opinions

Opinions on Washtenaw County Commissioner's vote

to cut funding for Sheriff's road patrol services

July 2000

Excerpt from "Scio Info", newsletter for Scio Township

Police Services: As you may have read in the newspapers, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners recently did a little budget slight of hand, the end result of which was to reduce police services to the townships. Following the failure of the 1998 jail millage proposal, the Commissioners decided that in order to pay for the needed jail improvements, they would take the money out of the Sheriff's budget. And to take it from the Sheriff's budget meant that they would have to reduce services, like the Sheriff's road patrol. This effort was led by Commissioners from Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, who being in the majority, asserted that their communities received no benefit from the Sheriff's road patrol, as they already have their own police force. One could argue that this is true, but only if you are willing to accept the argument that every local entity is entitled to see its tax dollars returned proportionally by way of services actually received. Forget the old argument that government services are provided for the benefit of a County as a whole. The end result is that the County Commissioners have now abolished the Sheriff's road patrol, determining that police services will only be provided to local municipalities with a fixed financial subsidy, but no more. The net result to Scio is that it will cost us $20,000 less for the 4 1/2 deputies that we now contract for, but it will reduce the road patrol deputies assigned to Scio from approximately 2 to zero.

Unfortunately, and in concentrating on only a slice of the pie, the time bomb inherent in the argument set forth by the County Commissioners relative to police services, is that local communitites should now review each service provided by the county, (in return for the 5 mills they collect in taxes), and argue for a reduction where serices are not received in direct proportion to taxes paid. No service, no taxes. And forget again the benefit to the community as a whole. (For those smaller townships unable to afford to contract Sheriff's deputies, the Commissioners have suggested that they call the State Police, who have been a nearly invisible presence to date).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Webster Township is currently contracting for 1 deputy to exclusively patrol our township 40 hours per week. Unassigned roving patrol cars, ("road patrol services"), cover Webster and other surrounding townships the rest of the time. The elimination of patrol services goes into effect January 1, 2002 and unless the County Board of Commissioner's action is changed or reversed, you will not see any roving Washtenaw County Sheriff patrol cars in Webster Township for the remaining 128 hours per week and your calls to 911 may not dispatch a deputy to your door.

The State of Michigan mandates that the jail be kept up to certain high standards. The Commissioners are justifying cutting road patrol services in order to have funds to renovate the jail, and, that taxpayers in Ann Arbor city and Village of Chelsea are paying for their own police departments as well as supporting the County Sheriff. This, they claim, is unfair. On the flip side, one can argue that residents throughout the western half of the County receive little, if any, services for their tax dollars - that their taxes go to support social services in the eastern half of the county.

Recently, the County Board of Commissioners approved building a new $5 million 50-bed homeless shelter in Ann Arbor. This shelter will be 3 stories high, include a library, medical staff, dining facilities for 100+ people, a garden area for staff, employment counseling, specially ventilated smoking areas and a slate roof. All this for only 50 people. Also, the voters of Washtenaw County will be asked to approve a millage this fall to renovate the County Court Buildings and build a brand new parking structure, again in Ann Arbor, to the tune of $53 million. Neither the shelter, court building renovations or new parking structure is mandated by the State of Michigan. Nor will they directly benefit the residents of Webster or other townships in the western half of Washtenaw County. - JS 07-15-00

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 2000

To: Citizens of Washtenaw County

From: WDSA Executive Board President - Deputy Harry Valentine

A series of meetings have been held by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners to debate the cost and staffing levels of the county funded road patrol, provided by the Washtenaw County Sheriff Department. The commissioners contracted with Northwestern University for a police staffing study. The study found contract police services an efficient expenditure of taxpayer monies and recommended the county charge more for the cost of a deputy's service.

All citizens of the county pay taxes for the operation of county government in addition to state and local taxes. The county allocates monies from the general fund for the Sheriff's department budget. The Sheriff's budget includes the operation of the jail, road patrol and payments from municipalities contracting for road patrol services.

The Washtenaw County Sheriff is not mandated to provide road patrol service, only operate the jail. For over 60 years the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department has been the primary provider of full service law enfrcement to county citizens. The service has been provided by contracts with individual municipalities able to afford additional service and through general fund county tax dollars for those who could not.

Commissioners advocating the increase in road patrol cost are motivated by two factors. The 1998 defeat by voters of a controversial tax increase for the expansion of the existing jail with an attached juvenile facility, and a concern that tax payers in municipalities with their own police departments do not benefit for the Sheriff's Department road patrol. By increasing the cost of road patrol services over the county operating tax, commissioners could then transfer monies to jail expansion and other undefined capital projects. The result of an increase will impact all employees of the Sheriff's Department and the citizens they protect.

If the cost is set at an unreasonable rate, municipalities will have to reduce the number of deputies they contract for. Any service municipalities receive will come from expenditures over their county operating tax. Municipalities unable to afford a contract will be left without the full service law enforcement they have come to expect from the Sheriff's Department.

Commissioners have discussed utilizing the Michigan State Police to fill vacancies caused by the adoption of their plan. This will not provide adequate protection for the citizens due to the differing definitions of service between the local controlled Sheriff's Department and the State controlled troppers.

The State Police by definition are a supplemental agency, designed to assist local police, not assume primary law enforcement duties. The availability of troopers for patrol is determined by factors beyone the control of local elected officilas. The Northwestern Study states that 141 deputies are needed to provide full service law enforcement in the county. The State Police currently have 30 troopers for patrol service throughout the county. A commitment from Lansing Headquarters would be required to add and maintain additional troopers in a primary law enforcement role.

Currently there are ten townships with no police departments or patrol service contracts. They rely on the Sheriff's Department as their primary protectors. Two townships have State Police outposts within their borders. They rely on the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department as their primary protectors when the State Police are not available. An additional 5 townships have partial service contracts with the Sheriff's Department for coverage of less than 24 hours. The decision of the Commissioners could compromise the protection and service of over 60,000 citizens inhabiting over 480 square miles of Washtenaw County.

There are commissioners who oppose increased costs for road patrol and require our support. Attendance at a hearing in the western part of the county had a small response and was in need of more citizen participation. A similar hearing in Ypsilanti Township had a large attendance and sent a powerful message.

I am asking you to attend the Board of Commissioners hearing on May 17, 2000 at 6:15 p.m. The boardroom is located in the County Administration , 220 Main Street, Ann Arbor. I am asking that you find as many supporters as you can to attend. Please circulate this notice to your family, friends and neighbors. The Commissioners will vote on the issue at their June 7th meeting. The final decision could impact public safety.

I recommend in addition to your attendance at the meeting you write or fax the County Commissioners to make your feelings known. Write your letters to:

"name of commissioner"

fax 734-994-2592

Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners

220 Main Street

P.O. Box 8645

Ann Arbor, MI 48107

Commissioners:

Joseph Yekulis, (R), Chelsea

Martha Kern, (D), Ypsilanti

Richard DeLong, (R), Dexter

Carlos Acevedo, (D), Ann Arbor

Barbara Levin Bergman, (D), Ann Arbor

Raymond Schultz, (R), Ypsilanti

Marlene Chockley, (R), Ypsilanti

Michael DuRussel, (R), Manchester

Vivienne Armentrout, (D), Ann Arbor

Christina Montague, (D), Ann Arbor

Jeff Irwin, (D), Ann Arbor

Leah Gunn, (D), Ann Arbor

Albert Robinson, (D), Ypsilanti

Suzanne Shaw, (D), Ypsilanti

Dillard Roy Craiger, (D), Ypsilanti

How will this effect Webster Township?

Contact Township Supervisor Dean Fisher, 426-5103,

or District 1 County Commissioner Joseph Yekulis

at 475-3874 or e-mail to yekulisj@co.washtenaw.mi.us

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpt from the April 2000 Scio Township Newsletter

"Supervisor's Comments" by Robert S. Tickle, Supervisor

If you've been following the discussion in the local newspaper, you are no doubt aware that the County has placed a high priority on finding funds to make improvements to the county jail. Following the defeat of a 1998 millage proposal for this purpose, the County has focused attention on finding the necessary resources within the Sheriff's budget, which totals about $22 million annually. With this in mind, the County is currently addressing two important questions concerning the Sheriff's budget - questions that potentially may involve significant higher costs to townships.

The first question is whether or not the County should continue the road patrol and if so, at what level? The road patrol deputies, which are supported by the County's general fund tax revenues, patrol the entire county and render assistance where needed. They are an asset to Scio, as well as other townships, providing services in addition to our contract deputies. As an example, in an unfortunate event of a major traffic accident on Jackson Road, necessitating its complete closure, we would probably require more police assitance than could be furnished by our contract deputies. For extra help, we would call on the road patrol.

The second question being considered by the County addresses the cost for contract deputies. Should the townships be paying more for contract deputies, and if so, how much more? A consultant's report to the County argues that the contract deputies are being heavily subsidized to the tune of $35,000 each. This year Scio is paying $72,000 per deputy. As Scio currently contracts for 4.5 deputies, the consultants claim we are therefore underpaying by about $158,000 annually. We would, of course, prefer to use this money to hire additional deputies, rather than pay more for the ones we've got.

Township representatives have attended the series of meetings and public hearings that have been scheduled by the County to receive public comment. We've argued that the road patrol is a benefit to everyone in the county and should not only be continued, but its strength increased. We've also argued that the County should examine the entire budget to ferret out the money for the jail improvements rather than focusing exclusively on the Sheriff's budget, where only the townships will be squeezed.

There's a strong perception, at least among officials in the various townships, that the cities receive a disproportionate share of the County's tax dollars. This imbalance will just be exacerbated if the townships alone are stuck with footing the bill for the jail improvements. Exactly how all this will turn out is unclear. The County Board of Commissioners will probably render a decision in June. It seems likely, though, that Scio will wind up paying more, and probably getting less.