked how the E-911 funds are distributed. Mark Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency management, explained that the state collects 911 fees from wireless providers based on the number of wireless devices that are registered for Washtenaw County. Funds from those fees are paid to the county quarterly.

There is also a 911 revenue stream from landlines. The distribution of those funds is overseen by a county emergency telephone district board. At this point, each of the three dispatch centers in the county – in the sheriff’s office, Ann Arbor, and Pittsfield Township – get funds based on a formula that factors in population, landline count and call volume.

In response to another question from Rabhi, Breckenridge said that revenues from landlines are decreasing, while wireless revenues are increasing. In two years, 911 revenues will be based only on population.

Rabhi clarified with Clayton that the contract with Ann Arbor runs for five years, and that although the annual amount that Ann Arbor will pay doesn’t change, the amount reflects anticipated cost increases over that period. He also confirmed with Clayton that the contract is expected to be renegotiated in five years, and that any cost increases will be part of a renegotiated rate. Clayton said he’s already had that conversation with the city, and that they know they should anticipate a higher rate in the next contract.

Rabhi said it’s great to see a budget neutral proposal that’s helping to streamline government operations. Clayton said he appreciated the kind words that were directed at him, but that the staff has been instrumental in developing the plan, and that it was the vision of Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones that made the consolidation possible.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a series of questions. He clarified with Clayton that the county is paying $12,500 annually to the city for rent at the dispatch facility. If dispatch operations eventually move to the county’s western service center on Zeeb Road, would the city then pay the county rent? Clayton said the rent that the county pays is part of the context for what the city will pay to the county after consolidation.

Sizemore asked why the dispatch operations couldn’t move to the county’s Zeeb Road facility now? [The western service center on Zeeb Road includes considerable vacant space.] Clayton replied that the sheriff’s office wants to be part of the county’s overall infrastructure plan, but it would be too much to take on a physical relocation at this time. Moving would also cost a substantial amount, he noted. Sizemore asked if Clayton is budgeting for an eventual move. The sheriff indicated that his staff is working with county administrator Verna McDaniel and Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to see how a move might fit into upcoming budgets.

Who’ll pay for equipment upgrades? Sizemore asked. The county would need to pay for upgrades for its dispatch operations regardless of whether it provides services to other entities, Clayton said. In response to another question from Sizemore, Clayton said the county has the capacity to handle dispatch operations for other communities as well.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Technology

Alicia Ping asked if there is any way to quantify the number of cell phone calls that are directed to different dispatch operations. If she places a 911 call from Pittsfield Township, do county dispatchers answer it?

Breckenridge explained that there are currently three public safety answering points (PSAPs) in Washtenaw County – that is, dispatch operations that answer 911 calls. Right now, such calls are handled by the sheriff’s office, the Ann Arbor police department, and the Pittsfield Township department of public safety. Only a limited number of PSAPs are allowed, he said, in order to eliminate confusion from overlapping cell phone service coverage.

Ping wanted to know how calls were distributed to the three PSAPs. Breckenridge said he could find out and send that information to her. Ping said her point is that the county is subsidizing certain communities that don’t pay for police services, yet rely on the county’s dispatch operations when their residents call 911.

Barbara Bergman asked whether the dispatcher could locate a caller who makes a 911 call. Yes, Breckenridge replied. If your phone has GPS, then it’s possible to spot the location directly. If the phone isn’t equipped with GPS, then it’s possible to use cell towers to triangulate the location within 50-150 yards, he said. Eventually, all cell phones will send GPS signals to make the location easy to determine.

If her constituents ask what kind of phone to buy, Bergman said, it seems she should tell them to buy a smartphone with GPS. She noted that if a triangulated location covers 150 yards, that means emergency responders might have to knock on three doors before finding the right house. Breckenridge replied that the best phone for someone to have who’s homebound is a landline. For landline calls, the dispatcher sees a display of the caller’s phone number and address.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Partnerships

Leah Gunn praised the project, noting that the county and city of Ann Arbor have been trying to coordinate dispatch operations for more than 20 years. She gave credit to Clayton for making it happen, saying that the residents of Ann Arbor trust and respect him, and obviously the ANn Arbor city council does too. It’s a great collaboration, she said.

Rob Turner thanked Clayton and his staff. A year ago, Turner recalled, the board held a retreat and reached consensus that public safety was one of the top priorities for the county. The only way to make that happen is through collaboration and partnerships. Another example is the police services steering committee, Turner said, and its work on developing a new police services contract for local communities to contract for sheriff deputy patrols.

The steering committee worked to bring costs down for the contracting communities, Turner said, adding that he realized Ann Arbor shouldered some of the financial burden for that. Now, the county is in a position to help Ann Arbor lower the city’s costs, he said. Consolidation maximizes the police services that are offered to the county’s residents, he said, noting that there are many needs, especially in some areas where crime is high.

Turner told Clayton that other police forces within the county view Clayton as a friend and partner, and speak highly of him. Though there are ways to improve, Turner said he’s very impressed with the work that’s been done so far.

Wes Prater told Clayton that he’d done an amazing job in putting this consolidation together. He hoped it would make it easier for Clayton to actually take a vacation in the next 3-4 years. Clayton indicated that his wife hoped so, too.

Dan Smith pointed to some of the historical information that Clayton had mentioned – the county has been handling dispatch for Northfield Township since 1990. Smith – who represents District 2, which includes that township – said he’s never heard of any problems related to dispatch operations. When he served on the township board, Smith said, he did a ride-along with the police in a pursuit situation. The dispatchers handled it smoothly, he said, and you couldn’t tell that the dispatchers weren’t located in Northfield Township. He said he was certain that it will work out as well for Ann Arbor as it has for the township.

Outcome: The board unanimously authorized moving forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor.

Head Start Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the process of relinquishing administration of the local Head Start program, which the county has managed for 46 years. Federal officials have been formally notified, she said, and the program will be officially relinquished back to the feds on July 31, 2012. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Options Weighed for Washtenaw Head Start," "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea" and "Washtenaw County Budget Set for 2012-2013"]

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie talks with county administrator Verna McDaniel.

McDaniel also noted that the former Head Start director, Patricia Horne McGee, had retired as of Dec. 31. Cassandra Sheriff, site director for the Ypsilanti Head Start location, is acting as interim director.

McDaniel and board chair Conan Smith met earlier this month with the local Head Start policy council. McDaniel described it as a positive meeting, with members asking pertinent questions about the transition process. The council had expressed interest in meeting with officials from the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), which is applying to the federal government to become the designated grantee of the program. So another meeting was held, McDaniel said, with WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attending.

Menzel had praised the Head Start program, and said he believes in continuity, McDaniel reported. He had said he didn’t want to be presumptuous and assume that WISD would be named the grantee. But if that happens, WISD would want to retain Head Start’s stellar staff and have as little disruption to the program as possible. McDaniel said the policy council was supportive of WISD’s application, and would likely submit letters of support to federal officials.

A request for proposals (RFP) will likely be issued by the federal-level Head Start agency in the first quarter of 2012, McDaniel said. County staff are providing information required to draft the RFP, she said.

Head Start Update: Commissioner Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the county is prepared to do everything it needs to do in order to relinquish the program. McDaniel replied that the staff has made a commitment to provide all required information to the federal officials, including an inventory.

Brabec asked what the status was regarding the main Head Start building and the debt that the county held on that. Previously, county staff had reported that the county owes about $2.6 million on the bond and makes $167,000 in bond payments annually at the building, located at 1661 Leforge Road in Ypsilanti. The bond payment schedule runs through 2022.

McDaniel said that nothing is certain. It will depend on the entity that’s eventually chosen to take over the program, she said. A discussion of assets – including the Leforge building – would be part of that transition.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the county would submit a letter of support for the WISD. McDaniel indicated that the county could submit a letter of support for the WISD, if the board wanted to do that.

Head Start Update: Administrative Investigation

During her update, McDaniel did not mention that Horne McGee and senior management assistant Lovida Roach – Horne McGee’s second-in-command – had been placed on administrative leave on Dec. 13, pending the outcome of an investigation that had started in October. [See Chronicle coverage: "Two Head Start Managers Put on Leave"]

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said that the allegations which prompted the investigation were “founded.” Citing the fact that it was a personnel issue, Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. When the investigation started, Horne McGee chose to retire at year’s end, Heidt said. Roach will remain on leave, using personal time she has accrued, until the county relinquishes control of Head Start. At that point, Roach will also retire, Heidt said.

AFSCME Local 3052 Agreement

One of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees was given initial approval by the board at its Jan. 18 meeting. The tentative two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors, has been ratified by its membership. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board voted unanimously to approved the AFSCME Local 3052 agreement.

Arbor Hills Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council approved the plan at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, and the county board had given initial approval on Dec. 7.

Members of the development team for Arbor Hills Crossing, from left: Arthur Siegal of Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; Anne Jamieson-Urena of AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; and Bill Carpenter of reFORM studios.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces. The brownfield plan includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period.

Because Ann Arbor is part of the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority, all brownfield plans in the city must get approval from the county board as well as from the Ann Arbor city council.

Wednesday’s meeting included a public hearing on the brownfield plan. The only speakers were three members of the development team: Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; Arthur Siegal, an attorney with Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; and Bill Carpenter, an architect with reFORM studios. They all spoke briefly, highlighting attributes of the project and asking for the board’s support of the brownfield plan.

There was no discussion of the project among commissioners.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing.

$3 Million HUD Community Grant

On the agenda was a resolution to approve the acceptance of a three-year, $3 million grant recently awarded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The approval included authorizing $65,000 in matching funds from the county’s housing contingency fund, and the hiring of a full-time management analyst.

HUD’s Community Challenge Planning Grant grant was awarded to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. County administrator Verna McDaniel had announced news of the grant award at a Nov. 17, 2011 working session of the county board.

According to the grant application, the project focuses on “removing barriers to create a coordinated approach to expanding existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connecting them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.” It’s part of the Reimagining Washtenaw project, which has been underway for several years. The joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development, led by Mary Jo Callan, is taking the lead on the project. Callan was on hand at the Jan. 18 meeting to answer questions, but commissioners had none.

In addition to the county and four other jurisdictions, partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Arts Alliance, Community Housing Alternatives, Eastern Michigan University, Food System Economic Partnership, Growing Hope, Habitat for Humanity, SEMCOG, Ann Arbor SPARK, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Washtenaw County Public Health, and the Ypsilanti Housing Commission.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved a resolution to accept the $3 million grant, approve matching funds and hire a full-time management analyst.

Board Appointments

Board chair Conan Smith announced nominations of commissioners to fill slots on more than two dozen advisory committees, commissions and boards. He also nominated sheriff Jerry Clayton to act as liaison to the 800 Megahertz oversight committee, which oversees the countywide millage passed in 2006 for an emergency communications system. [.pdf of 2012 appointments]

Smith noted that the board is planning to evaluate its participation in the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County – he is the commissioner designated as a member of that group, which has been struggling with funding and engagement of its membership. [See Chronicle coverage: "Literacy Coalition Faces Uncertain Future"]

Responsibility for the police services steering committee, which has worked on the issue of sheriff deputies that serve local communities on a contract basis, will be shifted to the sheriff’s office rather than the board of commissioners, Smith said. The number of commissioners serving on that committee will be reduced from four to two – Rob Turner and Alica Ping.

Smith also proposed that the public safety and justice oversight committee, which had been formed to oversee the jail expansion, would be dissolved because that project has been completed.

Outcome: All appointments and other changes were approved unanimously, without comment.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting, there are opportunities for public commentary and for communications from commissioners and staff. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Board Retreat

Ronnie Peterson apologized for arriving late to the meeting – he said he’d been in Lansing, and had a flat tire on the trip back to Ann Arbor. He noted that board chair Conan Smith had asked staff to call commissioners and schedule a retreat for Saturday, Jan. 21. Peterson said he’d be unable to attend – he would be out of town, he said. He expressed frustration that alternative dates hadn’t been considered. Smith apologized, indicating that he had misinterpreted a conversation he’d had with Peterson about the retreat.

Peterson also said he wanted to ensure that the board’s strategic planning included public input, and that such input should be encouraged.

Peterson’s comments were the only time that the board retreat was mentioned. At the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, board chair Conan Smith made a presentation that outlined some possible strategic goals for the coming year, and had indicated that a retreat might be in the offing. A notice announcing the meeting was posted at the end of the day on Thursday, Jan. 12, at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor, in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. However, county offices were closed on Friday and the following Monday, for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Smith did not mention the retreat during opportunities for communications at the Jan. 18 board meeting.

[The four-hour retreat was subsequently held on Saturday morning at the county's parks and recreation offices on Platt Road. Other than county commissioners, staff, the sheriff and prosecuting attorney, the only others who attended the retreat were The Chronicle and Andy LaBarre, a candidate for county commissioner.]

Comm/Comm: Honoring Paul Bunten

Commissioner Alicia Ping presented a resolution honoring Paul Bunten, who recently retired as police chief for the city of Saline. Ping, a former Saline city councilmember, now represents District 3 on the county board, which includes Saline. The resolution recognized Bunten for his 47 years of public service. Bunten was not at the meeting, but will be given a framed plaque of the resolution.

Several other commissioners expressed their thanks to Bunten. Leah Gunn noted that he had worked for many years at Ann Arbor’s police department. When former Ann Arbor police chief Dan Oates left that position, she said, Bunten stepped in for Oates as chair of the emergency communications committee, which campaigned for a millage that voters approved in 2006. The millage supported a new 800 megahertz system that enabled emergency responders from all jurisdictions to communicate with each other.

Barbara Bergman said she’d worked with Bunten on several different committees, and he was always a pleasure to work with, giving good advice and support. Wes Prater noted that he’d worked with Bunten back when Bunten was a rookie, “and then he was a lot of fun!”

Comm/Comm: Fracking

Yousef Rabhi said that he and commissioner Alicia Ping are concerned about fracking, which he said is happening in Washtenaw County and becoming more common. The term – also known as hydraulic fracturing – refers to a practice of extracting oil or gas by injecting high-pressurized fluid into rock. He said he and Ping have received emails from residents who are concerned about the practice, with questions about property rights, property values, environmental impact and the health of humans and neighborhoods. The state regulates fracking, Rabhi said, but the county needs to be aware of it and start thinking about how to handle it.

Wes Prater commented that the reason behind increased fracking stems from regulations being removed several years ago from the federal Clean Water Act. Companies are ruining the underground water supply, he said. He’s heard that it’s happening near Adrian. [Adrian is located in Lenawee County, immediately south of Washtenaw County.]

Barbara Bergman said she hadn’t realized that fracking was taking place locally and that she was “absolutely horrified.” If the board agrees that it’s a dangerous practice, then they need to make a big noise about it, she said.

Comm/Comm: Trial Court Renovations

Rob Turner gave an update on renovations at the Washtenaw County trial court in downtown Ann Arbor, at the corner of Huron and Main. The trial court includes the 22nd circuit court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program. The renovation is now on schedule, Turner said, and the third phase will likely be done by Feb. 10, with the entire project completed by mid-March. It’s on time and on budget, he said – the contingency funds aren’t even being used. He said he’s been told that chief judge Donald Shelton is “ecstatic.”

Turner reported that Jason Fee with the county facilities unit will be making a presentation to the board about this project in February. Rolland Sizemore Jr. commented that the county’s facilities workers are the reason why this project is going well, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to convey his compliments to the staff.

Comm/Comm: WATS & WCHO Moves – Zeeb Road Facility

As the county board’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Yousef Rabhi reported that WATS has been leasing office space from the county’s western Washtenaw service center on Zeeb Road, but has been asked to leave. The Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan, will be moving into that space instead. The county has offered WATS four other options, Rabhi said, but WATS officials have decided to look elsewhere – at leasing from landlords in the private sector, or from other public entities. WATS hasn’t definitely ruled out other county facilities, Rabhi said, and he encouraged commissioners to express their support for the county’s continued relationship with WATS.

Barbara Bergman, who serves on the WCHO board, reported that only the administrative offices of WCHO will be relocating to Zeeb Road. The parts of the organization that provide services to consumers, including the community support and treatment services unit (CSTS), will remain at accessible locations, such as the county’s 555 Towner St. building in Ypsilanti.

A space plan update for all of the county’s facilities is being developed and will be presented at an upcoming board working session.

Comm/Comm: Eastern Leaders Group

Leah Gunn reported that earlier in the month she had attended a meeting of the Eastern Leaders Group. She noted that she’s been a member of the ELG steering committee since it was formed. Because Gunn is stepping down from the board of commissioners – she has decided not to run for re-election this year – commissioner Felicia Brabec will now serve on the leadership team in her place, Gunn said. At the end of the ELG meeting, Gunn reported that commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who also serves on the ELG steering committee, had given a speech praising her work, and she appreciated it. “We don’t get praised too often,” she said.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the beginning of the Jan. 18 meeting, Thomas Partridge said he wanted to send a message straight to Lansing, on behalf of the county’s most vulnerable residents. Priority should be given to human services – affordable housing, health care, and education – rather than spending money on railroad stations and bridges. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder would be giving the State of the State address that same night. He said Snyder and his allies bought the governor’s office through corrupt means, and that a recall effort is still underway. The county’s economy hasn’t recovered, Partridge said, and until it does, there must be attention paid to altruistic attitudes and finding solutions to very serious problems.

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

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Head Start director Patricia Horne McGee and senior management assistant Lovida Roach (who is Horne McGee’s second-in-command) were placed on administrative leave on Tuesday, Dec. 13. Roach was put on leave in the morning, while Horne McGee was put on leave around 5:30 p.m. the same day, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director. Cassandra Sheriff, site director for the Ypsilanti Head Start location, is acting as interim director.

Heidt said an investigation has been underway since early October, in response to allegations that required the human resources staff to act. Heidt could not provide additional details, saying the investigation is a personnel matter and very sensitive, given that it relates to the Head Start program. She expects the investigation to wrap up in early January. At that time, either the two women will return to their jobs, or other action will be taken, Heidt said.

Horne McGee, who was hired to lead Washtenaw Head Start in 1999, is one of about 20 appointed department heads at the county, overseeing an annual budget of about $4.8 million for a program that serves more than 500 children throughout the county. Heidt said it’s rare for a department head to be put on administrative leave.

In response to a query from The Chronicle, Heidt said the allegations and subsequent investigation are in no way related to a transition underway to relinquish the county’s management of the local Head Start program. “Not one bit – I can be very clear on that,” she said.

The county board voted less than a month ago to approve a budget that eliminates funding for Head Start in 2013, as part of cuts in a two-year budget that faced a $17.5 million deficit. It was a controversial decision – one that Horne McGee vigorously opposed – that will set in motion the severing of ties between the federal program and the county, which has administered it locally for 46 years. [For additional Chronicle coverage, see: "Options Weighed for Washtenaw Head Start" and "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea"]