This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3. The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that had been a part of the proposed revisions, but which were postponed until the Sept. 16 meeting, was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humane Society Update

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Temp Assignments

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Group of 180 Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Mission Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Retirements

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Budget Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Restructuring: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Renovations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial Court Renovations: Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Briefings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Ronnie Peterson.

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

The AVL snow plow tracking system is supposed to provide residents with real-time information on the status of plowing activity, through GPS devices mounted on the trucks. The devices monitor not only a vehicle’s location, but also whether the plow is deployed, along with other vehicle performance information. The city’s snow plow status page currently requires manual updates and has not always been a top priority to keep updated during snowstorms. The city council authorized the $88,000 purchase last year at its Nov. 4, 2010 meeting. The system was then hoped to be deployed sometime during the winter of 2010-11. The software purchase was justified not based on the ability to track snow plows, but rather on the ability to monitor all of a vehicle’s various engine codes remotely, which is anticipated to save the city on maintenance costs in the longer term.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts. Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

The presentation by the AATA is likely to focus on a four-party agreement that the city will shortly be asked to sign with AATA, Washtenaw County, and the city of Ypsilanti. The agreement would be a step towards establishing a countywide transit authority under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986, because it would provide part of the mechanism for a transition from the AATA’s governance (under Act 55 of 1963) to a new countywide transit authority based on Act 196. The agreement would establish an arrangement for Washtenaw County to incorporate a new transit authority under Act 196 and for the two cities (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) to pledge their transit tax funds levied currently for use by the AATA to the new Act 196 organization, once its governance and basis for its funding is clear. [For background on the state of transportation initiatives, see recent Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"] [.pdf (annotated) of draft four-party agreement]

At its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting, the council gave initial approval to a further tweak to the city’s pedestrian safety law. The language given initial approval reads: “When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using.” The council had agreed to hold a working session on the topic before taking a final vote.

The city council work session officially begins at 7 p.m., but sometimes are 10-15 minutes late in starting. The sessions are broadcast live on CTN Channel 16, and streamed online live.

Thursday’s working session was to focus on the planned consolidation of dispatch operations between the county and the city of Ann Arbor. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"] According to commissioner Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working session, the sheriff’s office needed more time to prepare the presentation, and none of the presentations scheduled for upcoming working sessions could be moved up.

The next regular county board meeting is on Wednesday, Sept. 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the county building, 220 N. Main. The next working session is on Thursday, Sept. 8 at 6:30 p.m.

A recycling bin used in the city of Ann Arbor. Some county commissioners would prefer that the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority partner with Ann Arbor, rather than build its own single-stream recycling facility.

The longest discussion focused on a proposal by the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority, which is hoping to build a $3.2 million facility to handle single-stream recycling for communities on the county’s west side. The 20-year-old entity would like the county to issue $2.7 million in bonds, backed by the county’s full faith and credit, to be repaid through special assessments on households in participating communities, including the city of Chelsea.

Commissioners wanted more details on the project’s business plan and projected budget before they consider a formal proposal, likely in early September. Several commissioners also questioned why the WWRA wasn’t planning to partner with the Ann Arbor recycling facility. Commissioner Rob Turner, whose district covers much of western Washtenaw and who supports this effort, voiced some frustration that recent bonding for drain projects in Ann Arbor hadn’t received the same level of scrutiny from his fellow commissioners.

The skatepark presentation was relatively brief, and commissioners generally expressed support for the project. Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. felt the organizers were too Ann Arbor-centric, however. He reminded them that the county parks & recreation commission had committed $400,000 in matching funds for the project, and that organizers should consider fundraising and selling skatepark merchandise in other parts of the county, not just Ann Arbor.

The board also learned some details on a proposed transfer of about a half-dozen employees from the county payroll to the WCHO, as part of a restructuring aimed at limiting the county’s financial liabilities. The WCHO is an entity that receives state and federal funding to provide services for people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. At this point, WCHO “leases” its employees from the county, and contracts for services through the county’s community support and treatment services (CSTS) department, which employs about 300 people. A CSTS employee spoke during public commentary, complaining that the staff hasn’t been adequately informed about these proposed changes.

And though commissioner Ronnie Peterson, at a June 28 agenda briefing, had advocated strongly for reordering the working session’s agenda in order to give more time to the WCHO discussion, he did not attend the meeting.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Scott Rosencrans, a board member for Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark (FOAAS), gave a presentation to commissioners about progress the group has made toward their goal of building a skatepark in Veterans Memorial Park, on Ann Arbor’s west side. Other FOAAS board members – including Trevor Staples and Diane Kern – attended the meeting but did not individually address the county board.

The presentation was similar to one Rosencrans gave at the Ann Arbor city council’s June 20, 2011 meeting. He began by telling commissioners about merchandise sales that support the skatepark: T-shirts, coffee mugs and skateboard decks, which are sold by several local merchants: Acme Mercantile, Launch Board Shop, Play It Again Sports, Vault of Midnight, Roos Roast and Produce Station.

In 2011, FOAAS is focusing on two areas, Rosencrans said: skatepark safety, and accessibility for the physically challenged. He cited a Consumer Product Safety Commission study that showed skateboarding as being safer than basketball, baseball and soccer, based on the number of injuries per 100,000 participants.

FOAAS has done outreach on the issue too, Rosencrans said. They’ve visited and talked with organizers of the Riley Skatepark in Farmington Hills, which opened in 2009 and is similar in size and population to the Ann Arbor project. Anecdotally, he said, the experience at Riley reflects the injury statistics reported by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He noted that the highest injury rates occur when there’s physical contact between participants. Contact between skateboarders is an anomaly, not part of the sport, he noted.

FOAAS is also working hard to make the skatepark design accessible to people with disabilities, Rosencrans said, and they’ve sought input from that community. In March, FOAAS made a formal presentation to the Ann Arbor Commission on Disability Issues, and went on a field trip to the Riley Skatepark with members of that group. The result was a resolution of support from the commission for the skatepark, he said.

Rosencrans also reviewed why Veterans Memorial Park was chosen as a location. Among the reasons he cited: (1) it’s located between two high schools (Pioneer and Skyline), and on bus lines; (2) it’s near two major highways – I-94 and M-14 – to accommodate skaters from other parts of the county; (3) there’s lots of parking; (4) and it’s near emergency health facilities, ”though we know those won’t be used very often,” he joked.

In characterizing the importance of a skatepark, Rosencrans noted it would serve about 5,000-7,000 people, mostly kids, throughout the county. A survey for the update of the Ann Arbor parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan found that skateboarding was more popular than hockey, volleyball and rowing, and had roughly the same level of participation as sports like baseball, basketball and ultimate Frisbee, among others.

Skateparks are also important for economic development, he said, citing the potential to draw visitors from three states, and beyond. Rosencrans also noted the growing trend of citizen participation as spearheading these kinds of public projects – examples of that, he said, include local dog parks, and involvement when public amenities like the city’s golf courses, Mack Pool or the senior center have been threatened with closure. He also mentioned the trend of private philanthropy supporting public projects, citing examples of the pétanque courts in Burns Park and the recent gift of $50,000 by the Morris family to renovate South University Park.

The future of community improvement projects like the skatepark will depend on public/private collaboration, Rosencrans told commissioners. Local governments have limited resources, and public servants have a stake in encouraging residents to participate in these projects, he said. Rosencrans urged commissioners to ask their constituents to become involved.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Commissioner Discussion

Barbara Bergman began by saying that her two grandchildren will look forward to using the skatepark – when they come to visit now, there’s no place to skateboard other than on the sidewalks of Highland Road, which isn’t safe. She also appreciated information about where to by skatepark merchandise: ”I’ll be buying some birthday and Hanukkah presents.”

Conan Smith said he wanted to remind commissioners and the public that the county parks and recreation commission has approved $400,000 in matching funds for the skatepark. [See Chronicle coverage from March 2010: "County Offers $400K Match for Skatepark"] Every dollar that’s donated will be matched, he said, and he urged people to give generously.

Rosencrans explained that people could donate by going to the FOAAS website and clicking on the Crowdrise button.

Several questions by Rolland Sizemore Jr., whose district includes parts of Ypsilanti and Superior townships, reflected his frustration at the Ann Arbor-centric nature of the project so far. He asked whether any stores outside of Ann Arbor sold skatepark merchandise. Not yet, Rosencrans said, but skatepark organizers are working to make that happen. Sizemore said he thinks it’s wrong to exclude other parts of the county. He also objected to the fact that Washtenaw County wasn’t mentioned in the presentation or materials – given the county’s financial contribution, it should be included, he said, even though he knows that will probably irritate people in Ann Arbor.

Sizemore had raised the same issue at the March 2010 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission, when he’d suggested that he’d like the county to get its due in terms of signage associated with the park. At that meeting, he’d asked: “Do we have any input, or is it Ann Arbor and skateboard people?”

Rob Turner echoed Sizemore’s sentiments. Turner, whose district includes Chelsea and other portions of the county’s west side, said there’s considerable interest in the skatepark by residents of western Washtenaw. That part of the county could also be a potential for raising skatepark funds, he noted.

Sizemore told Rosencrans that he started skateboarding when you still had to build your own skateboard – he supported the skatepark, but thought the organizers needed to broaden their reach. The skatepark effort needs to be publicized throughout the county, he said, adding that he’d be happy to help with that effort. Conan Smith noted that Sizemore has been a driving force in the county’s participation in the project – both Smith and Sizemore serve on the county parks & recreation commission.

Sizemore also wanted to know whether skateboarders would be required to wear safety equipment when they use the skatepark. Some kids he’s talked with have indicated they don’t wear helmets and other safety gear, but they would wear the gear if that was the only way to use the skatepark, he said.

Based on his experience as a former Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner, Rosencrans said that typically a committee would be set up to recommend rules for a facility like this. That was the process for creating the BMX/dirt bike course in Bandemer Park, he said.

Sizemore asked whether there might be room to expand the skatepark to include a BMX course at Veterans Memorial Park, too. Rosencrans said the skatepark won’t take up the entire area on that side of the park – the skatepark  site is on the northern side of the park, off of Dexter-Ann Arbor Road.

Leah Gunn, an Ann Arbor commissioner, concluded the board’s comments by speaking to constituents who might be watching the meeting on Community Television Network (CTN) or online: “I sent a check, so all of you – send a check.”

Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority

Dan Myers, the county’s director of public works, and Frank Hammer, a Chelsea city councilmember and board member of the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority, gave a presentation and fielded questions from commissioners about a proposal for expanding the WWRA. Specifically, the authority is asking the county to issue $2.7 million in bonds to help pay for a $3.2 million new recycling facility. The bonds would be repaid through a special assessment levied on the communities in western Washtenaw that agree to be served by the facility.

Myers began by describing the history of WWRA, which was formed in 1991 as a response to the 1989 update of the Washtenaw County Solid Waste Plan, a state-mandated document. Eight communities participated, creating the authority under Public Act 233: the city of Chelsea, the village of Manchester, and the townships of Bridgewater, Dexter, Lima, Lyndon, Manchester and Sylvan.

A contract was struck between the county’s board of public works and the WWRA, and assessment districts were created by the BPW under Public Act 185 to pay for construction of the original facility. New assessments have been made every five years for operations – by 2006, over 11,000 households in these eight communities were assessed annually.

Hammer described the current services that WWRA provides, including curbside recycling in Chelsea and the village of Manchester, and drop-off stations in the townships. The original facility, now 20 years old, was put together on “a wing and a prayer,” he said. It has been operating at a reasonably high level with antiquated equipment, but staff believe it’s time to upgrade the system. About 18 months ago, the WWRA board decided that single-stream recycling was the way to go, he said. The WWRA got feedback that more residents would recycle if they didn’t have to sort materials, as they do now.

An expanded, upgraded facility for single-stream recycling would allow for a range of benefits, Hammer said. Those include: expansion of the types of materials that can be recycled; increased convenience for residents who recycle; ability to store recyclables to capture a higher market value; less material processing time; less fuel use; and decreased staff time.

Myers said that the WWRA has saved $500,000 to put toward the new facility, but needs $2.7 million in bonds to pay the remainder of the $3.2 million project, which includes a new building and equipment. So far, the governing entities of four communities have voted to support the project as “investing” members – Chelsea, and the townships of Dexter, Lyndon and Manchester. That’s a total of about 7,000 households so far that will be assessed to repay the bonds. In addition, the Bridgewater Township board has voted to participate as an “associate” member, with households paying a lower fee for service, but not taking on debt payments. The Lima Township board also voted to become an associate member. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Myers said Lima Township might consider becoming an investing member, pending a review of contractual obligations.]

Chelsea households, which will continue to receive curbside pick-up, would make debt payments of $68 annually, plus $6.35 for operating expenses. Households in the three investing townships would pay $24 annually, plus the $6.35 for operating expenses. Households in associate member communities would pay $24 annually. The plan is to pay off the bonds in 15 years, Myers said – or sooner, if possible. Residents of investing communities would see their annual operating assessments go down as the facility comes on line, while payments would remain static for associate member communities.

Next steps would be for WWRA’s investing members to approve a contract with the county. The county board would also need to approve the contract, authorizing the county’s full faith and credit to back the bonds. A formal proposal is likely to come before the county board for an initial vote in early September. The county board of public works would then establish the special assessments required for the debt and operating budget. Bonds would be sold, allowing for the new facility to be constructed.

Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners raised several concerns during an extensive discussion about the WWRA project. For this report, their comments and questions are organized by topic.

WWRA: Commissioner Discussion – Regional Cooperation, Governance

Rolland Sizemore Jr. told Hammer and Myers that he wanted to look at countywide recycling needs – WWRA might find additional savings that way. He asked how many years a community must commit to being an investing member. It’s a 15-year commitment for investing members, but associate members can opt-out after five years, Hammer explained.

Hammer also emphasized that the WWRA is already a regional effort, with multiple communities involved. He noted that Sylvan Township voted against participating in the project. But Sylvan Township has other issues, he said, adding that he hoped Sylvan would eventually sign on as an associate member.

[Sylvan Township has been struggling with $12.5 million in bonds issued to build a water and wastewater treatment plant intended to serve future development. The plan was to use revenue related to that development – from connection fees to the system – to cover the bond payments. However, the economy soured and development hasn’t materialized. Last year, the county board approved a bond refunding in order to restructure the debt and lower the township’s bond payments. Township residents will likely be assessed to cover those bond payments.]

Regarding Ann Arbor’s materials recycling facility (MRF), Hammer said it’s on the east side of the county – it would cost more to transport materials there than to build a facility in western Washtenaw, he said.

Sizemore then suggested that Rob Turner, a commissioner whose district covers parts of western Washtenaw, become a WWRA board member. He thought the county board should be represented. Hammer replied that it would entail revising WWRA’s articles of incorporation, but he didn’t see a problem with that. The WWRA board would likely need a special meeting to make that change, he said.

WWRA: Commissioner Discussion – Finances

Wes Prater asked whether WWRA had a business plan for this project. Hammer reported that they’ve developed a five-year budget, based on several scenarios – with budgets for four investing members, as well as plans based on having five or eight members. When all the communities finalize those decisions, WWRA will be able to finalize its budget, he said. Prater urged him to share that information.

Kristin Judge clarified that the county does not currently fund any portion of WWRA. She pressed the issue of whether WWRA had done a complete analysis of other options, and asked how residents were reacting to the prospect of a special assessment. Hammer reiterated that WWRA had explored other possibilities, but had found it would be cheaper to build its own facility. He said he hadn’t heard any negative reaction about the assessment.

Judge also questioned why the authority itself couldn’t issue the bonds, rather than the county. Hammer replied that WWRA had consulted two bonding agencies. WWRA had been informed that because the smaller communities don’t have a track record issuing bonds – unlike the county, most of the municipalities in the WWRA don’t have a credit rating – they’d be charged higher interest rates.

Hammer told commissioners that there would be zero risk to the county, because the bond payments would be made by assessments on existing households. Myers added that the WWRA is set up through the county’s public works board, so county administrative and finance staff, as well as the county’s bond counsel, have been involved in discussions about the project.

Barbara Bergman questioned the stability of the financing model – what if houses go into foreclosure? In this economy, that’s a real possibility. She also wondered how the pricing of recyclables – which she characterized as “interesting, at best” – is being factored in to the business model. Finally, Bergman wanted more details on WWRA’s analysis of a possible partnership with Ann Arbor’s MRF. Ann Arbor staff have expressed interest in that kind of partnership, she said, and MRF has done work with communities as far away as Lansing.

Hammer replied that if houses go into foreclosure, taxes and assessments will still be collected by the county treasurer. Myers said that even if a small percentage of houses went into foreclosure, and for some reason those assessments weren’t paid, the WWRA would be able to absorb those losses.

Bergman observed that she’d grown less optimistic over the years, and believed that 15-year plans aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The county itself had made very rosy financial forecasts “that crashed in our laps,” she said.

Hammer emphasized that their projections are very conservative. For example, revenue projections are based on prices paid for recyclables in January 2011, even though those prices have increased 15% since then. He also noted that the projections are based on conservative tonnage, and that WWRA has set aside contingency funds. Myers added that debt payments don’t rely on the price of recyclables – the debt will be repaid through assessments on households.

Bergman concluded her comments by saying she wanted more information about why collaborating with Ann Arbor’s MRF wouldn’t work. As an Ann Arbor commissioner, she said, “that’s my very parochial interest.”

Regarding a partnership with MRF, Hammer said there were some very serious flaws in the assumptions on which an analysis by Ann Arbor staff was based. Certain information related to labor costs and insurance hadn’t been factored in, for example. Any way you look at it, he said, transferring recyclables to Ann Arbor’s MRF makes no sense for residents in western Washtenaw, he concluded.

Leah Gunn wondered how projected revenues would be affected, now that the village of Manchester and Sylvan Township had decided not to participate. Hammer said he’s continuing to talk with Sylvan Township officials about the possibility of being an associate member. He was disappointed about Manchester’s decision, but said that the project can proceed without them.

Gunn then noted that she’s seen Ann Arbor’s MRF – it’s a complicated place. So in the WWRA’s business plan, she’ll be looking at items related to operations and maintenance. She said she’s especially sensitive to that because she’s also an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member. “I’ll give you two words,” she said. “Parking structures.”

Hammer invited Gunn and other commissioners to tour WWRA’s existing facility, saying they’d find it to be well-maintained and organized.

Alicia Ping, whose district covers southwest Washtenaw, said it was commendable that WWRA had been operating 20 years and had no debt. She confirmed that WWRA also provides recycling services to other communities on a contract basis. Hammer said those revenues hadn’t been factored in to the project’s budget. Ping told her fellow commissioners that when they saw the business plan, they’d be very impressed with it.

Sizemore said he’s a little gun-shy about offering the county’s full faith and credit, but he’d support the project.

WWRA: Commissioner Discussion – Double Standard?

Rob Turner, a Chelsea resident whose district covers several communities that participate in WWRA, said the recycling authority has provided excellent service for 20 years. The single-stream service will be extremely helpful in increasing the amount of recyclables collected, he said.

Turner pointed to the concerns that fellow commissioners were expressing over issuing $2.7 million in bonds, and wondered why he hadn’t heard the same concerns at their previous meeting. Without discussion, on July 6 the board had approved five drain projects in Ann Arbor that required the county’s full faith and credit on over $6 million in bonds. There hadn’t been this kind of scrutiny of those projects, he observed. “Where’s the pushback – why wasn’t there pushback on these other five issues?” The same questions that are being asked of the WWRA could have been asked about the Ann Arbor drain projects, he said, but weren’t.

Responding to Turner, Leah Gunn noted that the county has had a “long and satisfying relationship” with the county water resources commissioner [Janis Bobrin], and there had never been any defaults in drain assessment districts. [The office of the water resources commissioner made the requests for the drain projects mentioned by Turner.] Gunn said she has confidence in Bobrin, based on past experience. The reason why some commissioners are skittish, Gunn continued, is because of the “mess” they’re in with Sylvan Township.

Kristin Judge noted that when Bobrin comes to them with requests for drainage work, it’s typically related to flooding. Dealing with that is a necessity. Recycling is important and she supports it, but it’s not a necessity, Judge said. Also, it’s technically possible for the WWRA to get services from Ann Arbor’s MRF, she noted. For the drain requests, that’s not possible.

Turner responded by saying the WWRA project is very different from the Sylvan Township situation. Sylvan officials had planned to make bond payments with tap fees from future developments – those developments never materialized, he noted. The WWRA will be assessing existing households.

WWRA: Commissioner Discussion – Why Not Privatize?

Dan Smith said he’s generally quite supportive of recycling, but noted that the community where he lives – Whitmore Lake – is served by a private company. He wondered whether that might be an option. Everyone talks about doing things differently, he said, and now WWRA is presented with an opportunity to shake things up and look at providing the recycling service in a different way. He had no objection to taxpayers determining how they want to spend their money, but he had some concerns.

He clarified that WWRA was projecting 20% revenue growth over five years. D. Smith noted that he’d been involved in putting together some revenue projections several years ago, and had been very conservative. Yet even those conservative numbers had proven to be too optimistic, he said. Related to foreclosed properties, D. Smith observed that in some cases the county treasurer had difficulty selling foreclosed properties at a price that would cover the taxes owed on the property. There aren’t any guarantees, he said – this economy is different from any situation they have ever experienced.

The county board is concerned about extending its full faith and credit. D. Smith noted that commissioners had lengthy discussions on the issue as it related to a private developer. [Smith was referring to a request made earlier this year for the Packard Square project at the former Georgetown Mall site in Ann Arbor. Developers had asked to use the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for a state loan the developers intended to apply for. And after concerns were raised by commissioners, the developers ultimately withdrew that request.] D. Smith said that for the WWRA, it was another government entity making the request, so it’s a different situation. Still, the WWRA needed to follow up on the issues that were being raised, he said.

Hammer responded to D. Smith by saying that the WWRA had approached two businesses – Recommunity Recycling and Republic Waste Services. Neither one were interested in the work, he said.

The WWRA model is very much like a private business, Hammer continued. The WWRA has run the facility for 20 years without incurring debt, and has paid for its equipment in cash. The main difference is that the authority’s bottom line isn’t profit – it’s public service, he said.

D. Smith said it’s appropriate for the county to pledge its full faith and credit for a project that’s providing a public service. At the same time, he added, the county isn’t a bank. What’s the difference in interest rates between having the county issue bonds, compared to the WWRA issuing bonds? Hammer said they’ve been told it would be a difference of at least 2 percentage points.

WWRA: Commissioner Discussion – Length of Discussion

After about an hour of questions, Barbara Bergman noted that several people had come to the meeting for the night’s final presentation – on proposed changes to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). She felt that questions regarding the WWRA were becoming repetitive, and asked that commissioners wrap up the discussion. Leah Gunn suggested that commissioners send their questions to the county administrative staff, then the answers could be emailed to the board at a later date. It’s a complicated issue, she said, and these questions wouldn’t be resolved that evening.

Wes Prater disagreed, saying the point of a working session was to ask questions about a project.

Conan Smith made a motion to limit the remaining WWRA discussion to 15 minutes.

Outcome: On a 5-4 vote, commissioners limited the WWRA discussion to another 15 minutes from that point in the meeting. Dissenting were Kristin Judge, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Rolland Sizemore Jr. Two commissioners – Ronnie Peterson and Yousef Rabhi – were absent.

WWRA: Commissioner Discussion – General Comments

Conan Smith voiced strong support for the proposal, reminding commissioners that the WWRA’s mission would ultimately be valuable to the entire county, not just the western portion. It’s about serving the public, he said, and if residents in that part of the county want their own facility and are willing to pay for it, “let’s help make that happen.” He said he was excited at the prospect of increased recycling because of this project. The finance model works, he said, and the special assessments provide strong financial protection for the county. ”I’m fully supportive of it,” Smith concluded.

Rolland Sizemore said he didn’t like the presentation he’d heard. Many of the questions that were asked had been previously communicated to WWRA, but the county board still didn’t have answers, he said. He cautioned Hammer and Myers to be sure to address these concerns when they came back to the board with a formal request.

Changes at Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO)

Before the presentation on a restructuring proposal for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, Barbara Bergman – a commissioner who also serves on the WCHO board – apologized to people who had waited through the preceding presentations, and thanked them for their patience.

Patrick Barrie, WCHO’s executive director, began by quipping, “I have a five-hour presentation.” That prompted commissioner Wes Prater to reply, “We’ll stay – we’ll stay!”

Barrie noted that he’s an historian by trade, and he began by giving a brief overview of the WCHO’s “extremely complicated history.” In 1974, Michigan lawmakers passed legislation that enabled the state to shift responsibility for public mental health services to the counties. It was slow going until Gov. William Milliken pushed for financial incentives a few years later, Barrie said, to encourage the transfer. Washtenaw County was one of the first counties to take on that responsibility, he said. Budgets for county mental health programs grew dramatically, both from expanded state funding as well as federal dollars.

In 1996, amendments to the state’s mental health code allowed community mental health services programs (CMHSPs) to be established in three different ways: (1) as an agency of the county; (2) as an organization under the state’s Urban Cooperation Act (UCA); or (3) as a mental health authority – a governmental entity that’s separate from the county, with its own governing board. That code change led to the establishment of the WCHO in 2000, in a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan, set up under the UCA. Governance shifted from the county board to the WCHO board.

With a total budget of $112 million from multiple funding sources, the WCHO serves as the community mental health services program for Washtenaw County, and is the Medicaid prepaid inpatient health plan (PIHP) – a federal designation – for Washtenaw, Monroe, Lenawee and Livingston counties. The PIHP accounts for about 80% of WCHO’s funding. The WCHO is also the substance abuse coordinating agency – a designation under the state’s public health code – for Washtenaw and Livingston counties.

The WCHO primarily serves people with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders, Barrie said. But managing the services is a complex process, he said, because each of the different funding sources has its own set of legal constraints, eligibility requirements, service qualifications and benefit arrangements.

The WCHO has some organizational “peculiarities,” Barrie said. The WCHO uses lease and contract agreements with the county for staff, direct services, facilities and equipment. The WCHO has no employees of its own, he said – “I’m leased.” Its primary contract for services and personnel is through the county’s community support and treatment services (CSTS) department. That county department employs a total of about 300 people. While this arrangement was appropriate at WCHO’s inception, Barrie said, it appears contrary to the intent of the enabling legislation, which seems to indicate that employees would eventually shift over from the county to the WCHO.

There’s also a question of liability for the county, he said. In many ways, there doesn’t appear to be any real distinction between the WCHO and the county – and that exposes the county to liability for the WCHO’s operations. So in consultation with the county administration and legal counsel, the WCHO board is requesting that a small number of administrative, non-union positions – including Barrie – be shifted from the county to the WCHO. Initially only six employees would be transferred, he said, with possibly an additional eight employees transfered at a later date. The employees would be limited to those who are necessary for the operation of the agreement between WCHO and the county, he said. And all of the transfers are being vetted to ensure that no employees would be disadvantaged because of the change, in terms of their salaries and benefits.

There are no plans to transfer employees beyond this core group, Barrie said, and the change would not significantly affect other financial arrangements between the county and the WCHO. The intent is to establish an arm’s length relationship between the two entities, he said, and to put some key administrative positions under the control of the WCHO board.

Changes at WCHO: Commissioner Discussion

Leah Gunn noted that she has sat next to Barbara Bergman at county board meetings for 15 years, and during that time Bergman has explained how WCHO has been organized and reorganized over the years. It’s extraordinary what the organization delivers in terms of services, she said. Gunn described the organization as complex and she didn’t completely understand it, but she said she had confidence in Barrie.

Wes Prater said the county is carrying a liability now, and would benefit from making these changes. He asked for more details, including a proposed timeline for the changes.

Initially, Barrie said, the WCHO is looking to shift over six administrative employees, including himself. There might be an additional eight employees in a second wave, assuming the employees qualify as people who are essential to the functioning of WCHO’s mission. This would establish an arm’s length relationship between WCHO and the county, he said. The interlocal agreement between WCHO and the county states that the county isn’t liable for WCHO’s debts, but the current structure of the organization belies that, he said.

WCHO’s fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, and that’s the timeline the organization has set for making these changes, Barrie said. The WCHO has hired attorney Jerry Lax to evaluate each employee’s status and ensure that employees wouldn’t be disadvantaged by transferring to the WCHO – Barrie said the WCHO, not the county, is footing the bill for that legal work. He hopes to make the change prior to any state legislative changes, he said, adding that every day in Lansing bills are introduced that weaken protections for public employees. ”So sooner rather than later is probably a good idea,” he said.

Kristin Judge said she gave her full support to this transition, and that taking care of WCHO’s customers should be the No. 1 goal.

In response to a query from Bergman, Barrie explained that the WCHO has been able to find creative ways to maximize federal grant support for services – when federal stimulus funds were available, about 75% of WCHO’s budget was from federal funding. All states are preparing for the upcoming changes in 2014 resulting from federal health care reforms, he said. Unless Congress alters the current law, Medicaid will expand the number of eligible recipients significantly in 2014, and funding is available for poorer states to help handle that influx. “We were a donor state for a lot of years,” Barrie said, “but now we’re living off federal dollars.”

Bergman joked that with WCHO as a separate entity, the county might be able to sell some of its assets to the organization. Barrie quipped that WCHO could be a toxic asset fund, but quickly noted that he had said that in jest. Barrie said he’s very concerned about the future configuration of health care services in Michigan, citing Gov. Rick Snyder’s plan to make an announcement related to health care in September.

The WCHO is working on how to use its affiliation with UM to come up with novel ways to keep control of mental health services in the public sector, rather than see it shift to private sector entities.

Rob Turner praised WCHO and CSTS, referencing specifically a partnership with the nonprofit Faith in Action that serves the western part of Washtenaw County, which he represents. He supported the reorganization, and said he thought it would allow WCHO to grow and serve local residents in even better, more efficient ways.

Changes at WCHO: Public Commentary

Three people spoke on the issue of WCHO restructuring at the meeting’s final public commentary period.

Paquetta Palmer told commissioners that she works in the CSTS department. The staff has been left out of the discussions about these changes, she said. The way that these changes are communicated is crucial to the staff’s comfort level – but they’ve just been hearing rumors, she said. The process should be laid out very clearly. There are also other counties that have gone through this kind of change, Palmer said, and it hasn’t always been effective.

The timing is also an issue, since right now unions that represent county employees are in a negotiating period, and people are fearful about what might happen to their jobs, she said. As a taxpayer, she’s also used the services of the Washtenaw Health Plan, Palmer said, and a lot of people are concerned about what the changes will mean to these services.

If the WCHO is separate from the county, for example, will CSTS be a preferred provider of services? Or will it be only one of a number of contractors that WCHO will consider? Palmer also indicated that she had previously expressed interest in serving on the WCHO board, but was told that county employees couldn’t do that. However, she noted that commissioner Barbara Bergman was on the board, as were people from UM and the community – but no county staff were represented. She reiterated that the county staff has useful input, and that the board and administration should seek that input.

Peg Ball expressed appreciation for the county in supporting these services, and said the time is right for a change. She hoped that commissioners would support the proposal. Responding to Palmer, Ball said she felt like communication would improve – she’d hard WCHO board members talk about the importance of communication with WCHO, CSTS employees and people who use the services.

Dennis McDougal, a WCHO board member, said he welcomed the support of commissioners for these changes. He praised Bergman for her support during this transition. And as a consumer of WCHO/CSTS services himself, he also wanted to support the staff for their work.

Several commissioners responded to the public commentary. Bergman thanked her fellow WCHO board members, then told Palmer that she felt the new organization would better serve county residents. They need to continue improving communication, she said.

Alicia Ping said she’d heard similar complaints from staff about poor communication regarding the reorganization of the employment training and community services (ETCS) department, which is merging with the office of community development and the economic development & energy department. It’s a balancing act, she said, especially during labor negotiations. But the board needs to be sensitive to the rumors that are out there.

Rob Turner concluded the discussion by saying that the more the staff knows, the more likely they’ll be to support and take ownership of these changes. Employees can be a big help, he said.

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting. In addition, the board will hold a July 21 working session on the 2012-2013 budget, starting at 6:30 p.m. in the same location.

Next working session: Thursday, July 21, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The working session will focus on the 2012-2013 budget.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Fuller Road Station would be located on what is now a city-owned surface parking lot south of Fuller Road, east of East Medical Center Drive. The parcel is included as parkland in the city’s park planning documents, which has generated opposition among some residents. The initial phase of the project is being planned by the city and the University of Michigan as a large parking structure with bus bays and a bike station, with plans eventually to build a train station on the same site.

At the council’s June 6 meeting, the Fuller Road Station had received extensive public commentary, despite the lack of any item on the agenda related directly to the project.

Partly in response to that commentary and to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), at that meeting Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pushed for a city council working session on the project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting: “Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgable about the issue. Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar.”

The city’s park advisory commission received an update on Fuller Road Station at its May 17, 2011 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Forest Hill Cemetery in Ann Arbor. Planning commissioners pointed to cemeteries and the University of Michigan campus as adding to the downtown greenspace, in addition to city-owned parks. The discussion prompted one commissioner to quip: "Bring a basket to the casket!"

One of those focus groups took place at a working session for planning commissioners earlier this month, where Kuras asked for feedback on a range of topics, including the possibility of changing zoning to better protect parkland – an issue raised during debate about the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Also discussed were the role of parks and open space in the downtown area, and whether the city should acquire land for an Allen Creek greenway. And commissioners weighed in on the city’s practice of asking developers to contribute land or cash in lieu of land for parks – developers of Zaragon Place 2 will likely be paying the city $48,000 for that purpose, for example.

The nearly two-hour discussion touched on a whole host of other topics as well: How far should the city go in crafting public/private partnerships, like putting cell phone towers in parks? Beyond a traditional playground, how can the city become more kid-friendly – with amenities like fountains, or objects to climb on? Are pedestrian malls really an awful idea?

The city is soliciting more general public input on the PROS plan in several ways: via an online survey, email that can be sent to prosplan@a2gov.org, and a series of public meetings. The next meeting is set for Tuesday, June 29 at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm Barn, 2781 Packard Road. The current 232-page PROS plan (a 10MB .pdf file) can be downloaded from the city’s website.

The goal is to have a draft of the plan ready for review by October. The planning commission is one of several city groups – including the park advisory commission and city council – that must vote on the final document by year’s end. It also gets forwarded to the state for approval. The plan, which includes a detailed inventory of the current parks system as well as plans for its future, is typically required when seeking state and federal funding.

At the June 8 working session, Kuras posed six questions to planning commissioners. Those questions and responses from the group form the framework for this report.

Public Land Zoning

Question: There has been much discussion of late because of the Fuller Road Station that there should be a special category of park zoning that would be more tightly regulated than just PL (public land) zoning. What are your thoughts about changing the zoning to reflect more stringent rules concerning development on parkland?

The issue of public land zoning has emerged in two ways, Kuras told planning commissioners. Jayne Miller, the city’s former community services director, started an initiative to “clean up” zoning in Ann Arbor by rezoning city-owned property as public land (PL), which gives the city more flexibility in determining uses for the land. Even when land is designated as parkland – as is the case for the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station – it’s still zoned as public land. Kuras said a suggestion from the park advisory commission was to look at whether the city should have a separate category of zoning for parkland.

Public Land Zoning: Commissioner Discussion

Calling it an interesting idea, Erica Briggs said that having a parkland zoning designation would give people some level of comfort that the land would be used exclusively for parks. She realized it would create some challenges for the city, however, and said she’d be interested in hearing from Kuras about what those challenges might be. Kuras said the staff wasn’t sure yet what a parkland designation would entail – that’s one reason they were soliciting feedback.

Kirk Westphal said he was in favor of having clearer expectations outlined for how land could be used. But he noted that because of the city’s charter amendment requiring the city to get voter approval if it wanted to sell parkland, it’s already very difficult to repurpose parkland. That makes him wary of putting further restrictions on the types of land use. Westphal worries that they’ll lose flexibility.

Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council, noted that this issue had emerged at the June 7 council meeting. They had discussed and approved, on first reading, a change in the list of uses outlined for public land – replacing “municipal airports” with “transportation facilities” in Chapter 55 of the city code. [Council subsequently approved the change at their June 21 meeting.]

Council had debated whether to use a more generic term like transportation facilities, or to enumerate more specifically the types of transportation facilities that could be included, Derezinski said. They had unanimously settled on the more generic term, he said, nothing that planning commission had made that recommendation. It gives the city more flexibility, he said. [See Chronicle coverage of the planning commission discussion at their May 4, 2010 meeting.]

Diane Giannola said it was too limiting to zone the land as parkland. The purpose of public land is to be mutually beneficial for the entire community, she said, noting that’s the case for the Fuller Road Station, which benefits the broader community. Versatility is important, she said.

Jean Carlberg asked whether designating land as parkland – even though it’s zoned as public land – actually protects the land in any way from being repurposed. She had originally thought those protections were spelled out in the PROS plan, but when she looked for it, she didn’t see any reference to it. “That part I found troubling – I assumed it was here but it’s not, that I can see.” It’s important for the public to know what the legal status is for parkland, she said. Generally, Carlberg said she was in favor of public land zoning, but if land is designated as parkland, then the protections for that need to be defined.

Kuras explained that the PROS plan includes a section outlining different categories of parks – such as neighborhood parks or historic sites. Some of those categories, like the natural areas and preserves, have a higher level of protection than others, she said.

Evan Pratt said he looked at the big picture – it ends up being a city council decision. And in the worst case scenario, every year there’s the opportunity to vote for five or six of the 11 council positions. If you don’t like decisions that are being made by the council, you can elect others to reverse those decisions, he said. He understood why people are concerned, but added that sometimes things get stirred up without basis. He recalled a situation when land near a subdivision was to be rezoned, and residents somehow concluded that the intent was for the city to put a road through there. Carlberg suggested that the city provide more descriptive notices for neighbors, which might help clarify what the rezoning means.

Bonnie Bona said she wasn’t sure that zoning was the right place to differentiate between public land and parkland. Even the change in city code language to replace “municipal airports” with “transportation facilities” is simply to make clear what the city is doing, she said – the change wasn’t necessary to allow the city to use the land in that way. The council makes that decision. It’s not clear that the city’s master plan or the PROS plan have any legal bearing – the plans are intended as guidance, Bona said. She agreed with others who view flexibility as important. She also noted that parkland gets acquired for all sorts of reasons, both admirable and political.

Wendy Woods agreed with Bona, also noting that council can ultimately do whatever it wants. She said having better descriptions of land uses in the PROS plan would be good, though she added that few people actually read the plan.

Giannola pointed out that if parkland is given a special zoning designation, someone has to decide which parcels would get rezoned as parkland. She wondered who would make that call, and how those decisions would be made.

Downtown Open Space Planning

Question: Staff has started to discuss ways to plan for open space in the downtown. Given that downtown has a different character and constraints, what do you think the approach should be to a downtown open space plan? What kind and sizes of parks are appropriate, given the size of our downtown?

Kuras told commissioners that parks and planning staff have struggled with this issue, and are trying to decide whether there needs to be a separate open space plan for the downtown area. She gave the example of Main Street, saying that in some ways, it’s where people go to recreate.

Downtown Open Space Plan: Commissioner Discussion

Derezinski noted that the cost of land downtown is a major aspect of the discussion regarding open space and parks. The debate right now is focused on the city-owned Library Lot site, he said, and what development might go on top of the underground parking structure being built there. All of the proposals involve some sort of plaza. Derezinski also pointed to the city-owned 415 W. Washington property – is that a good place for a larger urban park?

Giannola said that urban open space can be within walking distance of downtown – it doesn’t have to be in the core area. Woods noted that West Park – 23 acres south of Miller, between Seventh and Chapin – is within walking distance of downtown.

Carlberg said their discussion seemed to be leading to a conclusion that they need a separate open space plan for downtown. It’s important to look at both daytime and nighttime uses, she said. Carlberg also raised the issue of cost. The former downtown YMCA site, now owned by the city and used as a surface parking lot, is worth several million dollars – that’s a lot for open space, she noted. And since there aren’t a lot of downtown residents, who would they be creating a park for, and what kind of a park would it be? She said she didn’t think parents would bring their children to a playground downtown, for example. Kuras noted that, in fact, the staff has received feedback that some people would like a playground in the downtown area. Carlberg wondered whether they would actually use it, if there were a playground nearer  to their home.

Pratt didn’t think having a large amount of open space downtown made sense – it’s not good planning, he said. He noted that the University of Michigan has a tremendous amount of open space on its campus. Rather than complaining about them not paying taxes, Pratt said, he uses their campus like a park. If anything, the city could look for ways to include more pocket parks. There are also temporary gathering places created when the city closes down its streets for festivals, he noted.

Pratt also maintained that the secret to successful open space in urban areas is programming. Perhaps the PROS plan should include more discussion of programming, he suggested. Derezinski said he used to think it would be good to close down Main Street for a pedestrian mall, but he got “slapped around” by merchants, who told him it created dead space. Woods noted that when the streets are closed periodically, it seems to work well. Derezinski agreed, mentioning that city council had approved street closings for six different festivals at its June 7 meeting.

Bona speculated that density was an issue – pedestrian malls worked in Europe because lots of people lived nearby, but that’s not yet the case in this city. She liked the idea of looking for small parks and programming. What would it take for a pocket park to be successful? Liberty Plaza, at the corner of Division and Liberty, isn’t considered a success, she noted.

Like Pratt, Bona said she uses UM land for recreation. There is also considerable greenspace in the downtown on land owned by churches, she said. Unless you look beyond just city land, sometimes people forget how much greenspace already exists.

Derezinski said there are “great graveyards” that provide greenspace in the city as well, which prompted Woods to imagine a possible Chronicle headline: “Don’t Worry About Greenspace – Go to a Cemetery!” Derezinski added a possible subhead: “Bring a Basket to the Casket”

More seriously, Woods suggested looking at the tops of buildings when considering open space – that has potential, she said.

Briggs made some comments that shifted the discussion a bit. When people talk about downtown parks and open space, they’re usually referring to large areas – but that doesn’t connect to what downtown is, she said. What’s often lacking is a discussion about how downtown space is used. To support local merchants, they need to figure out a way to use the downtown, including overlooked areas like alleys.

Derezinski pointed to the alley by Michigan Theater, which is notable for being completely covered in graffiti, and said it would be wonderful if that could be replicated elsewhere, “with taste, hopefully.” There’s potential for the alley behind Downtown Home & Garden to be a nice passageway, he said, if the City Place apartment complex ever gets built. The alley next to Café Zola, which runs between Washington and Huron, is another passageway that people use, he said, “but it stinks.”

Briggs addressed the issue of playgrounds, saying the city doesn’t need a traditional one, but they do need places for kids to play – boulders to climb on, places to sit, and small attractions like fountains. There needs to be visual interest, which includes public art but also smaller efforts.

Briggs also said that the idea of pedestrian malls shouldn’t be discarded. One option might be to close the street on Friday and Saturday nights after 6 p.m., for example. Just because merchants were against it doesn’t mean they’re correct, she said. However, Briggs also said she wouldn’t make that a priority. It was more important to seek out small, inexpensive ways to make the downtown more interesting.

Westphal picked up on Briggs’ comments. He noted that he’s been influenced by the work of William Whyte, specifically mentioning Whyte’s documentary, “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.” When you ask people about their favorite streets, they’ll typically mention places with lots of activity – sidewalk cafés, little shops and pedestrians. It gets into the debate of public versus private open space, he said.

One of the points that Whyte makes in his film is that successful spaces tend to be privately managed, in places where there’s oversight and guaranteed activity. There are creative ways of making this happen – perhaps the property is city-owned, for example, but privately managed with a guarantee of public access.

So what works now in the downtown area? Westphal asked. Maybe Sculpture Park, in Kerrytown on the southeast corner of Catherine and Fourth. It’s hard to pull off successful open space downtown, he said. If in doubt, don’t do it – because it’s hard to do.

Pratt said he liked Briggs’ idea of art, and noted that there’s money available for that. [The city's Percent for Art program provides funds for public art, and is overseen by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.]

Carlberg pointed to examples of other private/public open space downtown – a small plaza in front of the ice cream store on Main Street, or instances when the front sections of restaurants are opened up for al fresco dining.

Bona looped the conversation back to Sculpture Park – it hasn’t always been successful, she noted. When she first moved to town, she lived in an apartment above the storefronts that overlooked the park. There was a lot of noise from drunks all night, every night, she said. That changed when the area became busier, with more foot traffic. Liberty Plaza suffers from a lack of people, she noted, especially since the lower level offices that overlook the plaza don’t have much activity.

Woods said that sometimes small quirky things draw people out – like the fairy doors, or unusually painted fire hydrants. Briggs added that bike lanes were important too. There needs to be a connection that moves people through the downtown, whether by bike or on foot.

Eric Mahler said his experience with open space downtown comes mainly from sitting on the committee that’s evaluating proposals for the Library Lot, including some that called for keeping it as an open public plaza or park. Open space has to be a destination, he said, which involves planning and programming. There was concern about the cost of maintaining it and policing it, especially at night. When he asked the proposers who would use it, he said he wasn’t satisfied with the answer. In general, he said, he wasn’t impressed by the open space proposals.

Mahler said he agreed with Briggs, that a lot of small things could be done at minimal expense to make a big difference downtown.

As the discussion on this question came to a close, Briggs brought up the issue of the AATA’s Blake Transit Center on Fourth Street north of William, citing that area as one with potential for redevelopment. It’s not a good area now, she said, and if you want to attract “choice riders” to the bus system, Blake has to look less like a bus station. That’s something that needs to be addressed in the planning stages, she said – how to build something that’s attractive, and what kind of programming might go with it.

Negotiations with Developers

Question: Currently, the PROS plan specifies a formula for development that requests a donation of parkland, or cash in lieu of parkland, to maintain a certain ratio of parkland to residents. This has resulted in a number of neighborhood parks that have served the developments directly. In other cases, it is more difficult if there is not land available, as as in the downtown. How do we fairly treat different types of development?

Kuras explained that she often negotiates with developers, asking them to donate parkland or cash in lieu of land, which can then be used in the parks system. It’s been successful in other parts of the city, but is difficult to do downtown – in part because land is so much more expensive, she said. So her question is whether this is a valid approach for the downtown area, and how should downtown developments be treated differently.

Negotiations with Developers: Commissioner Discussion

Carlberg asked what alternative amenities there might be. Perhaps a rooftop area, or exercise space within a building, or a coffee shop – places where the community can meet and not be confined to their apartments. She said the contributions from developers are a boon to the city, and she wouldn’t want to give that up.

Kuras pointed out that Zaragon Place 2 planned to have a fitness center, but it would only be open to residents. [The development agreement for Zaragon Place 2, which was subsequently approved by planning commission at its June 15 meeting, includes a $48,000 contribution to the parks system in lieu of land.]

Briggs suggested that part of the money from downtown developments could be used to hire a consultant, who could create a coherent vision for the downtown amenities – where seating should be be installed, for example, or fountains, or public art. Then, as more developments get built, their contributions can be used to implement the plan. Kuras said she loved that idea.

But Derezinski said he was really troubled by the developers paying, given the high land costs. Is it fair?

Woods joked that her conscience doesn’t bother her on this issue – she views it as a citywide concept of beautification for everyone, not just the residents of one development. Giannola wondered whether it would be legal, if it didn’t specifically benefit residents. That prompted Kuras to say that some people have questioned the whole approach. Rampson later clarified that the program has been in place for at least 25 years.

Pratt pointed out that technically, you can’t demand land or payment from the developer – it’s a request. He liked Briggs’ suggestion of developing a broader plan, with a focus on streetscapes.

Saying she liked the idea of a contribution to the parks system, Bonnie Bona said it should be commensurate throughout the city, including the downtown – she doesn’t have a problem asking developers for it. She also liked the idea of developing a plan and looking at the downtown area holistically. Briggs said it might also serve to energize people, giving them something to be excited about in the face of often controversial development.

Westphal supported the idea of pooling contributions, calling it a kind of savings account that could be used for a strategic plan of areas that need enhancement. He recalled that when the development at 601 S. Forest was debated, residents spoke at public commentary indicating that this kind of contribution was a quid pro quo for the surrounding area. Some people are under the impression that even if the area is well-served by parks and open space, the contribution from developers must be kept in that area, he said – but that’s not necessarily the case.

Kuras commented that for a while, the city was setting aside contributions from downtown developers to use for the Allen Creek greenway. She said she does think that some people view the contributions as compensation for adding density to their neighborhood.

Mahler told Kuras that she didn’t need to go to developers hat-in-hand. She should think creatively about how to negotiate, he said, and present the situation as a win-win – lay out how open space will benefit both the developer and the city. He referenced the book “Getting to Yes,” saying it was all about creating mutual interest with your partner.

Westphal said there might be some advisory services available from the American Planning Association that the city could use, to look at best practices.

Private/Public Partnerships

Question: There has been much discussion – because of budget shortfalls – of partnering more with private companies, whether to sponsor a facility, park, house a cell tower or adopt a picnic shelter. Do you feel that this is something that parks should pursue more aggressively? If so, what type of regulations should be put in place to protect parkland?

The city is trying to think more creatively, Kuras said, but there are both good and bad examples of private/public partnerships. Some companies have approached the city about putting up cell towers in city parkland, which has sparked an internal staff debate, she said. [For some limited Chronicle coverage of private efforts in two city parks – Wheeler Park and Liberty Plaza – see "Parking Deal Talks Open between City, DDA"]

Private/Public Partnerships: Commissioner Discussion

Mahler said he didn’t think there was a public willingness to pursue those kinds of partnerships. Briggs said she wasn’t a huge supporter of sponsorships, and that for things like cell towers, they’d need to protect the visual landscape of the parks. But there might be opportunities to explore, she said.

For Giannola, the question was whether the partnership benefited the community as a whole. If the cell towers are erected in an area that wouldn’t otherwise get service, maybe it’s worth it, she said.

Partnerships would need to be consistent with what’s already being done in the parks, Carlberg said, but otherwise, if it brings in revenues, then that’s good for the city. If a private company sponsors a picnic shelter, for example, and the public can still use it, that makes sense.

Pratt pointed out that there are already some partnerships – Zingerman’s selling its products at the Gallup Park café, for example. The city should ask what’s the broad gain for the parks system, he said, and there are real opportunities. Staff should be as aggressive as the park advisory commission can stomach. Pratt noted that the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) called for developing restaurants along the river, for example.

Woods said if parkland is leased to an entity long-term, then it might as well have been sold – that’s a factor in considering partnerships, she said, alluding to the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Westphal cautioned about the types of partnerships the city might pursue. Having a BP logo on a park shelter would be a lot more desecrating than to have a small restaurant in a park, he said.

Partnerships are inevitable, Derezinski said – but watch your wallet. He noted that the private sector is getting more adept at working with municipalities.

Parks & Transportation

Question: How should the park system interface with the transportation system to increase opportunities for “active living”?

Only a few commissioners addressed this question, and some indicated that they weren’t sure what it meant. Rampson explained that the city puts money into trails within parks, but often the connections between parks weren’t there – and some of those connections might interface with the city’s transportation system. In some ways, it’s a competition for funds, she said. Another example of a disconnect: There’s a recreation center, but you have to drive to get there. Does that make sense?

Bona said there was nothing more important than linkages between parks – and there are a lot of gaps. Briggs agreed, pointing to the example of Bandemer Park. It’s a wonderful park, but it’s impossible to cross North Main to get to it. There’s no excuse not to see the big picture, she said.

Derezinski said the city needs to do a better job of interfacing parks and transportation. It’s especially an issue for people with disabilities, he noted.

Allen Creek Greenway

Question: Should we start to acquire and manage land for an Allen Creek greenway?

Carlberg suggested that the city develop what it already owns along the greenway and see if anyone uses it. She wasn’t in favor of buying more land. Pratt said he generally agreed with that approach.

Bona said that connections of parks along the Huron River are the most important priority. For the Allen Creek greenway, there are already a lot of linkages, she said – you can follow it pretty well using urban streets, though some places aren’t very friendly, like the intersection of Main and Summit. Ultimately, she said she’d rather have one complete greenway than two incomplete ones.

Woods agreed with Bona about prioritizing parkland along the river, or to look at city-owned land for the Allen Creek greenway. She wasn’t in favor of acquiring more land.

Briggs said that before she lived in Germany, she would have advocated more for the Border-to-Border Trail or on-road facilities for bikes, but now she sees the benefits of linear parks. It would be an asset for the community to have a system that benefits everyone.

Derezinski suggested working with nonprofits. Conservancies or others might partner with the city for purchase or maintenence of the greenway, which would be a huge expense, he said.

A report from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, drafted by a task force on infrastructure led by county board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr., laid out steps that SEMCOG hopes to take to address the situation – including, most immediately, lobbying Lansing lawmakers to raise the state’s gas tax, which funds road construction and upkeep. The briefing prompted commissioner Jeff Irwin to express frustration at SEMCOG’s approach, which he indicated wasn’t bold enough to tackle the underlying problems that have fostered sprawl.

At their May 20 session, commissioners also got an update on what’s known as the Chevron project – a multi-year, multimillion-dollar effort to cut energy usage in county facilities. And staff of the county’s energy and economic development office asked for feedback from commissioners about what type of pilot project the county should pursue, as part of a recent federal energy grant. Some commissioners are leaning toward a solar photovoltaic installation.

The meeting also included a presentation by county administrator Verna McDaniel on a request for more funds to complete the county jail expansion and new 14A-1 District Court facility. The Chronicle covered that topic in a previous report.

SEMCOG: Regional Infrastructure Needs

Paul Tait, SEMCOG’s executive director, began the presentation with a grim statement about the region’s infrastructure: “We’re really headed for a train wreck.” The goal of SEMCOG’s infrastructure task force was to try to get ahead of the challenges, he said, and to figure out potential solutions.

Chuck Hersey, manager of SEMCOG’s environment department, described their first step, which was to assess the current situation, and it didn’t look good. The revenue base is declining on several fronts: Gasoline sales, which provide gas tax revenues, are falling. Travel is decreasing, and with new fuel economy standards, gasoline sales are expected to decline even more, Hersey said. Property values – and thus taxable values – are also falling, which impacts revenues for local governments. Water usage is down as well, which means revenues from water usage fees are also falling.

Bottom line: Current revenues are insufficient to maintain the infrastructure that’s in place – as revenues fall, investment in infrastructure is cut. Hersey noted that some believe cutting investments in infrastructure saves money. But underinvestment doesn’t save in the long-term, he said – it actually leads to increased costs, especially in the case of infrastructure like roads, and water and sewer systems.

Another problem: funding formulas and policies are outdated, he said, inasmuch as they depend on increased consumption. Yet increased consumption conflicts with newer “green” policy goals that push for less use of gasoline, water and electricity. These conflicting approaches are on a collision course, Hersey said.

The region’s shrinking population is another challenge, and it’s expected to drop even more in the coming years. As a result, the region has more capacity than it needs – and though it might offend some people to say this, Hersey added, the region needs to “right-size.” These changes aren’t something that are going to blow over in six months or a year, he said.

There are also fewer jobs, and per-capita income is falling – which means people’s ability to pay is falling, too, Hersey said.

He discussed how a consumer’s needs and expectations of service drive costs. Under the current paradigm, consumers expect a full level of service at all times. Service providers, like water plants, design systems that can deliver that expectation. This results in high fixed costs, Hersey said. For example, when people turn on their faucet to water the lawn, they expect water to flow at the same level of pressure – even if it’s been dry and hot for several days or weeks. So water systems are designed to meet that expectation. For roads, the expectation is that there will be little or no congestion at any time – so roads are designed to meet peak rush-hour needs.

The model is unsustainable, Hersey said.

There are several components to a solution, he said: 1) restructuring revenue-collection systems, 2) taking a holistic view of needs and outcomes, rather than just looking at silos of interest, like transportation or water, 3) pushing for service providers to collaborate, 4) reducing costs, 5) strategically investing funds, focused on where infrastructure currently exists, and 6) developing a legislative strategy.

Hersey passed out a nine-page draft of action steps in these categories, developed by SEMCOG’s infrastructure task force but not yet approved by its executive committee. When approval is given, they’ll start working to implement these steps, he said. [.pdf of draft action steps]

SEMCOG: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’d like to see Washtenaw County become a pilot program for implementing some of these changes. He said he thought that Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, would be willing to help (she attended the May 20 working session, but did not address the board), as would the road commission and the board of commissioners. If they’re successful, they might be able to leverage their work to get more funding from the state, he said.

Leah Gunn pointed out that the county has a patchwork of delivery for infrastructure services, which makes it difficult to coordinate. There are 28 jurisdictions in the county, and many of those local governments deliver services. There are also privately owned utilities for electricity and natural gas. As for the tension between relying on gas tax revenues while at the same time discouraging consumption, she wondered what SEMCOG would advise the state legislature to do.

SEMCOG’s Paul Tait said a gas tax increase is needed in the short term, but ultimately there needs to be a different mechanism for raising revenue, such as a tax on vehicle miles driven. Chuck Hersey said that utilities like DTE Energy are willing to work with the public sector – in many cases, better communication is a place to start. For example, DTE officials aren’t always aware of road projects undertaken by state or local governments. That would be one place to start collaborating for efficiency and reduced costs, so that DTE could do utility upgrades and repairs while the roads are already torn up for construction.

Ultimately, Gunn noted, the government needs more revenues for infrastructure projects. Citing an anti-tax sentiment in Michigan, she said, “I wish you well!”

Wes Prater said he didn’t see anything about performance or management in the SEMCOG report – that’s a key factor in reducing costs, he noted. He hoped the information they were compiling would be distributed to people who could make a difference.

Barbara Bergman said she worried about taxes that were regressive, putting an unfair burden on the poorest residents. Raising the sales tax would be “grossly unfair,” she said. Bergman hoped the current situation hurt enough so that state legislators would risk their careers to set things right. She also expressed concern for the environment, noting that the funding priorities needed to be the basics of food, clothing and shelter – making environmentalism “a luxury.”

Mark Ouimet pointed out that the data were snapshots, and they really needed something more like a movie – especially projecting into the future as much as possible. He said that because the revenue pressures and needs are so great, he imagined it would prompt entities like DTE to recognize the need to partner.

Kristin Judge commented that SEMCOG could serve an important role, as a place for entities in the region to work together. She suggested that SEMCOG make sure to coordinate its efforts with the Michigan Association of Counties and Governmental Consultant Services Inc., the Lansing-based firm led by Kirk Profit that Washtenaw County and other local governments pay to lobby for their interests at the state level.

Tait replied that their biggest effort at the moment was working to increase the gas tax, and that they “haven’t been able to turn the corner” on that.

Ken Schwartz noted that the economy has been declining for a decade, and that governments need to control their costs. He also spoke about the need to find small things that people can do to help the situation. Almost every storm drain is clogged, he said – somehow, they need to find ways to urge people to get out and take care of things like that in front of their own house. He cited the example of how putting a sign on the storm drains – stating that the drains lead directly to the river – dramatically reduced the amount of motor oil that people dumped. It takes political leadership, he said. They need to look at their history – when they’d been in economic difficulty before, what did they do? How can they learn from the past?

Jeff Irwin raised the issue of “right-sizing,” which Hersey had mentioned in his presentation. Irwin said it was unfortunate that Hersey backed off his statement, because the region does need to face reality. Thirty to forty years ago, the population was roughly the same, Irwin said, but now it’s spread out over a vast area of sprawl. “It’s just insane,” he said, destroying our communities and leading to financial and environmental disaster. How is the region going to focus the investment of transportation dollars on its core communities? Irwin asked.

Irwin noted that there was no mention of public transportation in the SEMCOG presentation, but it needs to be discussed. He described the public transportation network as a joke – other regions are ahead in that regard, and they’re “eating our lunch.” He cited his frustration at the delay in the commuter rail project between Ann Arbor and Detroit, which SEMCOG is spearheading. He asked whether they were going to talk about actually reducing infrastructure.

Hersey pointed to an editorial in the May 9, 2010 Detroit Free Press with the headline “Too Much Stuff, Too Few Dollars,” which he indicated was prompted by SEMCOG. It made the same point, he said – the region can’t support, and doesn’t need, the infrastructure that’s currently in place. He said SEMCOG talks about the need to invest strategically, and to collaborate.

Irwin asked whether it was reasonable for SEMCOG to draw circles around the region’s six largest urban cores, and to say that they’ll focus their efforts only on those areas. Or will the organization continue down the same path, he wondered, trying to make everyone happy, which he said ends in failure. [Irwin had earlier noted that SEMCOG is a member-organization, getting its financial support primarily from the local governments that join.]

When Irwin said he didn’t feel that these issues were being addressed seriously, Tait said, “We hear you.”

Wes Prater questioned how collaboration can be accomplished when the state constitution requires home rule. It’s impossible, he said, unless the constitution changes and you can form a continuous district, rather than having so many government jurisdictions.

Jessica Ping asked how SEMCOG was spreading the word about this infrastructure report. Tait replied that the task force had just signed off on it earlier that week, and the next step was to have it approved by SEMCOG’s executive committee in July. After that, they could start working to implement it – including reaching out to government leaders as well as getting a grassroots effort to push for these changes.

County Energy Use & Investment

Later in the meeting, staff from the county’s energy and economic development office gave an update on what’s known as the Chevron project – a multi-year, multimillion-dollar effort to cut energy usage in county facilities. They also asked for feedback from commissioners about what type of pilot project the county should pursue, as part of a recent federal energy grant.

Chevron Project Results

In the summer of 2004, the county board authorized a $6.088 million long-term contract with Chevron Energy Solutions. The company’s efforts under the contract, financed by a 20-year bond, consisted of 26 energy-efficiency projects at 18 county facilities. The projects included replacing boilers and chillers, installing new controls for HVAC equipment, replacing air handlers and rooftop units, upgrading lighting and adding insulation, among other things. They also agreed to track energy usage for four years after their work was completed – that tracking period ends this July.

At the board’s May 20, 2010 working session, Anya Dale – a specialist with the county’s office of economic development and energy – described the impact of the Chevron project.

Chart showing financial impact of Chevron project in Washtenaw County since 2006 for five county-owned facilities. (Links to larger image)

Energy savings were tracked by Chevron at only five of the 18 buildings where improvements were made, Dale noted – the five buildings where the most extensive work was done. Tracking began in August 2006, with the first year running through July 2007. In that period, Chevron had guaranteed $215,158 worth of total savings, and reported that actual savings reached $265,114 for the five buildings they tracked. Of that, $144,187 was in energy savings and $120,927 was an estimate of avoided maintenance or replacement costs, Dale said.

For the following years, Chevron said savings reached $264,290 in 2007-08, $416,974 in 2008-09, and $73,380 through February of this year.

Actual reductions in electricity and natural gas usage were also tracked for the five buildings: the administration building at 220 N. Main and the courthouse building at 101 E. Huron (both in downtown Ann Arbor), the Eastern County Government Center at 415 W. Michigan Ave. in Ypsilanti, the Dept. of Human Services building at 22 Center St. in Ypsilanti, and the county building on Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Using data collected by the county between 2003 and 2007, Dale said, all but the administration building saw double-digit reductions in electricity usage. For natural gas usage, three of the buildings saw double-digit reductions in usage. An increase in natural gas usage at the Eastern County Government Center is possibly due to poor insulation, she said.

Energy Usage 2003-2007
Building         % change       % change
                 electricity    natural gas
Admin                0            -57
Courthouse         -14            -23
Eastern County     -32             +9
Human Services     -14            -20
Towner             -35            -26

-

Dale said there hasn’t been consistent data collection for other buildings that aren’t being tracked by the Chevron contract. She presented a general snapshot from 2007 to 2009, looking at electricity usage in 28 buildings and natural gas usage in 22 buildings. (The Washtenaw County Parks Commission covers utility bills in its facilities, and those figures weren’t included in the analysis.)

Chart showing energy usage and utilities costs in county facilities from 2007-2009. (Links to larger image.)

Of those county buildings examined between 2007 and 2009, overall energy usage appears to have declined, Dale said – though she cautioned that incomplete data in 2009 for natural gas likely means that the usage was likely higher. The staff estimates that from 2007 to 2009, the number of kilowatt hours used has dropped 15%, while therms (natural gas) have declined 26%.

The county needs to do a better job of tracking this data, Dale said. To do that, they plan to streamline the utility-tracking process and gather data in a more consistent format. After initially focusing on quantitative data, they’ll then focus on gathering qualitative data – like outside temperatures and space usage – with help from a new Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office, which the county is paying $76,690 to help fund.

Chevron Project: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Some commissioners questioned the data provided by Chevron. Wes Prater said he’d like more information about how Chevron arrived at its amounts in the “other savings” category – he wanted to pin them down on that data. The company made over $1 million in profits off this job, Prater said, and part of it was a guarantee of savings. The county should make sure those savings are real. [In a follow-up conversation with The Chronicle, Dale said that Chevron made a $450,000 profit on the project, or a 7.4% profit margin. She said Prater's reference to a $1 million profit might have included the firm's charges for general administrative overhead.]

Ken Schwartz asked whether the staff was auditing the numbers that Chevron provided, or whether that data was simply being accepted at face value. Dale reported that the staff tracked utility bills, and those direct savings as stated by Chevron are accurate. Schwartz followed up, asking if weather conditions had been factored in. If it was a particularly warm winter, then energy usage would be lower anyway and wouldn’t necessary reflect energy efficiency efforts. Dale said that temperatures hadn’t been tracked.

Schwartz noted that the county was paying $420,000 a year for the project – those costs needed to be part of the calculation of savings. After those payments are made, is the county still saving money? he asked. Brett Lenart – also on the staff of the county’s office of energy and economic development – pointed out that new equipment had been put in place that the county would have needed to buy anyway. He also reminded commissioners that the data from Chevron included just five buildings, but that many more facilities had been part of the project.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Project

Brett Lenart made a presentation describing efforts that are funded by a $766,900 three-year Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant from the U.S. Dept. of Energy. There are four projects, including retrofitting county facilities and upgrading energy efficiency, developing energy policies for the county, and establishing a revolving loan fund for energy-related efforts. But Lenart’s presentation on May 20 focused on the fourth effort: developing a renewable energy demonstration project.

He told commissioners that the staff was looking for feedback on what type of project they should pursue. He laid out four options to consider:

1. A rebate program for solar hot water systems. Lenart said the advantages to this project include dispersing grant dollars into the community, creating jobs for the workers who install these systems, and making the systems more competitive with solar photovoltaic systems that are currently cheaper because of available incentives. Disadvantages, he said, would be that it wouldn’t directly benefit the county government, and would require more overhead to administer the program, process applications and gather data.
2. A grant to one or more nonprofit housing organizations for solar hot water installation. Lenart described several advantages to this project: It would provide grant dollars to local nonprofits, create jobs, and result in energy savings for the county’s low-income residents. However, there would be no direct energy savings to county government facilities, and it would require a certain amount of administrative overhead to select the nonprofit for the project.
3. A solar hot water system on a county facility. This project would provide a direct energy savings benefit to the county, Lenert said. It also presents an educational opportunity, showing the payback for using a solar hot water system. The county would have direct access to data to track these savings. On the downside, there would be less job creation than in the first two options, Lenart said.
4. A solar photovoltaic demo on a county facility. Currently, financial incentives are available (through DTE Energy’s Solar Currents program) for photovoltaic systems that generate electricity – having a demo project with this technology would highlight the availability of those incentives for local residents. There are also federal tax incentives available as well. Without incentives, he noted, the payback period for solar photovoltaic is much longer than for solar hot water systems. This project would also yield direct energy savings to the county, Lenart said. [The county has already installed a photovoltaic demo system at its Zeeb Road facility.]

In rating these projects, staff saw more advantages in installing a solar hot water system or solar photovoltaic system on a county facility, Lenart said. But they were hoping for feedback and direction from the board.

Energy Projects: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Leah Gunn said that given the county’s financial situation, she thought they should look at their own costs first when considering which option to pursue.

Wes Prater supported the solar hot water project, saying it fit well with the county’s existing weatherization program for low-income residents. He noted that the plumbers and pipefitters union Local 190 is interested in solar hot water systems, and has built a model in their training facility on Jackson Road. It was important to provide savings to the area’s residents who need it most, he said.

Ken Schwartz suggested that residents should provide the direction – if solar photovoltaic systems are more popular, then perhaps that should guide the county. Tony VanDerworp, who leads the county’s office of energy and economic development, pointed out that solar photovoltaic systems are more popular now because there are financial incentives to install them. It’s not clear how long those incentives will last. [The incentives are designed to help DTE reach its mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires that utilities get 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015.]

There was no clear concensus from the board – Barbara Bergman asked whether commissioners could email the staff with their thoughts. VanDerworp urged commissioners to provide feedback as soon as they can, and Lenart noted that the staff is under a fall deadline to submit its proposal to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, as part of the grant funding.

A temporary sign at the entrance to the corrections complex off of Washtenaw Avenue east of Carpenter, site of the jail expansion and new district court facility.

Unexpected costs, construction delays and lower-than-expected interest earnings contributed to the shortfall, she said. An official request for additional funding will be made at the board’s June 2 meeting.

McDaniel divided the request into two categories: 1) $495,958 for additional costs related to the original project proposal, and 2) $861,000 in costs that are considered to be outside the scope of the originally approved project.

These expenses are in addition to the staffing request made earlier this year by sheriff Jerry Clayton, and approved by the board. The expanded jail eventually will require 39 more full-time workers, bringing the total corrections division staff to 103 employees. The additional staff will increase the corrections budget by $1.478 million this year and $3.248 million in 2011, and create a projected budget shortfall in 2012 and 2013.

Commissioners were informed that additional items not covered in these requests will be addressed during the planning process for the 2012 and 2013 budget cycle. No dollar amounts were provided for those anticipated expenses.

Washtenaw County Jail Expansion: A Brief History

In February 2005, voters in Washtenaw County were asked to endorse a 20-year millage proposal to raise $314 million to build a new jail and courts facility, as well as funds for operations. The proposal was championed by the county administrator at the time, Bob Guenzel, and put on the ballot by the county board of commissioners.

When it was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls, the county administration and board regrouped. In August 2005, commissioners authorized Guenzel to proceed with building a scaled-back expansion to the county jail and a new facility for the 14A-1 District Court, now located in a small building next to the jail, and authorized issuing a $30 million bond for the project.

A citizens group objected to the $30 million bond, saying it was too similar to the ballot initiative defeated earlier that year. The group – called the Save Our Sheriff (SOS) Committee – collected more than 17,000 signatures aimed at forcing a countywide referendum on the issue. The protest came in the context of disputes between the county administration and the sheriff at the time, Dan Minzey, over funding for operations as well as the cost of sheriff deputy patrols in the townships. In early 2006, commissioners dropped plans to issue that bond.

But in November 2006, the county board was ready to move ahead again, approving a $21.6 million bond issuance for the expansion. This time, no organized efforts were made against the proposal, and the bonds were sold in early 2007. Just over a year later, in March 2008, the board authorized another $12.6 million bond for the new 14A-1 District Court.

The projects are overseen by the county’s public safety and justice oversight committee, a group formed back in August 2005. Members of the committee include the county administrator, sheriff, chief judges of the 14th District Court and 22nd Circuit Court, and two county commissioners (currently board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Ken Schwartz). The committee meets monthly and have authority to review and approve contracts, bills and other matters related to these capital projects.

According to a timeline provided to commissioners, inmates started occupying the new portion of the jail last month, and renovation is now underway in the older jail facility, to be completed by September. [The state Department of Corrections has rated the expanded jail at 444 beds. Of those, 112 beds are in the new facility. The total number won't be available until the existing jail units are renovated.] The sheriff’s offices are moving into the new facility this week. The new jail lobby will open in June, and the new court building will open in July.

In her presentation on May 20, county administrator Verna McDaniel said the committee had reviewed and approved making the current request for extra funding.

Jail, Court Additional Costs: Presentation

McDaniel said told commissioners that the original contingency for the $34.6 million project had been $1.753 million, or 5% of the total budget. Actual contingency expenses, however, totaled $3.23 million.

Those expenses included:

• $506,255 in higher-than-expected bids for the project.
• $547,190 in “soft costs” – snow removal, topographic surveys, blueprints and other items. Commissioners were provided with a five-page itemized listing of these expenses.
• $159,306 in adjustments requested by sheriff Jerry Clayton.
• $77,793 in adjustments requested by district court officials.
• $228,057 to Clark Construction Services, the project’s contractor, for extending the original project end date from May to September 2010.
• $1.712 million in construction change orders – $1.138 million for the jail, and $573,725 for the court. A packet distributed to commissioners included about 50 pages of itemized change orders.

The $3.23 million in expenses was offset by $1.52 million in cuts, McDaniel said. They include:

• $420,639 in cuts from adjusting the budget early on in the project. The bulk of that amount – $300,000 – came from eliminating some work on the new jail building entrance.
• $999,844 in savings from “value engineering” the project. Of that, a reduction of $600,000 from the budget came from pushing back the roof replacement on the existing jail. That work will be deferred until 2014. Some of the other cuts come from eliminating a snowmelt system ($33,943), reducing the size of insulated metal paneling ($46,000), reducing the cost of fencing in the intake/receiving area ($49,286) and making product substitutions at lower cost ($55,714).
• $100,000 in reduced costs for furniture, fixtures and equipment.

The $1.52 million in cuts – plus the original $1.753 million contingency – totaled $3.273 million, which covered the $3.23 million in total contingency expenses, McDaniel said, leaving a remaining contingency of $42,700.

However, the project will require another estimated $190,000 in contingency costs, McDaniel said. There’s also an anticipated shortfall in projected interest earnings of $218,855, and an $87,103 adjustment needed to reconcile records related to the two bonds (adjusting the budget to reflect the actual bond proceeds, not the projected amount). That brings the total needed to finish the project in its original scope to $495,958 – or 1.43% over the original budgeted amount.

McDaniel said she was requesting that the nearly half-million dollars be paid for out of the Facilities Operations & Maintenance fund, which has a balance of $781,796. Money had been set aside in the fund from operating surpluses in 2008 and 2009, stemming from staff cuts, lower energy costs and a shift to preventative maintenance.

Jail, Court Additional Costs: Commissioner Questions

Barbara Bergman said she’ll support the request, but added that she was very concerned. She noted that a fence had been built around a parking area, even though the majority of the board had indicated they did not want to build it. She wanted to know much had that cost. She also wondered if they planned to limit access to the parking within the fenced-in area – if so, they’d lose parking places for the general public, she noted.

Kristin Judge asked whether it was normal to have so many change orders on a project this size. Dave Shirley, the county’s operations and maintenance manager, told her that it was normal. Judge also wanted to know what the Facilities Operations & Maintenance fund would have been used for otherwise, if they didn’t have this shortfall. McDaniel said there was no other intended use for the fund.

Mark Ouimet recalled that when the construction work had “come out of the ground” – when the foundation and other underground work had been completed – he’d been told by staff that the project was either on budget or possibly under budget. He said he had questioned that at the time. He asked how McDaniel and her staff planned to manage the project going forward. It wasn’t a huge concern that they were 1.43% over budget, he said, but it was disconcerting to find out they were so far off from what they’d been told.

McDaniel replied that they would carefully monitor the situation. They’re at the punch-list portion of the project, she said, and they didn’t foresee any additional large expenses.

Ken Schwartz said he wanted to address these issues because he serves on the public safety and justice oversight committee, which oversees the project. There had been several unanticipated expenses, he said. When they started digging beneath the former parking lot, for example, they discovered water and sewer utilities that they didn’t know had been located there, as well as a vault from an old cemetery. That caused some delay, he said. They also ended up paying an unanticipated $100,000 watershed fee to the city of Ann Arbor, to allow the facilities to discharge water into the drainage system.

He noted that a new sheriff, Jerry Clayton, was elected in November 2008, after the project was underway. Clayton has an operational philosophy that in the long run will save the county money, Schwartz said, but it required some slight design changes. [Clayton outlined that philosophy and its implications on operations at a March 18, 2010 working session: "Sheriff Requests More Staff for Expanded Jail"]

Additional changes were demanded by the defense bar and judicial coordinating council, Schwartz said. And interest rates fell precipitously, he said – that’s something they’ve seen in other areas too, like the county’s retirement investments. Overall, he thought the staff had done a good job in managing the project.

Schwartz also addressed the fence issue that Bergman had raised. The lot was at an exit point for inmates, and the staff felt that additional security was needed. He described the fence as modest.

Bergman replied that the size wasn’t an issue – it should have come back to the board for approval. Part of the discussion is that some people are protected, she said, while others aren’t. As a public official, being exposed came with the territory, Bergman said, noting that her own home phone number is listed in the phone book. She said she planned to make a fuss over locking the fenced-in area.

Schwartz said the access to that area can be worked out, but noted that it was reasonable and modest protection, determined as necessary by professional staff.

Jail, Court Out-of-Scope Costs: Presentation

McDaniel also outlined an additional $861,000 request for items that are deemed necessary, but that fall outside the approved scope of the project:

• $165,000 to demolish the existing 14A-1 District Court building.
• $600,000 to reconfigure the Washtenaw Avenue entrance into the corrections campus. The entrance is shared with St. Luke Lutheran Church – the plan is to create a split in the drive for better traffic flow.
• $80,000 for a smoke extraction system in the jail.
• $16,000 for door handles in the jail’s intake area, in case workers need manual entrance or exit.

The demolition costs would be paid for out of the Facilities Operations & Maintenance fund. The Washtenaw entrance would be covered by funds from the 1/8th mill fund, which is used for maintenance projects and has a balance of $1.59 million. The smoke extraction system and door handles would be funded from the county’s risk management fund, which has a balance of $1.57 million.

There will be additional out-of-scope items that remain to be funded, according to a memo provided to commissioners. Those include soundproofing the existing jail cells, increasing the number of cameras in the existing jail, parking for the detective bureau, vehicle storage and an impound lot. It’s recommended that the funding for these items be addressed during the planning process for the 2012-2013 budget.

Jail, Court Out-of-Scope Costs: Commissioner Questions

Kristin Judge asked how confident they were in the estimates. McDaniel said the staff was being conservative, so that they wouldn’t have to return to commissioners for additional funding. Judge asked when the estimates had been made. Dave Shirley, the county’s operations and maintenance manager, said the demolition estimate had been made within the past 30 months, but the estimate for the Washtenaw Avenue entrance was from 2009. Judge requested that an updated estimate be obtained.

Judge also said she had concerns about security at the 14A-2 District Court in downtown Ypsilanti. Was that a question to address as part of this discussion? she asked. McDaniel said she’d prefer to handle that separately, at a later date.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. reported that he’d been working with Shirley to lower the cost of the demolition. He also said he planned to work with Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14A District Court, and court administrator Gene DeRossett about the security issues that Judge had raised. [Both Tabbey and DeRossett attended Thursday's working session, but did not make a presentation to the board.]

Sizemore then asked Shirley why they needed to keep Clark Construction on until September – wasn’t the project almost done? Shirley replied that the project is about 90% complete, but there’s still a lot of work to be done. There’s also renovation that needs to occur in the older jail, he said.

Wes Prater expressed dismay at the number of change orders and add-ons, saying he’d never seen anything like it. He contended that some of the items should have been covered by the original bid, and said he planned to look through the list in more detail and ask questions. He hoped the county was holding back payments.

Prater later asked about the approval process for change orders. He was told that they are all reviewed and approved by the public safety and justice oversight committee.

Shirley told commissioners that 86% of the project has been paid for so far.

Other Working Session Topics

Two other presentations were made during the May 20 working session: 1) A report by officials of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) on infrastructure issues for the region, and 2) a briefing by staff of the county’s economic development and energy office, regarding tracking of the county’s energy usage and a potential energy-related pilot project. The Chronicle may address these presentations in a separate report.

Commissioners present: Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Absent: Conan Smith

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy, confers with Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, before the start of Thursday's working session of the county board of commissioners. (Photo by the writer.)

The proposal comes as the board prepares to place a renewal of the 10-year NAPP millage on the November ballot. The current millage, which raises about $3 million annually to preserve natural areas in the county, expires at the end of 2010.

Also at Thursday’s meeting, commissioners heard a report on internal controls used within the county government, both in finance and other areas. This has been topic that commissioner Wes Prater has pushed the board to address for several months.

Highlights from a draft report were presented by staff of the county’s new energy and economic development department. The report includes data on job losses, education, housing, transit and other factors, and presents four strategies for improving the county’s economy. Tony VanDerworp, who leads the department, explained that the report is required by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration so that the county can apply for grants from the EDA.

Finally, Verna McDaniel, incoming county administrator, said she plans to hold a meet-and-greet for candidates of the deputy administrator job on May 5 before that evening’s board meeting, to get commissioners’ feedback on a potential hire.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

Susan Lackey, executive director of the nonprofit Legacy Land Conservancy, and Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, briefed commissioners on a proposed change to the ordinance governing the county’s Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP). The change reflects two broader strategic goals: incorporating farmland into NAPP’s land preservation efforts, and clarifying the county’s use of the purchase of development rights (PDR) to preserve land, in addition to outright acquisition [.pdf of NAPP ordinance revised draft].

NAPP is funded by a 10-year millage that expires at the end of 2010. The 0.25-mill tax brings in about $3 million annually – since the program began in 2000, the county has acquired over 1,800 acres of land, establishing 17 new nature preserves.

Several months ago, Lackey said, she and others involved in local land preservation began talking with county parks officials about how farmland fits into the county’s current land preservation strategy. Discussions included the possibility of using the purchase of development rights as an alternative to buying the property through the NAPP program. [The county has a separate ordinance, passed in 2007, for a PDR program aimed at securing grants from the Michigan Agricultural Preservation Fund. The Legacy Land Conservancy helps oversee that program.]

Using PDR to preserve farmland has several advantages, Lackey said: 1) it allows the land to continue to be actively used as farmland, by the owner or others; 2) it keeps the property on the tax rolls; and 3) it enables the county to tap federal grants through the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Preservation Program (FRPP). The county is the most successful in the state at bringing in FRPP dollars for land preservation, through the Ann Arbor greenbelt and other programs.

County parks officials, the Legacy Land Conservancy, the Ecology Center and conservation consultant Barry Lonik have worked to draft changes to the ordinance, to incorporate farmland more clearly as a type of natural area. The draft adds “agricultural purposes” as a definition of natural areas, and adds the category of “agricultural land” in the section that defines criteria for NAPP purchases:

B. Agricultural Lands

• Characteristics of the farmland: prime and unique soils, size, percentage of property in agricultural use, scenic historic or architectural features, scenic view.
• Potential for development pressure: adjacent land uses, adjacent land use designation, amount of road frontage proximity to public sanitary sewer/water.
• Leverage: Percentage of funding from other sources, including willingness of landowner to accept a percentage of the appraised value of the development rights on the property.
• Open space value: Proximity to existing private and/or public protected land, regardless of use.

The draft language specifies the county’s Agricultural Lands Preservation Advisory Committee as the group that would advise the county about farmland PDR deals. The idea is to take some of the pressure off of the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee, which currently advises the NAPP program, Lackey said. The proposed ordinance changes would eliminate references to a “planning advisory board.”

Also, language has been added stating that 75% of purchases would be natural areas and 25% agricultural development rights. This reflects the reality of the county’s current land acquisitions, Lackey said – they’ve bought active farmland in the past, because the parcels also included natural areas that they felt were important to protect. The problem is that the land then comes off the tax rolls, she said, and it’s a headache to manage. The county has to find a farmer to farm the land, or convert it to another use.

Lackey reminded commissioners of the 1998 county millage that was defeated – it would have raised funds for PDR deals on agricultural land and open space. Since then, she said, things have changed. The Ann Arbor greenbelt millage was passed in 2003 – land in the greenbelt is protected through PDRs, and people have a better understanding of what that means. Farmers are also more comfortable with the PDR concept, she said.

Natural Areas: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Several commissioners expressed support for the ordinance changes, the millage renewal and the NAPP program in general. The tone was markedly different from a meeting earlier this year, when some commissioners had raised questions about the renewal. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Natural Areas Tax Up for Renewal"]

Mark Ouimet said it was critical that voters understand what the changes are – to know what the county is transitioning to. He noted that when the countywide schools millage was on the ballot last fall, many people were confused because the millage would have been administered by the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. People didn’t understand that legally, WISD was the only entity that could collect the millage, then redistribute it to local school districts, he said. That confusion contributed to the millage’s defeat, he said.

Wes Prater questioned the 75/25 split between natural areas and farmland preservation. He said he could see that PDRs of farmland would benefit the county, since landowners would continue to pay taxes. He thought a larger percentage for farmland would be fine.

Later in the meeting, Irwin also raised the issue of the 75/25 allocation, asking if they had flexibility to alter those percentages. What if a particularly attractive parcel of farmland was available? Tetens and Lackey said the flexibility is there – the percentages are looking at overall preservation, not just in one given year.

Echoing Ouimet’s comments, Barbara Bergman said she didn’t want to vote on adding it to the November ballot until the community had a descriptive ordinance, so that residents would know exactly what they were voting for. Lackey said they knew it was important to be transparent.

Ken Schwartz asked what the timeline was for bringing these changes to the board for a vote. Tetens said they hoped to put the ordinance changes on the May 5 agenda of the Ways & Means Committee, on which all commissioners serve. Typically, resolutions are voted on first at Ways & Means, then a final vote is taken at the regular board meeting two weeks later.

Tetens said they hoped to discuss putting the NAPP millage on the November ballot at the board’s June 3 or July 8 working session. The board would need to vote at one of its regular meetings to approve putting the item before voters.

Schwartz said he strongly supported the county’s land preservation efforts – all six of the townships he represents in the northeast part of the county have had land purchased by NAPP. He was also supportive of incorporating more farmland through the purchase of development rights. What’s happening in Washtenaw County is unique, he said, citing NAPP, and Ann Arbor’s greenbelt and natural area preservation programs. They need to advance the successes they’ve already had in land preservation, he said.

Leah Gunn reminded Tetens and Lackey that they’d need to do more than just an informational campaign. “We’ve got to run a political campaign,” Gunn said.

In response to a question from Jessica Ping, Tetens clarified that the millage was 0.25 mills – it would be a renewal, not a new millage. He said it initially generated about $2.6 million annually and got as high as $3.6 million – due to increased property values – but had since dropped back down.

Internal Financial Controls

Wes Prater has brought up the issue of the county’s internal financial controls at several meetings over the last few months. At the board’s Feb. 17, 2010 meeting, he proposed forming a new committee that would review the county’s internal financial control policies. From The Chronicle report of that meeting:

Prater said he believes the county has a systemic problem regarding internal controls. He pointed to the arrest earlier this month of a county employee working in community mental health – part of the Washtenaw County Health Organization – who was charged with embezzling more than $100,000 over the past 16 years. In light of those allegations, he said, they needed to act urgently to protect the dollars of their constituents. He noted that the auditors don’t conduct an audit of internal financial controls, and that the board needs to act to prevent something similar from happening in the future.

His motion to form a new committee was tabled until the board’s March 3 meeting, with other commissioners asking for more information from the administration about what controls are currently in place. Prater later agreed to push back discussion of a committee until after the board could hold a working session on the issue – that happened on Thursday.

Pete Collinson, interim finance director, began by giving a general definition and overview of internal controls. He noted that it’s not just a concern of the finance department, but it encompasses every function and employee in the organization. While the governing body is ultimately responsible, the controls are primarily management’s purview, including design, implementation, monitoring and reporting.

Collinson outlined five components of internal controls, and gave examples of how these apply within Washtenaw County government.

1. The organization’s “control environment”: He characterized this as the “tone at the top,” with the governing body, management and HR policies all setting the stage for integrity and ethical behavior throughout the organization. Examples include HR policies on employee conduct and honesty, regular discussions at the board’s bi-weekly meetings and working sessions, and communication between the chair of the board and the auditor.
2. Risk assessment and monitoring: The county operates 35 different “businesses,” Collinson said, some with greater risk than others – the jail staff, for example, or public health employees. The county’s risk management staff is doing an extensive analysis of all department’s exposure, he said, and will identify strategies to deal with that, such as insurance or contract provisions. Areas that will be analyzed first include parks & rec, facilities, the sheriff’s department, courts and administration.
3. Control activities: There are 260 policies and procedures outlining county business practices that in some way involve internal controls, Collinson said. Examples include building security and access, ID tags placed on equipment, restricted access to computer systems, requiring two signatures on invoices prior to payment, and supervisor approval of timesheets, among others.
4. Information and communication: It’s important for communication to flow up, down and across the organization, Collinson said. This goes back to the “tone at the top,” he noted – top administrators must communicate that internal controls are taken seriously.
5. Monitoring: There are several ways to check whether internal controls are being followed, Collinson said, including annual audits, periodic reviews of petty cash balances, and regular reviews of offices that take cash over the counter, among others.

Collinson concluded by saying “I know that internal control is not the most exciting in the world” – but he noted that it’s vital to making sure the county government operates in an orderly, ethical way.

Internal Controls: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Several commissioners thanked Collinson for giving a broad overview of internal controls, not just focusing on the financial piece. Leah Gunn said she thought their workforce took the topic seriously.

Wes Prater asked Collinson for suggestions on how the administration can better communicate to the board about its internal control practices. He said they receive very little information, other than annual audits. Though he said he doesn’t want to micromanage, there needs to be a process in place, since the board has an oversight role. Specfically, Prater cited concerns with credit card use and filling out time sheets on computer.

Verna McDaniel, who’ll be stepping into the county administrator’s job next month, said credit card purchases are closely monitored. Any unusual purchases are brought directly to her attention, she said, and she talks to the purchaser personally. She also suggested that the board be provided with “exception” reports – a listing of transactions or items that fall outside of normal business practices. This might alert them to areas where they might need to “raise the bar” on internal controls, she said.

Collinson clarified that although time sheets are submitted electronically, they still require supervisor approval before being forwarded to payroll.

Prater said a lot of this information was new to him, and useful.

Mark Kettner of the accounting firm Rehmann Robson, which handles the county audits, was on hand as well for the presentation. He emphasized the role of the board as setting the tone for the organization, and letting management know their expectations.

Gunn said in all her years of service she’s never encountered any commissioner or top manager who wasn’t ethical – unlike some other governments she could think of, she said. She was proud of that.

Mark Ouimet recalled that he did a stint in the auditing department as he worked his way up the food chain during his career in banking. The key to internal controls is discipline, he said, and problems usually arise when someone gets lax. He asked Collinson whether there was a regular schedule of monitoring, and whether management was comfortable with that protocol.

Collinson said they should strengthen their communication with top administrators about the schedule of internal audits, to ensure that everyone is comfortable with the level of monitoring. Ouimet observed that when there aren’t any problems, it’s easy to think you can cut back on internal controls. But cutting back then opens up opportunities for abuse, leading back to a refocus on internal controls – which is where they are today, he said.

Later in the meeting, Prater requested another working session related to finance – focusing on the county’s debt, liabilities and unfunded liabilities.

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

Tony VanDerworp, the county’s director of the department of energy and economic development, gave a presentation on a draft version of the county’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, known as CEDS. This specific report is required by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration in order for the county to apply for funding from the EDA [.pdf file of CEDS report].

The rationale for requiring this report, VanDerworp said, is to fit requests for specific grants into a broader economic development strategy. EDA grants are available for incubator facilities, research park infrastructure, revolving loan programs and a range of other projects.

VanDerworp highlighted several facts in the report:

• The county’s median age in 2008 was 33.1 years – that’s younger than the state or national levels. [It was then noted that it was commissioner Mark Ouimet's birthday, which prompted some age-related ribbing.]
• For the first time in recent history, Washtenaw County’s population dropped in 2008, falling by 0.2%. The county’s population is estimated at 347,376 people.
• The county has seen a loss of over 15,000 jobs since 2003, including a loss of 4,200 jobs in 2008. Major losses have come from the closing of Pfizer’s research operation in Ann Arbor. Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township have been hit by the closing of GM’s Willow Run plant and Automotive Components Holdings (formerly Visteon). VanDerworp said the most recent forecast by UM economists George Fulton and Don Grimes calls for a slight job gain this year, with a more normal growth rate – a couple thousand jobs annually – in 2011-12.
• The county is highly educated, with 93.4% of adults having at least a high school diploma – higher than the state (87.6%) or national (84.5%) levels. But there are still educational attainment issues, VanDerworp noted. Graduation rates in some districts are poor: 51.8% in Willow Run and 66.8% in Ypsilanti for 2007. That’s important to address, he said, because jobs in the future will require a higher level of education, and at least a high school degree.
• The report lists four general strategies that the county needs to pursue: 1) grow companies by converting innovative ideas into action and attracting investment to the region, 2) develop the talent needed for growing economic sectors, 3) develop quality-of-living assets needed to retain and attract talent, and 4) revitalize the eastern portion of the county. There are six pages of specific projects designed to meet those goals.

VanDerworp said they hoped to get feedback from commissioners. Next steps include forming a steering committee to finalize these strategies before sending the report to the EDA for approval. The document will be updated annually, he said.

Mike Finney – CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK, the county’s main economic development agency – spoke briefly following VanDerworp’s presentation. He said they’re looking at EDA funding to help move the community’s economic fortunes forward, and it looks promising. In March they’d been visited by John Fernandez, the Obama administration’s assistant secretary of commerce for economic development, and that was followed up by a visit from an official who oversees this area for the department, working out of the Chicago office. Finney said he thinks they’re in a position to start tapping these federal resources.

CEDS Report: Commissioner Comments

There was little discussion or comment on the CEDS report. Leah Gunn said she was astounded by seeing how many employees work for the University of Michigan – about 46,000 people, including workers at UM’s health system. She noted that the university was truly an economic driver for the state.

Gunn also wondered why the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority wasn’t listed as a partner. She suggested that someone talk with the AATA’s CEO, Michael Ford.

Jessica Ping praised the report, saying it made the county look good. It also highlighted the importance of small businesses in the economy, she said, and their role in the local economic recovery.