Brownfield Properties, Farmland Preservation, Zoo Millage, Contract % Increases, and Local Purchasing

This was another week of committees for me - County Services and Finance. We passed a limited tax pledge for Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Bonds. These are bonds for our Brownfield plan that our Land Bank uses, and is the second time we are passing one of these. In 2007, we passed a pledge of $1.975 million for the countywide plan. At that time, as you know, the world was a vastly different place. It was before the economy really tanked with the bankruptcies of the auto companies, and before foreclosures really started to increase. The development from the first tax pledge has not come about as quickly as hoped. As such, we could be short on the debt service for next year, which will be covered by this resolution. This situation is not unique to the Land Bank Brownfield plan, though, as many tax increment finance (TIF) districts throughout the state are facing this. Treasurer Schertzing tells us, though, that many things are looking up on development front. This second bond will also cover additional parcels which are better and more likely to bring in dollars to the county. They are more conservative projections. Commissioner Brian McGrain, who sits on the County Economic Development Board, said that they spent a lot of time on this and that it is a well thought-out and conservative plan. The plan also includes more commercial properties, which usually bring in more revenue.

The committees also passed a resolution allowing three farms to use money from our Farmland Preservation millage in order to have development rights purchased. We will be receiving about $600,000 in matching dollars, so 50% of the total are ingham dollars and 50% is match money. The three farms are next to protected state farmland (protected in 2000), so about 900 acres total will be preserved.

In County Services, we had before us a resolution supporting the zoo millage. While I do support the zoo millage, I questioned whether a public body such as the Board of Commissioners could pass a resolution in support of a millage quesiton. Commissioner Vic Celentino agreed with my concern and pointed out that we have been told we could not do this in the past. Commissioner Grebner said that this is unnecessary because just putting it on the ballot means we are asking voters to vote for it (which I don't know if I wholly agree with). Commissioner Copedge said that he was uncomfortable with the resolution and that each commissioner should be able to support or oppose the measure on their own. Commissioner Vickers said that he supports the zoo, but not at .41 mills and he thought the resolution was not a good idea. The resolution was not taken up for a vote.

The Finance Committee passed a resolution on cost increases for services related to contracts in Ingham County. This year, we have seen several vendors come to us and ask for large yearly percentage increases for their services. You may recall, this boiled over a few weeks ago when Harris (our 911 vendor) asked for 5% increases each year for several years. We decided to draft a policy that will be provided to vendors saying that increases should be limited 1% (which is the amount that county employees have received for raises). Should vendors want higher increases, they will face increased scrutiny and could potentially be dropped for other vendors. The CPI this year was -.07%, which shows that costs are not going up and we believe that this policy is a good one to direct staff as they negotiate contact renewals.

Finally, County Services had a good discussion about our "local purchasing preference" policy. This was the second discussion about this topic. There are concerns that the current policy - allowing county vendors to match any bids that are within 5% of their bid - isn't really working in terms of keeping county dollars in the county. Apparently, there were only two vendors who used the policy in 2009. Controller Lannoye put several potential options before us:

• Keep existing policy.
• Increase the 5% threshold to 7% or 10%.
• Expand the definition of a RLV beyond the county border to contiguous counties.
• Allow a preference for RLVs which are within 5% of the lowest responsive bid without having to match the lowest responsive bid.
• Develop local preference tiers. Example might include the following: within 2% of low bid they do not have to match low bid, between 2-5% they are given opportunity to reduce their price to no more than 2% of low bid, and between 5-7% they are given the opportunity to match low bid.
• Allow existing contracts with RLVs to be renewed without bidding, provided the renewal increase is equal to or lower than the current CPI.
• Require that any bid process that does not include at least three (3) local vendors be rebid.

The committee came to a consensus that the 5% range should be increased to 10%. That was the only item we could agree on. I am uncomfortable with giving preference to out-of-county businesses because those businesses do not pay Ingham County property taxes and this would be an unfair advantage to those companies over Ingham companies. Others were uncomfortable with many of the other options. So we agreed that the 5% should go to 10%. That, at least, would have qualified 4 more businesses in 2009 and is a step in the right direction.

I still hope to put out an elections blog with the candidates...maybe next week!

Travel Policy, Dog Park Delayed Again, Zoo Millage

Sorry for the late blog posting this week. It has been a VERY busy week for me. So here we go…

This week was a week when the full Board of Commissioners met. The only resolution that proved controversial was a resolution amending the travel policy. The current travel policy requires Commissioners to sign off on any out-of-state travel before it can happen. This has caused a problem because it can take from 2-4 weeks, and it is costing the county more money to delay travel purchases until the last minute. Staff came to the Commissioners and asked if sign-off can be given by the Controller and the Board Chair, instead of having to wait until the appreciate committee meets and can take action. The resolution also prohibited people from changing hotel or airfare without the approval of a Department head. Finally, it required people to use the Capital Region airport unless a ticket can be found for a materially lower rate at a neighboring airport (including parking and mileage).

In County Services committee, I had several questions about the approval process. I believe that the elected officials need to review these travel requests to ensure that staff are not taking unnecessary trips. I asked several questions that staff could not adequately answer. As such, I voted against this in County Services (it passed 4-2). In Finance, though, staff were able to adequately answer the questions. They proposed adding a quarterly report of staff travel so that Commissioners can see what the travel was for (the same way we see them now). It was also pointed out that Commissioners have not yet denied a travel request because these requests are vetted through the Department Director and the County Controller before going before the Commissioners. I was satisfied with these answers and voted in support in Finance, and the resolution passed unanimously.

When this was considered on the Board floor, the three Republicans voted against it. To be honest, I am not sure why. Commissioner Don Vickers remained consistent because he opposed it in County Services. I can only assume that he didn’t hear the clarifications that I heard in Finance. Commissioner Steve Dougan voted against the resolution on the Board floor after flip-flopping from his supportive vote of the resolution in Finance committee. None of the Republicans debated this or explained why they don’t want to save the county money…they just voted against it. I kind of wish they would explain why they opposed it. But it was not to be.

The often-discussed gate for the Soldan Dog Park was again put on hold. As I reported last week, the yearly fee was reduced to $30 and I was able to support this because residents can pay the same amount that they are paying now if they park in the northern Ingham Regional lot. Apparently, the City of Lansing wanted the resolution pulled because they did not have a chance to review the request. We agreed to table it for two weeks while the City reviews the resolution. Hopefully, we can be done with this in two weeks and it can move forward when the City signs the agreement.

Otherwise, the Board meeting was fairly subdued. We used the consent agenda to pass updates to our Brownfield plan to cleanup more properties, we approved the annual Health Department health services resolution, we reauthorized a position in the Clerk’s office, and a variety of other things. You can review the agenda from the meeting here.
http://www.ingham.org/BC/BC/101012Board.pdf

Finally, for anyone interested, the Yes to the Potter Park Zoo millage campaign has a new website - http://www.yestopotterparkzoo.com/.

I hope to put together another election preview before the general election and will get that out if possible.

Have a great weekend!

Zoo Millage Placed on Ballot for Renewal, Confusion Ammt Defeated, Election-Year Antics Defeated, and final Campaign Update!

This week at the County Commission meeting, we focused mostly on the proposal to renew the millage for the Potter Park Zoo. First, we worked on perfecting the language for the November ballot. One issue that was raised is the language dealing with tax increment finance authorities (such as DDA’s). Under state law, these authorities create economic development and jobs, and can capture a small amount of all millages (general fund and special millages). Previously we have included the names of all of these authorities on the ballot, and this can be very confusing to voters. I have actually had people tell me that they decided to vote against a millage because they don’t understand this authority language (which really has little to do with the actual question). We recently found out that state law doesn’t necessarily require us to include this language on the ballot, so the County Services and Finance committees had taken it out. There was an amendment to add language to the ballot initiative saying that authorities can capture some of the money, but that amendment was defeated. While I understand the idea behind the language, I opposed the amendment because I believe that it makes the ballot question very confusing for voters who may vote against the ballot question because they don’t understand that additional language. I think they should be voting on whether or not they want to fund the zoo, which is the point of the question in the first place. Others also said that brevity is the most important part of a ballot question, and opposed the amendment. I also pointed out that other ballot questions on the November ballot don’t have this language, so there is really no inequality of the various questions.

After that discussion, the Board was reminded that it is an election year when a second amendment was proposed. One of the Republican commissioners (Steve Dougan) proposed an amendment to the millage language that would reduce the millage amount from .41 to .39. He said that he thought that we should reduce the millage by 5% to give voters a break. This really was just an election-year stunt and, as I am sure he knows, was not necessary and actually could negatively change the ballot initiative. First, as Commissioner Celentino pointed out, the millage has already been reduced. When it first passed, it was .46, but was automatically lowered to .41. Second, I pointed out that the Board of Commissioners can reduce the millage at any time on our own. We ask the voters for a renewal to keep up the operations of the zoo, and if we think it is bringing more money than needed then we can reduce the millage amount on our own without going to the ballot. Dougan knows that, yet he has never attempted to reduce the millage at the Board level. When I questioned him about that, he didn’t respond. Also, I asked what Dougan proposed to eliminate at the zoo in order to make up for the reduced funding. He also had no answer to that. Commissioner Bahar, though, had the answer. She and Commissioner Nolan both serve on the Zoo Board and know what these cuts would mean to the zoo. Commissioner Bahar said that the cost would equal a veterinarian or something equivalent. They both also said that only a part of the zoo is funded from the millage, and the rest is provided by contributions from the zoo society. This cut would negatively impact the zoo when the people have already said that they support the zoo by passing the millage four years ago (at a higher amount!). Plus, Commissioner Tennis pointed out that decreased property values have already lessened the amount that people are paying for the zoo. .41 mills brought in $3.1 million a few years ago. Now the same .41 mills brings in $2.9 million. So people are paying less property tax values and the millage is already reflecting that. All these reasons and more show that Commissioner Steve Dougan was just engaging in election-year politics, which is disappointing but not surprising. Finally, it was pointed out that this language would no longer make the ballot question a renewal. With the renewal language removed, some voters may think it is a new millage and oppose it. That would be disingenuous to the voters. The proposed amendment was defeated with the 13 Democrats opposing and the 3 Republicans supporting, and the resolution placing the millage renewal on the ballot as reported from Finance committee was passed. The Democrats all voted for it, and the 3 Republicans on the Board voted against allowing the citizens of Ingham County to decide if the zoo millage should be renewed or not.

Campaign Update: 6 more days left! I continue to campaign based on my record, which is getting tremendous response at doors and everywhere. I really appreciate the good wishes and great comments from my constituents in SE Lansing. My opponent continues to sling mud, though. He must not realize that it isn't working and the voters are not fooled. This week, he again accused me of taking a pay-raise (a lie), and a new accusation...he accused me of doubling my own Board pay per diem (another lie). The per diem has gone up $1, and this was done approximately 4 years ago. We have never doubled it. Where does he get this from? I appreciate that the voters see through these attacks and ridiculous claims, and want someone with a proven record and ideas moving forward.

If you are interested in helping me this week, please let me know. You can also go to this page for more info on how you can help, or you can contact me at aschor@yahoo.com. Thanks everyone for your support. I am excited for election day to come and for the voters to speak!