Several Washtenaw County road commission employees attended the county board’s April 17 working session, as did some township officials. In the foreground is Manchester Township supervisor Gene DeRossett. (Photos by the writer.)

More likely, though not yet determined, are efforts to find additional funding sources for road maintenance – including a possible countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot.

Keeping the road commission unchanged had been the recommendation of a board subcommittee that met for several months to discuss available options, including the possibility of dissolving the road commission and making it part of county operations, rather than operate as an independent entity. Most county commissioners oppose that approach. The board’s May 7 agenda includes a resolution accepting the subcommittee recommendations, which also rejects making the job of road commissioner an elected position. The three road commissioners are currently appointed by the county board.

State legislation enacted in 2012 allowed for: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015. That deadline prompted the county board to examine these options.

The board’s May 7 agenda includes a letter to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of HB 5117 and 5118 – bills that would eliminate the current sunset clause and extend the options for changing the road commission functions.

Much of the focus of the April 17 working session was on funding options and long-term strategy for maintaining the county’s road network. Several township representatives who attended the session voiced support for special assessment districts, known as SADs, which are being used in Scio Township to pay for road maintenance.

But Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor Democrat who’s been vocal in urging the county board to take responsibility for the road commission, argued that SADs shouldn’t be a long-term approach. The road network is an asset to the entire county’s economy, he said, and the burden of maintaining it shouldn’t rest on the smaller communities.

Smith also noted that the economy is changing. Telecommuting, for example, might change the way people use the roads, he said. Later in the meeting, road commissioner Barb Fuller noted that other infrastructure needs are important to achieve the vision that Smith had described. “I would suggest that you folks look at making broadband ubiquitous across the county,” she said. For those commissioners who take access to broadband as a given, she said, “trust me – there are parts of the county where they can’t get a signal at all.”

Yousef Rabhi, another Ann Arbor commissioner, also spoke of the need for a broader vision. Roads should serve not just drivers, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Potholes are a serious safety issue for cyclists, he noted. “We have to keep in mind that not every taxpayer drives a car.”

Regarding funding for roads, Rabhi wanted the discussion to be about the structure of a millage – not whether there should be a new road tax. “I think it’s pretty obvious that we need more money,” he said.

The May 7 agenda includes a discussion item on options for road funding. A draft resolution was circulated at the April 17 working session to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot. The draft resolution calls for a four-year, 0.5 mill tax – from 2014-2017 – that would raise $7.15 million in its first year. It would earmark 50% of the gross revenues to be used in the municipality in which the revenue was generated. Beyond that, 10% would be used for non-motorized transportation needs – like bike lanes and pedestrian paths – with the remainder to be allocated “based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.”

Another possibility is for the county board to levy a millage under Act 283. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. A draft resolution that’s been circulated among commissioners calls for levying a 1 mill tax in December 2014, which would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

On April 17, commissioners also discussed the possibility of expanding the road commission board from three to five members. That discussion will be continued at a May 8 working session agenda.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.“

Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary at the start of the April 17 working session.

Gene DeRossett, Manchester Township supervisor, began by describing attributes of his community. “I think Manchester is the best-kept secret in Washtenaw County,” he said, citing its stock of affordable housing, low tax rate, school system, volunteer fire department and other features. It’s the only school system in the county that provides iPads to all students from kindergarten through 12th grade. He noted that the rural township and village of Manchester don’t have the need for public transportation or a rail system.

Regarding the road commission, DeRossett said he’s worked with the road commission for 40 years in various capacities, including as a former state legislator chairing the transportation committee. The commission has always been solution-oriented, with good public policy, he said. It’s always good to look at how to improve services, especially for all citizens of Washtenaw County. But he couldn’t wrap his arms around why the county board should take more direct oversight of the road commission. He’s talked to a lot of people about it, but not one person has told him it’s a good idea. The road commission is not broken, he said. Road construction and engineering are very complicated, DeRossett said. “I would encourage you to leave the Washtenaw County road commission as it is.” If the county board does decide to expand the road commission board from three to five commissioners, DeRossett suggested that four of them should be based on geographic representation, with the fifth one an at-large commissioner.

There’s a work yard in Manchester Township for the road commission, DeRossett said, and he knows the employees who work there personally. It’s a good working relationship, and he’d hate to lose that. It would be a disservice to the people of Washtenaw County.

Ted Green described himself as a resident of Ann Arbor for about 35 years. He’d done fundraising to help repave Huron River Drive. In 2010 he raised about $45,000. The road commission agreed to double-match that amount so that an additional mile of the road could be repaved, and the county parks & recreation commission kicked in $50,000 to add bike lanes to several sections. After that work was done, there was still a section that needed repaving, Green said. So last year he started fundraising for that and has raised $41,000 so far. He’s also talking to the road commission, which he hopes will again provide a double-match. If this last segment is repaved, then Huron River Drive would have new pavement from Ann Arbor to Dexter, he said.

Green hoped that the county could provide more funding for the road commission. Everyone knows that the state isn’t putting enough money into the roads, he said, “and we don’t really see this improving drastically in the near future.” Because of this, he plans to work toward putting a countywide road millage on the ballot, probably in 2015. He hoped that some members of the county board would support that. He had nothing but praise for the road commission, having worked with them for several years.

Sharon Township supervisor Peter Psarouthakis told the board that the township wants to keep the road commission unchanged. Most of the roads are rural and dirt, which presents some unique issues, he said. He might not agree on everything that the road commission does, but they’re able to work together. His concern is that if the road commission is absorbed into the county, then Sharon Township “might be lost in the crowd.” Psarouthakis said he grew up in Ann Arbor and went to schools in Ann Arbor, and he’s familiar with the city – that’s why he’s concerned. He encouraged county commissioners to visit the township.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township explained how the township’s special assessment districts raise money for road repair.

Lew Kidder of Scio Township introduced himself as an original member of the township’s local roads advisory committee, and its current chair. They’ve been grappling with the issue of deteriorating roads over the last seven years. Everyone agrees that the problem is bad roads, he said, and everyone knows that it takes money to fix the roads. When you strip everything way, the money will come from taxpayers. So the only question is “how does it get from our pockets into the kitty that’s going to fix the bad roads,” Kidder said.

There are five options, Kidder continued. On one end is the U.S. government. Local taxpayers send all funds to the federal government, which then allocates it back for local roads. That’s not the most fiscally responsible approach, he said. The other option is state funding, which is the current approach – with money coming from the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. That’s not working out great, and it doesn’t look like it will improve, Kidder said. And locally, the county doesn’t always get back the amount it puts in, he noted.

So for the vast number of local roads, there needs to be local funding, Kidder said. For that, there are three possibilities: (1) the county; (2) municipalities like townships, villages, and cities; and (3) special assessment districts.

Scio Township is using special assessment districts (SADs) for neighborhood roads, Kidder explained. That’s facilitated by the township in two ways, he noted: an upfront cash grant to get the project started, and a promise that the township will do the road maintenance after the roads are upgraded. In addition, Scio Township has identified certain roads that serve as connectors, and there’s a township-wide special assessment to service those roads. Beyond that, however, there’s a set of roads that the townships can’t effectively deal with, Kidder said, characterizing them as “countywide connectors.” Those include North Territorial, Pleasant Lake, Ann Arbor-Saline, and Pontiac Trail. “In our view, that’s where the county should play a role,” he said.

Kidder urged the board to do three things. One is to be disciplined in their thinking about this issue. Secondly, he hoped they would think comprehensively, and find a system-wide solution. Third, he urged them to not let perfect be the enemy of the good. “Let’s figure out how to start moving toward that goal,” he said.

York Township supervisor John Stanowski noted that he had served on the county board’s road commission subcommittee, and he supported that committee’s recommendation not to dissolve the road commission. He praised the road commission employees, saying they are responsive and helpful. He was afraid that a consolidation would result in chaos and confusion. “What we have works well and efficiently,” he said. “It may not be the best system in the world, but it’s the most effective means for local townships to communicate with the road commissioners and get things done.”

John Posegay, a road commission employee, told commissioners that he’d spoken to the subcommittee and had said that the county board was mostly interested in control. He said that one of the county commissioners, Conan Smith, had denied that the reason for absorbing the road commission was about control. But Posegay contended that most of Smith’s comments during those subcommittee meetings actually “substantiated everything I talked about.” The road commission functions well, Posegay said, and if the county takes it over, it won’t function as well. He also objected to expanding the road commission board to five people, which he didn’t think was a good idea. It’s worked well with three road commissioners for years, he said, and they have never violated the Open Meetings Act to his knowledge. With more road commissioners, “the process slows down a lot,” Posegay said.

Presentation and Background

Andrew DeLeeuw, a graduate student at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy and an intern in the Washtenaw County administration office, gave a briefing about the board’s road commission subcommittee’s work. [.pdf of DeLeeuw's report]

Sharon Township supervisor Peter Psarouthakis, left, talks with Andrew DeLeeuw and county commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chaired the county board’s road commission subcommittee. DeLeeuw is an intern with the county administration and a graduate student at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy.

The creation of the subcommittee – at the board’s Oct. 2, 2013 meeting – was prompted by state legislation enacted in 2012 that allowed forj: (1) a county board of commissioners to exercise the powers and duties of a road commission; and (2) the functions of a road commission to be transferred to the county board. A sunset clause means that the laws expire on Jan. 1, 2015, so the Washtenaw County board of commissioners decided to examine these options.

DeLeeuw noted that the Oct. 2 resolution included a $10,000 budget to support the subcommittee’s work, and set a deadline of March 31, 2014 to deliver recommendations to the board.

Members included four county commissioners: Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3), Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), Dan Smith of Northfield Township (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5). Also appointed were three township supervisors: Mandy Grewal of Pittsfield Township, Ken Schwartz of Superior Township and Pat Kelly of Dexter Township. Grewal subsequently withdrew and was replaced by York Township supervisor John Stanowski. Ping served as the subcommittee’s chair.

To date, five counties in Michigan have decided to absorb their road commissions, DeLeeuw said. Those counties are Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Macomb and Wayne. At least two counties – Isabella and Ottawa – have debated the issue and decided not to absorb their road commissions.

DeLeeuw’s report notes that the subcommittee received letter from five townships supervisors – in the townships of Ann Arbor, Manchester, Scio, Sharon, Saline – that all supported keeping the current road commission structure. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he recently received a statement from Bridgewater Township supervisor Ron Smith, who said the township board had passed a resolution in support of dissolving the road commission.

In Washtenaw County, there are three road commissioners serving six-year terms: Doug Fuller, Barb Fuller, and Bill McFarlane. Barb Fuller and Bill McFarlane attended the April 17 working session.

The subcommittee met four times, with its last meeting on March 1, 2014. At that meeting, the subcommittee voted to make two recommendations: (1) that the powers and duties of the road commission not be transferred to the county board; and (2) that the county board not consider making the job of road commissioner an elected position. The first recommendation was a 5-1 vote, over dissent from county commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9), who argued that consolidating the road commission into the county would allow for more flexibility and accountability in oversight.

Bill McFarlane, foreground, is a former Superior Township supervisor who now serves as a county road commissioner. In the background is Ken Schwartz, a former road commissioner who was appointed by the Superior Township board of trustees to replace McFarlane as supervisor last year.

After DeLeeuw’s presentation, Bill McFarlane, the newest road commissioner, addressed the board. He’d been appointed at the board’s March 19, 2014 meeting to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. McFarlane had previously served as Superior Township’s supervisor for 21 years before retiring in the fall of 2013.

McFarlane said that in his years as supervisor, as well as in his previous job with the sheriff’s department, he’s had a lot of contact with the road commission. It’s always been positive, he said. The current composition of the road commission board is unique, he said. It’s the first time he can recall that the three commissioners are representing the east, central and west parts of the county. His working relationships with the other two road commissioners are very good, he said, and the same is true for road commission employees.

McFarlane said he didn’t know Ron Smith, the supervisor of Bridgewater Township who wants to dissolve the road commission. Smith was probably new, McFarlane added, “because they tend to go through supervisors frequently in that community, for whatever reason.” But for other township supervisors, McFarlane said, they’ve always wanted the road commission to keep its current composition and oversight. He said he doesn’t know of one person, other than Smith, who wants it to change.

Regarding road funding, McFarlane said that the bond issue that Ypsilanti Township has made to pay for roads is working well. Some townships have passed millages for that purpose, he said. Scio Township’s approach of using special assessment districts is being embraced by many other townships, he noted. It seems like a reasonable option to him. McFarlane argued that millages can be unfair to farmers, because their properties are so large, even though they don’t use the roads more than homeowners on small lots. So special assessments seem like the way to go, McFarlane said.

Addressing the possible expansion of the road commission board, McFarlane didn’t see it as a negative or positive, but noted that it’s the county board’s prerogative to do that. He thanked the county commissioners for appointing him.

Board Discussion

The wide-ranging discussion, lasting about two hours, covered four main topics: (1) recommendations of the board’s road commission subcommittee; (2) input on pending state legislation; (3) expanding the road commission board; and (4) options for road funding.

There was considerable overlap, but this report organizes the discussions based on those four issues.

Board Discussion: Subcommittee Recommendations

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked about the subcommittee’s discussion regarding possible expansion of the road commission board from three to five members. Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who chaired the subcommittee, said they hadn’t made a recommendation on that. The consensus was that it was an appropriate discussion for the county board to have, she said, and it wasn’t really part of the subcommittee’s charge.

County commissioners Yousef Rabhi and Alicia Ping at the April 17 working session.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) elaborated. He also served on the subcommittee, and said the members felt it was more of a political decision that should be made by the elected county board of commissioners. It wasn’t really an operational decision, he said, nor was there a sense that an expansion would result in operational gains.

Brabec also asked for more information about those counties that have made a decision about absorbing the road commission – or not. She wanted to know the rationale for those decisions. Andrew DeLeeuw indicated that the information was available. [.pdf of report with analysis from the counties of Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson and Ottawa.]

Ping replied that some counties consolidated for cost-saving reasons, while other counties were politically motivated. Brabec clarified with Ping that for Washtenaw County, there would be no savings gained by consolidating. [Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, had done an analysis on overlapping facilities and assets. (.pdf of Dill's report) Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, had prepared an analysis of any duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. (.pdf of Heidt's report)]

Dan Smith elaborated, saying that Ingham and Monroe county officials were drivers of the initial state legislation, so certainly in some communities the decision to consolidate was political. As for himself, Smith said it wasn’t about political reasons or control. Rather, he thought it proper to have a discussion about the possibility of consolidation, given the legislative window, and to decide whether it made sense for Washtenaw County. He noted that as a subcommittee member, he had voted to leave things as they are. To him, these kinds of discussions are “insider baseball,” Smith added. The primary concern for residents is fixing the roads. “To me, that’s really what this is all about.”

Dan Smith said he wasn’t convinced that the county will get any help from Lansing to fix the roads, in terms of funding. “If we really want to take care of the transportation infrastructure in Washtenaw County, we need to take that on and figure out what’s the right thing to do.”

Brabec also wanted to know what the rationale was for recommending not to have the road commissioners as elected positions. Conan Smith (D-District 9) replied. The sense was that elections would be dominated by urban voters who are heavily Democratic, but who would be electing commissioners to oversee road projects in rural communities. So there would likely be a disconnect between the people who govern and those who are responsible for the roads, he said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he was seeing no interest in taking over the road commission or making the road commissioners elected positions. That’s what people are interested in hearing, he said. He hoped to have closure on some of these issues. Although they couldn’t vote at a working session, he noted, they could still arrive at some consensus about these things, “so the public can rest.”

County commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz, left, talks with Dexter Township supervisor James Drolett before the April 17 working session.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) said he agreed with most of the sentiments he’d heard. His district represents five townships on the west side of Washtenaw County, and most officials from those townships want to maintain the road commission as it is. They have good relationships with the road commission employees, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) praised the current road commissioners, saying he had good working relationships with them. He said he’s talked to a lot of township supervisors, and the general consensus is that everyone likes the road commission as it is.

Rabhi then talked about reframing the issue. The county isn’t in the business of roads, he said. Instead, they should think of it as the business of transportation – getting people from one place to another as efficiently as possible. In the current society, that takes the form of roads, Rabhi said, because most people drive cars. But in the future, that might change. It might be something in the future that’s sustainable – from a financial perspective and an environmental resources perspective.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who serves as the county board’s liaison to the road commission, also praised the current road commissioners. He said he was “kind of in the mood for a five-member board,” but basically he liked the current board. His only complaint was with the road commission’s PR, but he knew they were working on that.

Conan Smith said he’s been a big proponent of “what people are calling taking over the road commission.” He wanted to shy away from those words, saying it would be simply a matter of changing the legal status of the road commission. It doesn’t necessarily mean changes to governance or staffing, he said. He’s particularly interested in the change of “ownership” of the road commission, because it might allow the county to do things in the future and create flexibility in a community that’s “actually ahead of the curve on a lot of big problems.” This county thinks critically about problems and designs ways to solve them, he said.

In Michigan, the approach to roads has been a one-size-fits-all solution, C. Smith said, and it might not be the best solution. Other counties that are charter counties – like Wayne and Oakland – have a different structure and can incorporate the road commissions into the county government, he said, and put more money toward roads.

The opportunity that’s in front of Washtenaw County commissioners, C. Smith said, is to design a system of governance that will work optimally to manage the road network. Smith noted that he lives in Ann Arbor, which has a 2 mill street tax and also gets Act 51 funds from the state. If the city wanted to, it would be able to raise even more money for roads, he said. As a larger community, Ann Arbor has more options. That’s not the case for more rural communities, he said.

The county has an interest in maintaining the rural character of its communities, but the current mechanisms for road funding put more burden on those sparsely populated areas, C. Smith said. If it’s important to stop suburban sprawl, then commissioners need to think about what that means in terms of resources for these smaller communities.

The issue of the road commission isn’t a people problem or even a structural problem – aside from perhaps the size of the road commission board, C. Smith continued. With only three members, the possibility of violating Michigan’s Open Meetings Act is inevitable, he said. Though it’s usually accidental, he added, “in a handful of cases, it was intentional.” Smith reported that when Ken Schwartz was road commissioner, Schwartz stood out in the rain waiting to meet with Smith because there’d been another road commissioner talking to Smith about roads. “You should be able to have a casual conversation with one of your colleagues on that board without running afoul of the law,” Smith said.

But adding two more road commissioners is a minor structural change, Smith said. What’s a problem is the current process and system for maintaining the county’s road network. “It’s not putting enough money in the right places at the right time – plain and simple,” he said.

County commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9) at a Jan. 22, 2014 meeting of the county board’s road commission subcommittee. In the background is Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission.

The county board could vote to put a countywide road tax on the ballot now, C. Smith said. It’s been tried in the past and failed, he added, because there are serious, relevant politics about those decisions, given the current system. For example, Ann Arbor already taxes itself for roads, he said. “Should we tax ourselves more to take care of someone else’s roads? That makes it a very tough vote.” Under the current system, his constituents don’t feel they have a voice in guiding the expenditures of road commission funding. Unless these challenges can be resolved, the county’s road system will continue to deteriorate, he said.

The opportunity to make some of these changes expires at the end of 2014, C. Smith noted. Even if everything else remains the same – the same employees, the same size road commission board – just making the legal change to have the road commission as part of county government would open the door to future problem-solving, he said. That’s the most important step to take in 2014, he added.

Brabec asked what Smith meant by “opening the door” – what changes might result from that?

Right now, C. Smith replied, if the board takes no action, then after 2014 they’ll be locked in to the current system. One way to avoid that is to change the legal ownership of the road commission this year, he said. It’s not a “takeover,” he added, because nothing else would need to change. But it would allow a future county board to make changes, if necessary.

The county doesn’t have enough money to maintain the road infrastructure that currently exists, C. Smith noted. State funding hasn’t kept pace with the rate of inflation, so costs of labor and materials have increased more than available funding. “More money in the system could help a lot,” Smith said. But getting more money in the system would draw out all the other political challenges, he said.

In the past, whenever the board discussed expanding the road commission or putting more money into it, he said, there were questions about the geographic distribution of road commission board members. Right now, there’s probably the best geographic distribution of road commissioners in the past 50 years, he noted. But if all road commissioners are from the east side of the county, for example, then people on the county’s west side might not feel confident that their tax dollars are being spent equitably.

C. Smith also echoed Rabhi’s point that there needs to be a longer-term vision. Just throwing more money at existing roads won’t meet the needs of the county’s future economy. “If anything, your road network is an economic development asset to the county,” Smith said. And the economy is changing.

C. Smith reported that a University of Michigan urban planning professor, Jonathan Levine, makes the case that while wider roads are seen as an efficient way for getting people quickly from Point A to Point B, the most efficient way is to eliminate the need for that trip altogether. “So I see an increase in telecommuting,” Smith said. The dynamic of how the economy functions and how transportation fits into the economy is transforming, he argued, so the community ought to be thinking more deeply about this issue – not simply thinking about how to fix the roads.

Peterson supported exploring these longer-term issues with the road commission. He thought that all county departments should get better at master planning and communicating with each other.

County commissioner Andy LaBarre, left, talks with road commissioner Bill McFarlane.

C. Smith replied that it’s possible for the road commission and county board to collaborate on these broader issues, but “I will candidly say that has not always been the case.” The current road commissioners are different than in the past, he said. But the road commissioners, once appointed, are independent and have six-year terms, he noted – three times as long as the two-year terms for county commissioners. So the people who are elected – the county commissioners – lose influence, Smith said. “So is it possible [to collaborate]? Yes. Has our experience proven that it happens? It’s mixed reviews.”

Sizemore said that more collaboration is happening now than in the past. He wasn’t looking for the county board to take control over the road commission.

Peterson suggested working toward annual joint meetings, strategy sessions and goal-setting between the county board and road commission board.

Ping noted that she represents 10 municipalities. She heard from all but two of those communities. Of the eight communities she heard from, only one was in favor of making changes to the road commission. District 3 is the largest geographic district in the county, she said, and a lot of roads are covered by the road commission. Based on feedback she’s received, “my vote would be to not make any changes,” Ping said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) said he didn’t support taking the action to bring the road commission into the county government. Other things need to be in place in order for that to work at this time. He thought that C. Smith’s broader point was critical, that “this system is so broken that it questions the intelligence of anyone who chooses to continue using it. With that said, we’re probably going to continue using it,” LaBarre quipped.

Dan Smith noted that the road commission is set up as a separate entity now. Their structure pre-dates the county board of commissioners, because the road commission was established when there was a board of supervisors. As the name implies, it was composed of all the township supervisors, who are elected to four-year terms. These are some of the historical, structural issues that affect things today.

That said, D. Smith continued, the current road commission board is very different than it was even 15 months ago. He said the three road commissioners are terrific. [Barb Fuller was appointed to the road commission on Oct. 16, 2013 to fill a seat vacated by Ken Schwartz when he took over as supervisor for Superior Township on Oct. 1. The position is for the remainder of a six-year term, through Dec. 31, 2016. This year, former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane was appointed at the county board's March 19, 2014 meeting to fill the seat left vacant by the death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. That term ends Dec. 31, 2014. The third commissioner, Doug Fuller, is serving a term that ends on Dec. 31, 2018. Barb and Doug Fuller are not related.]

LaBarre said it appeared that the board had reached consensus not to take action to absorb the road commission.

Peterson noted that it also seemed there was consensus to accept the recommendation not to make the position of road commission an elected official.

Board Discussion: State Legislation

Regarding the expiration of current legislation that would allow for structural change, Dan Smith told commissioners that he’d drafted a letter to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, for consideration at the board’s May 7 meeting. [.pdf of letter] The letter supports passage of House Bills 5117 and 5118, which would remove the sunset clause from the legislation.

From the letter:

Washtenaw County’s roads are a critical public asset; stewarding this infrastructure is the responsibility of an independent entity, with negligible input or funding from the elected Board of Commissioners. Eliminating the sunset would provide the board with more options for managing roads, including the possibility of additional locally-generated revenue. We urge passage of HB 5117 and HB 5118.

The letter that’s included in the May 7 agenda is signed by eight of the nine commissioners. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) is not listed as one of the signatories.

Board Discussion: Expanding the Road Commission Board

Andy LaBarre wanted to discuss the possibility of expanding the road commission board from three members to five. Even if the road commission isn’t absorbed into the county operations, the county board still has the ability to expand the membership. LaBarre thought that would be a way to avoid the Open Meetings Act issues, and would provide additional voices for constituents in the county. He noted that in the Ann Arbor district that he represents, there are still township “islands” in the city.

County commissioner Dan Smith, right, talks with Lew Kidder of Scio Township.

He emphasized that the three current road commissioners do a great job.

Felicia Brabec said she’s excited about the diversity of the current road commission, in terms of gender and geography. [Bill McFarlane lives in Superior Township, on the east side of the county. Doug Fuller lives in Dexter, while Barb Fuller lives Sharon Township near Manchester, on the county's southwest side.]

Brabec said she supports increasing the number of road commissioners to five. She requested information about other counties that have expanded their road commission boards in this way. She wanted to know whether it was functioning well in other communities.

Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, reported that 36 counties in Michigan have five road commissioners. Another 42 have three-member road commissions – including Washtenaw County. The remaining five road commissions “aren’t road commissions anymore,” he noted, because they’ve been absorbed into the county government operations. The largest road commission – in Oakland County – still has a three-member board.

Ronnie Peterson wanted to move the discussion of this topic to another night – possibly another working session. There’s interest in expanding, he said, but it would require a longer discussion.

Dan Smith agreed with Peterson, saying that another working session would likely be needed. He noted that expanding to five is the only option in terms of the number of road commissioners allowed. It’s also not possible to constrain those five positions into districts or having at-large members. All of those ideas are great, but unenforceable, he said. It would be possible for the county commissioners to appoint all five road commissioners from the city of Ann Arbor “if that’s what a future board chose to do – and there’s nothing anybody can do about it,” he said.

Yousef Rabhi responded, saying that Smith’s point about enforcement is true. However, he said, the current board can set a policy for itself, and that’s worth discussing. Also worth discussing is how the board handles the appointment process, Rabhi said. “I like the idea of operating with policy,” he said. “And even though it can’t necessarily bind future boards to do something, at least we’ve tried to be deliberate in the actions that we take.”

Generally, Rabhi said, he likes the idea of expanding the road commission board. But he wanted to talk with current road commissioners about it first and get their feedback.

LaBarre agreed to schedule a working session on the topic of road commission expansion. [The topic is now on the agenda for the May 8 working session.] Rabhi pointed out that in past years, the board has scheduled additional working sessions during the year, so that’s another option.

Board Discussion: Road Funding

Yousef Rabhi noted that there are different government entities that have responsibility for maintaining the roads, but “because we live in a democracy, it’s all of our responsibility to maintain the road system – because we all own the roads.” He wanted to discuss Act 283 as a funding option.

By way of brief background, Act 283 requires the road commission to submit a plan of recommended road repairs and the cost to do the projects. The law allows the county board to levy a millage to cover those costs, without voter approval. [.pdf of relevant section from Act 283, including summary by Lew Kidder of Scio Township.] Because the law is more than a century old and pre-dates the state’s Headlee amendment, there’s some uncertainty about the ability of county governments to use it.

Rabhi thought that a millage should serve not just drivers, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Potholes are a serious safety issue for cyclists, he noted. “We have to keep in mind that not every taxpayer drives a car.”

But regardless of the other road commission issues that need to be addressed, funding is crucial, Rabhi said.

Dan Smith suggested adding the topic of road funding to a future working session.

Roy Townsend, managing director of the Washtenaw County road commission.

Conan Smith noted that long-term funding issues are important, but there are also shorter-term needs for road repair. He asked Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, to talk about the effect that this winter’s severe weather has had on roads, and what the increased costs might be.

Townsend told the board that this was a record-setting winter in terms of snow, and in terms of the amount of salt that the road commission used, diesel fuel, and hours logged. It seemed never-ending, he said. Crews were working from 4 a.m. until 8 p.m., then workers would go home for sleep and repeat the cycle.

Typically, the road commission makes about 400 tons of cold patch. This year, they made about 1,400 tons. That’s enough to fill about 300,000 potholes, Townsend said. He characterized it as “300,000 Band-Aids,” and stressed the need for a long-term solution.

Now that spring has arrived, you can see how badly the roads have deteriorated, he said. Even some of the newer roads are showing cracks, because the paving material wasn’t designed for such extreme cold over so long a period. “I’d say we probably lost two or three years of life out of these roads,” Townsend said.

The issue is exacerbated because there hasn’t been the necessary investment in roads in recent years, and in fact there’s been disinvestment, he said. The winter also took a serious toll on the road commission’s equipment. They started out the winter with 53 trucks. There are 46 snow routes. During some of the back-to-back storms, the road commission had fewer than 40 trucks available, because the older trucks break down. This year, they purchased four new trucks. After three months, those trucks had logged over 20,000 miles.

The state legislature has allocated more funding for roads this year as a stop-gap measure, Townsend said. Washtenaw County’s share was about $1.1 million. That will be some help, but not enough. “We’re getting by, but we’re doing less,” he said.

Townsend noted that road commissioners and staff are meeting with officials in all 20 townships to talk about how Scio Township is paying for its roads. If townships take care of smaller local roads, the road commission can focus on primary roads and connectors.

Conan Smith asked Townsend for cost estimates on the impact of this winter, and noted that the severe weather might be the “new normal.” Rabhi said that geothermal roads are one approach that might be considered in future road construction.

Rabhi wanted the discussion to be about the structure of a millage – not whether there should be a millage. “I think it’s pretty obvious that we need more money,” he said. He advocated for setting a public hearing about a possible millage – they could set the hearing at their May 7 meeting, to be held on a future date.

Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary at the end of the working session.

John Posegay, a road commission employee, said that although some of the other ideas that were presented during the discussion were good, the priority should be roads – because roads are a priority for everybody. A few years ago, he said, one of the county commissioners had made a statement about selling a car and using free public transportation. Posegay said if that’s the logic, then the proceeds from selling a car should be put into a pot to help pay for public transportation. Everyone needs to take responsibility for the roads. Nothing is free, he said.

Sharon Township supervisor Peter Psarouthakis spoke again, saying that working with the townships on special assessment districts is an excellent idea. There would be a lot of support for that, he said. If a countywide millage keeps getting slapped down, people can take responsibility for their own areas. This effort doesn’t have to come from the top down, he said. “It can go from the bottom up.” Regarding the board’s plan to send a letter of support for House Bills 5117 and 5118, Psarouthakis encouraged them not to do that. The sunset clause is there for a reason. “I get the sense that there are some political agendas at play here in this room,” he said. Removing the sunset would only encourage more of that.

Road commissioner Barb Fuller talks with Victor Dobrin, a candidate in the Democratic primary for the District 5 seat on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Barb Fuller, one of the three road commissioners, made several points in response to the board’s discussion. She noted that there are 20 townships in Washtenaw County, and so far this year the road commission has gone to nine of those townships for annual meetings. Every year, the road commission hears from supervisors, township boards and residents directly, she said, and is paying attention to the problems, the needs, and desires of the local units of government and their citizens. The current geographic distribution of the road commissioners is refreshing, Fuller said, and they take that responsibility very seriously.

Fuller reported that there’s been fairly uniform support and interest from all of the townships about special assessment districts – the approach that Scio Township has taken. They like the idea of putting money from an SAD directly to support roads in that township. “It’s not going somewhere else to be put through the meat grinder and redistributed with some crazy formula, so that when it comes back, nothing happens,” she said. The road commission staff, including Roy Townsend, has been outstanding in working collaboratively and creatively with the townships to find ways to meet their needs, Fuller said.

Funding for roads will need to come from local sources, Fuller said, and the SADs are a viable way to do that.

Regarding Conan Smith’s idea of assuming the duties and responsibilities of the road commission and then delegating them back to the road commission, Fuller said she wasn’t sure that was legally feasible. “I question whether that’s even defensible legally,” she said.

Fuller also responded to Smith’s idea of eliminating trips through telecommuting. “I would suggest that you folks look at making broadband ubiquitous across the county,” she said. Referring to Gene DeRossett’s comment that Manchester schools have provided iPads for their students, Fuller pointed out that some of those kids can’t use them from home because they have no access to the Internet. So for those commissioners who take access to broadband as a given, she said, “trust me – there are parts of the county where they can’t get a signal at all.”

Regardless of whether the sunset clause remains in place or is eliminated, Fuller said there’s a window of opportunity now for more collaboration and long-term planning because of the attitude of people serving on the road commission board and staff. She asked what the county board hoped to achieve by expanding the road commission board to five members. “What is it that’s missing today that that would accomplish?”

The road commission is more than willing to work with the county board, Fuller said. “Give us a chance to address your concerns and please always assume that we’re really willing and ready to work with you. Please don’t assume it in the other direction.”

Responding to public commentary, Conan Smith said that special assessment districts are a good way to overcome a tactical challenge, “but I hope that it is not our long-term solution.” The county has a network of roads that everyone relies on, he said – whether the road is in front of your house and you use it every day, or it’s 10 miles away and you use it occasionally. Even though he doesn’t live in Dexter Township, for example, Smith said he still benefits from a good quality transportation infrastructure there, “and I frankly should have some participatory responsibility to make sure that network is good.”

The SAD approach and the localization of that responsibility is admirable, Smith said, “but it should not be our answer as a society to make it one small community’s problem, or one individual’s problem or one small neighborhood’s problem that our road network is broken. It’s all of our responsibility, and we should find a way that we all together invest in making it well.”

Next Steps

Three items related to the road commission appear on the board’s May 7 agenda: (1) a resolution accepting the recommendations of the board’s road commission subcommittee; (2) a letter to the state House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, urging passage of HB 5117 and 5118; and (3) a discussion item on options for road funding.

A draft resolution was circulated at the April 17 working session, to put a countywide road millage on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot. The resolved clauses from that draft resolution state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners for places the following question before the qualified voters of Washtenaw County on the November 5, 2014 ballot:

Shall the millage rate limitation imposed on all taxable property within the County of Washtenaw, Michigan, be increased by 0.5 mills ($0.50 of each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a period of four (4) years, 2014 through 2017, inclusive, for purposes of providing a fund for the reconstruction, resurfacing, preservation, and related preparation of roads, streets, paths, other transit infrastructure and existing indebtedness thereof in Washtenaw County; and shall the County levy such increase in millage for such purposes, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $7,152,232? This revenue will be managed by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners and, as required by law, portions may be subject to capture by tax increment finance authorities in the county.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 50% of gross revenue generated by this levy shall be earmarked for use in that city, township or village which generated such revenue, less any amounts captured by tax increment finance authorities in that municipality.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 10% of the revenue remaining after the initial allocations to cities, villages and townships shall be used for non-motorized transportation throughout the county.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the remaining revenue shall be allocated to projects throughout the county based on use, need, and impact to the traveling public.

Another possibility is for the county board to levy a millage under Act 283. A draft resolution that’s been circulated among commissioners calls for levying a 1 mill tax in December 2014, which would generate $14.34 million “to repair 2013–14 winter damage to the roads, streets and paths in Washtenaw County.”

The resolution also addresses concerns about the potential legal issues related to Act 283. From the draft resolution:

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel is directed to provide an exhaustive formal written opinion, by September 30, 2014, which clearly and convincingly details the exact mechanism under which Act 283 of 1909 taxes may be levied in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people; and that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners waives any attorney/client privilege concerning this opinion.

FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners asks the county’s legislative delegation, State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge and Adam Zemke, to request an Attorney General opinion regarding the ability for counties to levy a tax under Act 283 of 1909 in excess of Article IX, Section 6 constitutional limits without a vote of the people.

In addition, the May 8 working session agenda includes the topic of possible expansion of the road commission board.

The May 7 and May 8 meetings both begin at 6:30 p.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

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!

In addition to condemning the right-to-work law and urging the state legislature to pass SB 95 and SB 96 – bills that would repeal the law – LaBarre’s resolution also “directs the county administrator and the director of human resources to engage in expedited negotiations, as requested by the unions, with the goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a letter of understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.”

This is the same approach recently authorized by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board at its Jan. 17, 2013 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA OK's Labor, Agency Fee Accords"]

LaBarre, who took office in early January, had previously indicated his interest in bringing forward a resolution opposing the right-to-work law. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he led a meeting on Jan. 3 with a lengthy discussion of that issue. [Chronicle coverage: "County Board Weighs Right-to-Work Response"]

The controversial right-to-work law was passed late last year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The law, which takes effect in March, will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are Democrats, including LaBarre.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Dan Smith attempted to ascertain the cost to the county of entering into these new union agreements, if they are challenged in court. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, said he didn’t want to speculate about possible costs. He indicated that costs could vary widely, depending on how a case plays out in court and whether it is appealed.

Smith characterized the language in the resolution as “over the top” and said it contained offensive rhetoric. He told commissioners that he had crafted two alternative versions of the resolution – one that eliminated the offensive rhetoric [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #1], and another that removed language that was extraneous to county policy [.pdf of Dan Smith's alternative resolution #2]. However, he did not formally offer the resolutions for consideration.

Before the vote, LaBarre defended his own resolution, saying it was important to show support for the workforce and that some form of action is warranted in this situation.

The board later entered into a nearly three-hour closed session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiation strategy. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m.

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

In addition to formally condemning the right-to-work law and urging the state legislature to pass SB 95 and SB 96 – bills that would repeal the law – LaBarre’s resolution also “directs the County Administrator and the Director of Human Resources to engage in expedited negotiations, as requested by the Unions, with the goal of reaching four (4) year agreements to protect and extend each bargaining unit’s union security provisions, as well as enter into a Letter of Understanding separate from the existing collective bargaining agreements for a period of ten (10) years.”

This is the same approach recently authorized by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board at its Jan. 17, 2013 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA OK's Labor, Agency Fee Accords"]

LaBarre – an Ann Arbor commissioner representing District 7, who took office in early January – had previously indicated his interest in bringing forward a resolution opposing the right-to-work law. As chair of the board’s working sessions, he led a meeting on Jan. 3 with a lengthy discussion of that issue. [Chronicle coverage: "County Board Weighs Right-to-Work Response"]

The controversial right-to-work law was passed late last year by the Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The law, which takes effect in March, will make it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners – including LaBarre – are Democrats.

Unions represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in Washtenaw County government.

The county board’s Feb. 6 meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. in the county administration building at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733, the county government’s largest union. (Photos by the writer.)

The working session included presentations by one of the county’s Lansing lobbyists; labor attorney Paul Gallagher; and Mary Kerr – president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Kerr told commissioners that Washtenaw County brings in an estimated $12 million annually from the training conferences held here by three major unions. She said the CVB – which is funded through an accommodations tax levied by the county – will work to ensure that the unions feel welcome, but she has not had any conversations yet to gauge their reactions to the new right-to-work law.

Gallagher was less circumspect, saying he’s concerned about the potential loss of business if unions decide to move their training to a state that doesn’t have right-to-work laws.

The Michigan legislation – supported by the Republican-controlled House and Senate and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder – made it illegal to require employees to support unions financially as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, seven of the nine commissioners are Democrats.

The legislation, which will take effect in March of 2013, received national attention and followed a failed ballot initiative by labor to protect collective bargaining rights in the state Constitution. That effort – Proposal 12-2 – was not supported by a majority of voters in the Nov. 6 election.

At the Jan. 3 working session, Conan Smith questioned Gallagher about details of state and federal labor laws, exploring the latitude that the county might have in supporting unions that represent 85% of the 1,321 employees in county government. He floated several ideas that commissioners might consider pursuing.

For example, most current union contracts expire on Dec. 31, 2013. Because the right-to-work law doesn’t take effect until March of this year, the county has until then to work with the unions and possibly extend their contracts beyond the end of 2013. If that happens before March, then the unions could continue to collect “agency fees” from employees who don’t want to join the union but who are still part of the bargaining unit that the union represents. Though the practice would be illegal for future contracts, it could remain in place for the duration of the extended agreements.

Additionally, Smith said there are items in the union contracts that might set the stage for a division of employees into three distinct groups. Two of those groups exist now: (1) unionized employees, and (2) non-union management employees. There’s the potential for a third group, Smith said: Non-union, non-management workers who have made the choice to opt-out of the union and the benefits that the union provides, be it economic, social, protective or anything else. Those benefits, in his opinion, shouldn’t accrue “to those people who don’t pay to play.”

Smith told commissioners: “I hope we are comparatively aggressive in our stance of supporting our labor partners and finding innovative ways that we can test this new world.” He hopes to make sure that the benefits of union membership are clear before people make the decision about whether to join. The point is not to coerce them to join or discourage them from joining, he said, but just to make sure they understand very clearly what opportunities they have as union members.

Smith said there are a number of places in the current union contracts where the county can make that “imminently clear.” And there are a number of places in the county’s practices where they can make that clear, too, he said. “I think if we do that through practice, undoubtedly we’ll be challenged – and I for one am quite comfortable taking that challenge forward and being the test case to determine the extent to which this law applies to our public employees.”

Smith – who is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren – does not believe the majority of legislators would be willing to amend the right-to-work law, and that lobbying them to do so would probably be a waste of time.

Commissioners also heard from two labor leaders on Jan. 3: Caryette Fenner, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) Local 2733, the county government’s largest union with about 700 members; and Nancy Heine, president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 supervisors. Both Fenner and Heine expressed concerns amid an uncertain future. “What could potentially happen with this law is that it will render us useless,” Heine said. “We will have no resources to defend any of our members.”

It’s unclear how far the majority of commissioners would be willing to go in challenging the right-to-work law. At the Jan. 2 board meeting, the two Republican commissioners – Dan Smith and Alicia Ping – indicated they did not want to debate the issue. However, there was more clear support for sending a signal to the labor unions that do their training in Washtenaw County that they are welcome here. Andy LaBarre, who led his first meeting as chair of the working session, offered to draft a resolution to that effect for the board to consider.

Legislative Update

Gary E. Owen of Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI), the county’s lobbying firm, briefed commissioners about the right-to-work legislation. He began by cautioning that he’s not an attorney or an expert in labor policy, and deferred questions on policy implications to the county’s legal counsel.

Two right-to-work bills were considered by the state legislature: (1) House Bill 4003, which affected public-sector employees, and (2) Senate Bill 116, which addressed unions in the private sector. Both were introduced in 2011 “and just kind of sat there,” Owen said. For the first two years of his administration, Gov. Rick Snyder had made it pretty clear that right-to-work legislation was not part of his agenda, Owen noted. But almost immediately after the Nov. 6, 2012 election, it did become a priority for Snyder. So with only nine days left in the legislative calendar – the lame duck session – the House and Senate leadership declared it was a priority, too. The bills moved through the legislature in about seven days, and Snyder quickly signed them into law. “That’s really how it went down,” Owen said.

Legislative Update: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) wondered how this process compared to typical legislative proceedings. He noted that the legislation creating a regional transit authority (RTA) went through a lengthy process with committee hearings and other input. Did the right-to-work bills go through the same kind of public vetting?

Owen replied that right-to-work was probably an exception to the rule, as far as the process in Lansing is concerned. It’s a very emotional, hotly contested issue, he added, and legislators likely already knew where they stood on it. That’s not an excuse, he said – that’s just the way it is. He said he’d classify the issue as “not lobby-able.” The leadership decided they wanted to do it, and even though there were 15,000 people in and around the capital protesting it, the legislation still moved ahead.

Economic Impact

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, was asked to talk about the possible economic impact of the state legislation on Washtenaw County. Tom Lamb, the new chair of the Ann Arbor CVB who also is general manager of the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest, was also on hand.

Kerr started by providing what she described as high-level data. There are three major unions that hold training events in Washtenaw County: (1) the United Association (UA) of Plumbers and Pipefitters, who’ve been coming to the county for one week in August for 23 years; (2) the National Training Institute for electricians, put on by the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee (NJATC), has been coming to Ann Arbor for the past four years during the last week in July and first week in August; and (3) the instructor training program for the ironworkers union – the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers – that’s been holding its annual instructor training program at Washtenaw Community College in June for the past three years.

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Tom Lamb, chair of the CVB board. Lamb is also general manager of the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest.

The estimated total economic impact of these three union events is about $12 million, Kerr said. She also provided a breakdown of that amount. The three unions account for 22,000 hotel rooms, or $2.2 million. They also bring in $2.3 million for local restaurants. Anecdotally, she said, Mike Kabat – the owner of Haab’s Restaurant in Ypsilanti – equates the union business to seven University of Michigan home football games. A combined $3.5 million is spent on entertainment, transportation, recreation and shopping, with the balance of that $12 million paid for facilities and services at local colleges and universities.

The United Association views it as a partnership with the community, Kerr said. The reason they chose this area – and the reason they stay – is Washtenaw Community College, she added. The union also appreciates the support of the community and of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs, she said. And that CVB support is possible because of the county board’s continued support of those entities, Kerr noted.

By way of background, the county is the governmental unit that’s responsible for levying an accommodations tax primarily on local hotels and motels. In 2011 the county collected $3.99 million in accommodation taxes. The majority of those funds are distributed to the county’s two convention & visitors bureaus – in Ann Arbor ($2.69 million in 2011) and Ypsilanti ($898,563).

Kerr noted that this year is the UA’s 60th anniversary of training, and they’ll be bringing additional groups to this area, including some people who will come prior to the training sessions. The UA also has a new training agreement with the union in Australia, so there will be an Australian contingency coming to Washtenaw County this year. The union will also be making additional investments at its training facility at WCC, she said.

Another example of the UA’s partnership with the community is its 5K run to raise money for the Semper Fi Fund, which supports wounded soldiers. Last year they raised about $27,000 for the charity, and they plan to make it an annual event, Kerr said.

It’s the CVB’s goal to keep these events in Washtenaw County, Kerr said, and to share with the unions that the county appreciates their business and will provide the same level of service in the future.

Economic Impact: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) observed that Washtenaw County was able to court the unions away from other states, and he wondered what the impact of the right-to-work law would have on the attractiveness of this area now, for these unions or others who might consider holding events here.

Kerr said she didn’t have any experience with that, so it would be difficult to answer. Smith pressed, wondering if unions have indicated in the past that they’ve been less interested in supporting right-to-work states.

Kerr noted that the NJATC had been recruited from Tennessee, which is a right-to-work state. The union’s director of training has cited the training facilities here and the general community support, she said, but she’s never had any specific conversations with union officials about right-to-work.

Smith ventured that there are likely many reasons that factor in to the unions’ decision to hold their events here, and that the university facilities likely weigh heavily in their decision-making. But he imagined that from a philosophical standpoint, the right-to-work law at least would dampen their enthusiasm for coming here. He asked Kerr to inquire about the issue directly when she talks to union representatives in the future, and to share that information with the county board.

Labor’s Perspective

Paul Gallagher, a local labor attorney, spoke about the impact on Washtenaw County government as an employer. He noted that two of the 17 unions that represent county employees – the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) and the Command Officers Association of Michigan (COAM) – will be unaffected. That’s because a different law applies to public safety unions, and state legislators didn’t touch it. Those two unions account for about 300 of the 1,321 county employees.

In general, about 85% of the entire county government workforce are union members.

All 17 unions for county employees currently have a “union security” clause in their collective bargaining agreements, making the county an “agency shop,” Gallagher explained. The clause requires that employees in job classifications that are represented by unions must either become a full member or pay an “agency fee.” The agency fee is nearly identical to the amount of union dues that members pay, Gallagher said.

For the 15 county unions that are affected by the right-to-work law, the security clause can’t be included in future collective bargaining agreements – the law makes agency shops illegal. So employees won’t have to be union members or pay the agency fee, even though they would still be covered by the union-negotiated contract – as far as wages, hours and working conditions – and the union will be obligated to represent them for situations like discharge or grievances.

Gallagher noted that some of these 15 unions probably won’t be seriously affected, and cited the assistant prosecuting attorneys union – the Assistant Prosecutors Association – as an example. People in those positions are well paid, union dues are relatively low, and the union is run locally – that is, it’s not affiliated with a state or national organization.

But for workers who aren’t as well paid, like clerical staff, Gallagher ventured that many employees will likely opt out of paying the unions, because they want that money in their paycheck instead. So the net effect is that there will be union members working next to people who aren’t in the union, but getting the same level of representation.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., standing, talks with Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau, and Tom Lamb, chair of the Ann Arbor CVB board.

As far as a timeline, Gallagher explained that the new right-to-work law would take effect when new contracts are negotiated. Most of the current union contracts for county employees expire on Dec. 31, 2013.

Gallagher also spoke more generally about the impact of the right-to-work law on the economy. He noted that he has represented UA Local 190 in Washtenaw County since 1988. Before moving to Washtenaw County, the UA had held its training conferences at Purdue University for 37 years, he said. But when a general contractor for Purdue hired a subcontractor that didn’t use union labor – and didn’t relent when the UA protested – a year later the union took its training elsewhere.

Gallagher said he didn’t know if the right-to-work law would attract a manufacturer here from somewhere else, and whether that type of business would offset the loss of these union events, if the unions decide to leave.

For Washtenaw County, the union business comes during the summer when there typically isn’t a lot going on, Gallagher said. The unions love the labor-friendly atmosphere here, he noted – and they love to see the construction-related cranes in the air when they drive into town. His primary concern is for the potential loss of business if unions decide to move their training to a state that doesn’t have right-to-work laws.

Labor’s Perspective: Board Discussion – State and Federal Law

Conan Smith asked Paul Gallagher about the relationship between the federal Taft–Hartley Act, which sets the tradition of having labor unions represent everyone in their bargaining unit, and Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act. Are they separate, or is one subject to the other?

Taft-Hartley, passed in 1947, was basically an amendment to the Wagner Act of 1935, Gallagher explained. The Wagner Act, also known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), established the right of people to form and join unions. It was legally challenged, but ultimately came under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce – and that’s what gave Congress the authority to create labor laws. It was one of the first instances of using the so-called “commerce clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which was also used later for civil rights legislation, he noted.

However, public employers aren’t covered by these federal labor laws, because the workers don’t cross state lines. In Michigan, the state legislature adopted a separate Public Employment Relations Act (PERA). The state and federal laws are similar, but “run on separate tracks,” Gallagher said.

Smith noted that one of the clauses that remains in PERA is the prohibition of the employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their status as a union member or non-union member. What’s the general case law interpreting that? he asked.

Gallagher replied that obviously you can’t tell someone they’ll be fired if they don’t drop their union membership. Employers can’t encourage – or discourage – union membership, and are supposed to leave internal union affairs alone. There are certain things that employers aren’t even supposed to inquire about, like how many votes the union leadership got in their elections or who should be the union steward. On the other hand, he said, unions aren’t supposed to tell employers who should sit at the bargaining table, either. It’s supposed to be an arm’s-length relationship, Gallagher said.

Smith then commented on the tradition of the union providing the same benefits to every employee in their bargaining unit, saying “I don’t find basis in PERA for that. I see the tradition emanating from Taft-Hartley. Is it directly indicated in PERA?”

Gallagher explained that the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC), which administers PERA, has ruled in several cases that if an issue isn’t addressed in PERA – but is addressed in the Wagner Act or Taft-Hartley – then the federal law will apply. If MERC hasn’t addressed the issue at all, court cases rely on federal law.

Smith asked who serves on MERC. Gallagher couldn’t recall all the members, but said they were usually all labor attorneys. There are three members appointed by the governor, who obviously appoints people who are friendly to his agenda, Gallagher said. [The MERC commissioners are Nino Erwin Green, a Democrat from Escanaba (term ends June 30, 2013); Edward D. Callaghan, a Republican from Royal Oak (term ends June 30, 2014); and Bob LaBrant, a Republican from Perry (term ends June 30, 2015).]

Smith noted that in labor contracts for the city of Ann Arbor, there a clause that discusses the right of the union to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. “That makes complete sense in a closed shop environment, where everyone is a member,” he said. But in an open shop environment where some people aren’t union members, is there any restriction to labor not representing those non-union workers? he asked.

The union is required under law to be the exclusive representative of everyone in that bargaining unit, Gallagher explained. Smith replied that he knows that’s a requirement written into the labor contracts, “but I don’t see that in PERA.” Gallagher said he’d find the specific reference to that in the state law and send it to commissioners.

Smith pointed to the philosophy behind the support for right-to-work laws. During the debate on this issue in Lansing, right-to-work supporters would say that if the union is good, then everyone will belong – it’s an open marketplace. “But the fact of the matter is that it’s not an open market,” Smith said. “So it makes it quite difficult for our labor unions to show to everybody the true benefit of being a part of that bargaining unit, if everyone gets the benefit that they then go fight for.”

One of the things that Smith said he’s interested in is setting up “opportunities for employees to make the choice – openly, honestly and fairly – about whether or not they want to belong to the union.” But he also wants to establish an open, honest and fair process by which employees see the benefits or lack of benefits when they’re making that choice. The most striking barrier to Washtenaw County, from a policy standpoint, seems to be the exclusive representation clause, he said.

Gallagher pointed out that exclusive representation is the law. Smith replied that this seems to be a MERC issue, as the entity that oversees PERA. “If we were to establish a policy that was then challenged, it would go to MERC,” Smith said. Gallagher indicated that Smith was correct.

As a state statute, Smith said, PERA is quite flexible to the kinds of things that he’s interested in pursuing. It’s MERC’s interpretations of the law in its previous case filings and decisions – prior to enactment of the right-to-work law – that call into question the approach he’d like to pursue. “Perhaps in a post right-to-work environment, MERC might see the fairness issue differently.”

Washtenaw County commissioners Yousef Rabhi (standing) and Alicia Ping. In the background is commissioner Felicia Brabec.

Gallagher noted that in other right-to-work states, unions are still viewed as having exclusive representation. “I’m sure MERC will follow that as it currently stands,” he said.

Smith asked for the justification of that view. Gallagher reported that it’s viewed as the nature of collective bargaining – the employees have a choice, and they express their choice by voting to have a union or not. After a majority of employees in a unit votes to have union representation, the union is the exclusive representative of employees in that unit.

In that situation, if a union negotiates a salary increase for its members, then the increase applies to non-members as well. “I don’t understand the philosophical grounding for the logic there,” Smith said. “What’s the basis for that?”

Gallagher replied that it’s simply the basis of collective bargaining – a group of people bargaining with an employer. At a certain point, if a majority of people didn’t want to belong to the union, then the union would be subject to decertification, he said. The union would be dissolved, and there would either be no union representation, or another union could step in to take its place. By way of example, Gallagher reported that recently in Washtenaw County, the clerical workers at the 14th District Court were represented by the Teamsters, but voted to decertify that union and switch their affiliation to the Technical-Police Officers Association of Michigan.

So the bargaining unit is the arbiter of who receives a benefit, Smith said. How is that bargaining unit established?

Gallagher explained that the unit is established by showing a “community of interest,” based on a common work location, supervision, rates of pay, duties and other factors. You can’t put skilled tradespeople in with custodians, because their jobs are so different. So the idea is to find the most people who share those commonalities within a workplace.

Smith noted that this union process has been in place 70-80 years in a closed-shop environment. When did the right-to-work laws begin to emerge? Have the National Labor Relations Board or labor negotiators adjusted their positions because of it?

Gallagher explained that in a closed shop, everyone is a union member. On the other end, open shops are found in right-to-work states, where you don’t have to join a union. Until recently, he said, Michigan had “agency shops,” where employees aren’t required to be union members, but they have to pay an agency fee. Most states that are open shop (right-to-work) or agency shop states made that decision decades ago, Gallagher said, and have stayed that way.

Smith was curious if Gallagher had seen any trends on the NLRB as states move from being closed or agency shops to being open shop states. Gallagher indicated that it’s too soon to see any trends. Until the recent right-to-work laws were passed in Indiana and Michigan, everything has been “set in stone for decades” regarding these issues.

Smith then directed his comments to other county commissioners: “I hope we are comparatively aggressive in our stance of supporting our labor partners and finding innovative ways that we can test this new world.” He hopes to make sure that the benefits of union membership are clear before people make the decision about whether to join. The point is not to coerce them to join or discourage them from joining, he said, but just to make sure they understand very clearly what opportunities they have, or not.

Smith said there are a number of places in the current union contracts where the county can make that “imminently clear.” And there are a number of places in the county’s practices where they can make that clear, too, he said. “I think if we do that through practice, undoubtedly we’ll be challenged – and I for one am quite comfortable taking that challenge forward and being the test case to determine the extent to which this law applies to our public employees.”

Responding to a query from Rolland Sizemore Jr., Gallagher said that Indiana had passed its right-to-work legislation in 2012. Sizemore then asked if there’s any data showing the differences between states with open shops compared to closed shops. Gallagher replied that typically wages and benefits are lower in open shop states, but it’s hard to trace that specifically to right-to-work laws.

Sizemore said that he’s from a union family, and that unions created the middle class in this country. It makes him “darn sad” that there’s a movement toward creating the haves and have-nots, and “I’m going to miss that middle section.”

In response to a question from Dan Smith, Gallagher said that you need at least two people to make up a bargaining unit, but there’s no upper limit to the size. Based on previous MERC decisions, the intent is to create the largest possible grouping that still makes sense in terms of a bargaining unit of common interest.

Felicia Brabec wondered whether there could be a bargaining unit consisting of people who did not want union representation. Gallagher said that MERC wouldn’t allow a unit to be created based on an unwillingness to pay union dues.

Labor’s Perspective: Board Discussion – Local Union Leaders

Two presidents of unions representing Washtenaw County employees attended the Jan. 3 working session.

Caryette Fenner – president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) Local 2733, the county government’s largest union – told commissioners that she’d been in contact with AFSCME Council 25 at the statewide level, who are working with national AFSCME representatives. In the meantime, she said she’s been trying to get information out to the membership of Local 2733 so they’ll know what the right-to-work law represents, how it affects the union, and to allow them to make their own decisions. “I think that’s the best that I can do at this point,” Fenner said.

Nancy Heine – president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 supervisors – stressed that even though the law has been signed, it doesn’t take effect until March. And because most union contracts run through Dec. 31, 2013, the law doesn’t apply until after that point, when new contracts are in place. “This is an interesting period for us,” she said.

Heine also commented on how the right-to-work law will affect the unions and their work defending employees through the grievance process. Even if a large number of employees decide not to join, the unions will still be obligated to represent them, she said. There are labor attorneys at the AFSCME Council 25 state level, and a Council 25 representative – “all of those folks get paid with union dues,” she said. The local level receives only a small percentage of dues. The majority of funds go to the state, national or international levels, she said. If fewer people are paying dues, Heine noted, the unions will have fewer resources. “What could potentially happen with this law is that it will render us useless,” she said. “We will have no resources to defend any of our members.”

Heine noted that her union has four cases before an arbitration panel, but in the future, the positions on that panel will be cut back and arbitration cases could potentially stay in limbo for years. “This impact is so significant and has such long-term consequences that I can’t even think of everything that may potentially happen with this change.”

Yousef Rabhi responded, saying he wanted to share some of his thoughts. He reported that he had been in Lansing for the large right-to-work rallies last year – and it had been a very moving experience for him. It was a day when the state went the wrong direction, he said, and when people spoke with one voice against it.

His grandfather had been a UAW organizer, and Rabhi said he wouldn’t have been able to go to college were it not for his grandfather’s pension dollars to help pay tuition. So unions are very important to him on a personal level, Rabhi said. In his first term as commissioner – in 2011 and 2012 – unions played an important role in balancing the county’s budget. “They came to the table and made some huge cuts in their compensation.” He didn’t think county commissioners could overstate their thanks for that. It’s an example of how unions work well for the public and for the employees they represent, he said. It’s important for him to support the county’s unions and the work that they do.

Labor’s Perspective: Board Discussion – Possible Response?

Referring to the union training sessions held in Washtenaw County, Andy LaBarre noted that the thought of losing a large percentage of people who drive the economy “is pretty scary.” He thought Conan Smith had done a great job in outlining some of the policy considerations that the board might want to explore.

Andy LaBarre, right, confers with Pete Simms of the Washtenaw County clerk’s office. LaBarre, a county commissioner from Ann Arbor, was preparing to start the Jan. 3 special working session – his first as working session chair.

It’s worth considering some sort of response at some point, LaBarre said, adding that he didn’t want to presume it was an issue they could work out that night.

Conan Smith indicated that LaBarre had previously articulated two separate issues to him “offline.” One is the question of sending a signal to the labor unions that do their training in Washtenaw County that they are welcome here. The board might put together a resolution to that effect.

But Smith also wants to dig  more deeply into the situation with the county’s own bargaining units. He didn’t think the state legislature would take up any amendments to the right-to-work law in the coming year. So asking the legislature and the governor to amend PERA “probably would be a waste of our time,” he said. He’d support making that pitch, if others felt it would be useful. [Smith is married to one of those legislators – Democrat Sen. Rebekah Warren of District 18, which covers Ann Arbor.]

But Smith wanted to look at the options that the county has in terms of “framing the labor practices here in Washtenaw County.” Because the law doesn’t take effect until March, the county has the option of working with the unions to extend their contracts beyond the end of 2013. If that happens before March, then the county would remain an agency shop for the duration of the extended agreements.

Secondly, he said there are items in the contracts that might set the stage for a division of employees into three segments.

At this point, LaBarre interrupted Smith, saying that he had received some advice from Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, that the board shouldn’t publicly discuss labor strategy.

Smith said he appreciated that advice, but it was an issue on which he disagreed with the administration. “I am a public official – I’m not management. I do vote on your contracts … but what I’m talking about now is public policy. This isn’t about strategy around negotiations. This is about how we set the framework as the policy for this organization – whether we support labor unions or not, and how we move forward as an entity.”

He said he appreciated Heidt’s sensitivity to his statements, and “I know I sometimes freak out our partners in labor as well, when I talk like this. But bear with me – we’re in new times.”

Continuing, Smith said that if the county is going to be in a right-to-work environment, the county should look carefully at three distinct groupings of employees. Two of those groups exist now: (1) unionized employees, and (2) non-union management employees. There’s the potential for a third group, Smith said: Non-union, non-management workers who have made the choice to opt-out of the union and the benefits that the union provides, be it economic, social, protective or anything else.

Those benefits, in his opinion, shouldn’t accrue “to those people who don’t pay to play.” It would be akin to the board putting a tax on the ballot that a majority of voters approve, but then giving people the option of not paying it while still receiving the services. “That is obscene, and we shouldn’t be forwarding that as a policy environment here in Washtenaw County.” In future contracts, the county should be assertive in establishing the baseline “from a values standpoint and a policy standpoint that that isn’t acceptable to us,” he said.

LaBarre indicated that he shared Smith’s view on the first issue – of sending a supportive message to be welcoming to the unions already here and those who come in for special events. He’s hopeful that the board can develop a resolution reflecting those sentiments, not just because of the economic benefit but also because of the mutually beneficial relationships that have been built. He volunteered to help craft such a resolution.

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

Absent: Ronnie Peterson.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

In an email sent to commissioners and commissioners-elect on Dec. 30, Yousef Rabhi – who was elected chair earlier at the Jan. 2 meeting – announced the intent to call a special session: “Second, there is a group of Commissioners (myself included) that wish to call a Special Working Session on January 3rd at 6:00 pm. Technically, this could have been done last year as there was more than 1/3 of the Board that desired to call the meeting. However, Curt [Hedger, the county's corporation counsel] advised that it would be best to call the meeting from the floor of the BOC meeting. The meeting would be for the purpose of discussing the implications of the ‘Right to Work’ legislation on the County.”

The state law – supported by the Republican-controlled House and Senate and the Republican governor – made it illegal to require employees to financially support unions as a condition of their employment. It’s viewed by Democrats as a way to undercut support for labor organizations that have historically backed the Democratic Party. The legislation, which will take effect in March of 2013, received national attention. It followed a failed ballot initiative by labor to protect collective bargaining rights in the state Constitution. That effort – Proposal 12-2 – was not supported by a majority of voters in the Nov. 6 election. [links to Public Act 348 of 2012 and Public Act 349 of 2012]

The majority of the county government’s 1,321 employees are represented by labor unions. All but two of the nine county commissioners are Democrats. The Republican commissioners are Dan Smith (District 2) and Alicia Ping (District 3). Both Smith and Ping told their fellow commissioners that they were interested in focusing on how the county might be affected, both in terms of the county government employees as well as the impact on the local economy. However, both also indicated that they did not want the board to advocate for the repeal of the legislation. Andy LaBarre, an Ann Arbor Democrat who had been elected chair of the working session earlier in the meeting, said the session is intended to be broad based, and could include a discussion about how the board would like to voice the sentiment of the county on this legislation.

The Jan. 3 special session, which is open to the public, begins at 6 p.m. at the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

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

The authority would cover the city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw. The governing board would consist of two appointees from each county, one appointee from Detroit, and one non-voting member appointed by the governor. The move to engage in an RTA board appointment process comes after the Ann Arbor city council voted unanimously on Dec. 10, 2012 to ask that the legislature amend the legislation to exclude Washtenaw County from the RTA. The council’s position is one that’s consistent with that of a Nov. 7, 2012 vote of the Washtenaw County board.

Applications are being sought for the two Washtenaw County positions on the RTA board. Applicants must be residents and registered electors of Washtenaw County. County employees, elected officials or employees of a public transportation provider – like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – are not eligible.

The legislation does not appear explicitly to exclude the possibility that a board member of another public transportation provider could serve on the board of the RTA. And a draft document containing the AATA’s preliminary analysis of RTA board eligibility – distributed at a Dec. 11 meeting of the AATA board’s planning and development committee – concludes that current AATA board members would be eligible to serve on the RTA board.

The issue of simultaneous service on two different transportation authority boards arose in connection with the recent incorporation of  The Washtenaw Ride under Act 196 – when AATA’s expectation was that its current board members would be able to serve on the board of the newly incorporated countywide authority. The Ann Arbor city attorney’s office took a different view. Ultimately, the city of Ann Arbor followed nearly every other jurisdiction in the county in opting out of The Washtenaw Ride. [See "Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board" and "Ann Arbor Opts Out of Countywide Vehicle"]

According to the Washtenaw County press release, preference for RTA board positions will be given to applicants with “transportation/land use planning experience, work in the transit profession, or those with leadership experience within the Metropolitan Detroit region.”

In an email to The Chronicle on Dec. 14, Smith stated that there are “no shoe ins” for the appointments.

According to the RTA legislation, board appointments need to be made within 90 days of the creation of the RTA. The deadline for submitting a cover letter and resume is 3 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 21. Application materials should be emailed to Lisa Moutinho at moutinhl@ewashtenaw.org. An advisory committee will review applications and select between two to four people to interview. A public hearing will be held on Thursday, Dec. 27 at 8 a.m. at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center, Room A, 4135 Washtenaw Ave. Candidates must be available on that date for in-person or video conference interviews.

The press release states that in addition to Smith, the following people will be part of the advisory committee to review applications and interview candidates: Rolland Sizemore Jr, a county commissioner representing District 5 (Ypsilanti Township); Michael Ford, CEO of Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; Bill Milliken Jr. of Milliken Realty Co. and son of former Gov. Bill Milliken; and Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living.

The press release also states that Yousef Rabhi will be on the committee, and refers to him as “chair elect” for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. It is known that Rabhi, a Democrat representing one of three Ann Arbor districts on the board, intends to seek the position of board chair. However, he has not yet been elected. Officers of the county board are elected at their first meeting in January – on Jan. 2, 2013.

The legislation states that the county executive – or county board chair, in counties like Washtenaw where the executive is not an elected position – is authorized to make appointments to the RTA board. Smith, a Democrat representing one of the districts in Ann Arbor, has served as chair for the past two years. It’s the county board’s custom to rotate that position, and elections will be held on Jan. 2, 2013 for the next board chair. There is no stipulation that the RTA appointments must be made in 2012, only that they be made within 90 days of the RTA’s creation.

Smith, who also serves as executive director of the Ferndale-based Michigan Suburbs Alliance, has been a prominent advocate for the RTA. The Washtenaw County board originally supported the regional initiative, but on Nov. 7 the board voted 6-4 to rescind its previous support for the authority. [.pdf of resolution to rescind support of the RTA]

And earlier this month, the Ann Arbor city council unanimously passed a resolution objecting to the inclusion of Washtenaw County in the RTA. The resolution called the bill’s requirements for implementation of rail-based transportation “onerous and offensive.” Several Ann Arbor officials, including mayor John Hieftje, are strong supporters of commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Wants Washtenaw Out of RTA"]

See also: “Regional Transit Authority Board: 17 Apply“

The city of Detroit and counties of Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw are included in a regional transit authority created by state legislation passed on Dec. 6. The Ann Arbor city council wants Washtenaw County removed from the authority.

The language of the resolution was changed at the meeting to eliminate a request that Gov. Rick Snyder veto the legislation. Instead, the council substituted a request that the RTA legislation be amended to exclude Washtenaw County, where Ann Arbor is located.

However, the resolution retained other parts of its strong wording, including a reference to a provision about rail transportation – which calls the bill’s requirements for implementation of rail-based transportation “onerous and offensive.” It’s a clause in the legislation that requires a unanimous vote of the 9-member RTA board to “acquire, construct, operate, or maintain any form of rail passenger service within a public transit region.”

The RTA legislation specifically mentions “rolling rapid transit” – a system based on buses, not trains – as a possibility for four major new regional corridors: along Woodward, along Gratiot, from Pontiac to Mt. Clemens, and from Detroit to Ann Arbor. Supporters of the RTA with Washtenaw County’s current inclusion have claimed that a rail-based east-west commuter line between Ann Arbor and Detroit is still achievable, or even likely, despite the requirement of unanimous board support.

The council’s resolution reflected the fact that an east-west rail connection has been an aspiration of Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje and other local officials for several years – demonstrated in a current study being done with federal funds to determine a locally preferred alternative for the location of a new Amtrak station. But the “onerous and offensive” clause in the resolution was subjected to debate, as some councilmembers supported its removal for completely different reasons.

Councilmembers who’ve opposed Ann Arbor’s continued study of a new rail station seemed to perceive the clause to be an implicit endorsement of continued investments in that direction. But Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), who could reasonably be described as the council’s strongest advocate for transit, argued also against the “onerous and offensive” clause. His argument was based on a belief that the legislation had a mechanism to allow the newly created RTA to implement rail-based services by creating yet another transit authority – thus circumventing the unanimous voting requirement. Ultimately, there were not sufficient votes on council to remove that clause.

Besides concern about the future of commuter rail, the council’s resolution indicates concern that the inclusion of Washtenaw County in the RTA would potentially risk the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s ability to continue its role to serve effectively as a transportation provider for Ann Arbor.

In the days leading up to the meeting, staffers with the Michigan Suburbs Alliance lobbied the council not to pass its resolution, in an effort that included a claim that the Ann Arbor city council’s resolution reflected a desire to determine unilaterally the county’s transportation future. In fact, the council’s action echoes the sentiments of a recent resolution approved by the Washtenaw County board. And a resolution of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board, approved in February 2012, supported the concept of an RTA, but conditioned that support on the coordination of new funding so that existing levels of transportation services provided by the AATA are maintained.

As of noon on Dec. 12, Snyder had not yet signed the legislation – it had not yet been presented to him for his signature, according to the governor’s office.

In this report, the council deliberations at its Dec. 10 special meeting are presented in detail.

Amending Out the Request for Veto

The single item on the agenda was moved by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and seconded by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5)

Briere and Kunselman had co-sponsored the resolution with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje.

Briere led things off by indicating that there was an amendment to be offered, and she deferred to Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) to offer it.

The first of the changes seemed to be essentially in the interest of semantic coherence. The original language in the first “resolved” clause, taken literally, portrayed the RTA bill as having a particular geographic configuration, when the intent was to refer to the configuration of the RTA described in the bill.

So the first change was to strike the word “bill” from the first resolved clause.

Resolved, The City of Ann Arbor opposes the RTA bill in its current configuration that includes Washtenaw County;

He also proposed a change to a key “resolved” clause that requested the governor’s veto.

Resolved, the city requests the Governor veto the bill and return it to the Legislature with an objection to the inclusion of Washtenaw County that the legislature and governor amend the RTA in the next legislative session to remove Washtenaw County as a defined qualified region in the RTA.

Warpehoski also described a change to the title of the resolution reflecting the change to the resolved clause.

Warpehoski then explained the rationale for removing the specific call for a veto of the legislation: He believed the RTA is important for the tri-county area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. After seeing the “arm-twisting” it took to get a bill through the legislature at all, he was not willing to jeopardize the benefit of the RTA to those counties.

Warpehoski’s set of amendments was accepted as “friendly,” and did not require a council vote.

Attempted Amendments on Rail

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) then offered additional amendments. She wanted the “whereas” clauses struck from the resolution that referred to commuter rail [numbering added]:

(6) Whereas, SB 909 limits the transit options available to SE Michigan and does not acknowledge the readiness to further commuter rail service from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti, Metro airport, Dearborn and Detroit based on a decade of effort invested in planning and preparations for this regional transportation system;

(7) Whereas, SB 909 contains onerous and offensive provisions related to consideration of rail based transportation;

Kailasapathy described the two clauses as having to do with commuter rail – and she didn’t want to attach commuter rail to a discussion about the RTA. She felt that apart from the current conversation, it would be appropriate to have a discussion about whether the community is ready for rail. But she did not feel comfortable attaching that to a discussion about the RTA. However, she was supportive of extricating Washtenaw County from the RTA.

Ann Arbor city councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that one of the problems with the RTA is the confusion about its effect on future rail transportation. She noted that the legislation allows a single person to veto any effort for rail transit. That creates a real problem, she said. If an RTA board member were inclined to do so, rail transportation could be vetoed, even if Ann Arbor wanted it. That’s a problem, she said. Mayor John Hieftje called commuter rail something that’s been a part of Ann Arbor’s approved transportation plan since 2009.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she supported the resolution. She argued in support of Kailasapathy’s amendment in part by saying that “whereas” clauses don’t have an impact on the action specified in the resolution. She recalled a previous occasion when she’d brought forward a resolution and all of the “whereas” clauses were removed. Lumm indicated support for the resolution but wanted (6) and (7) removed. Lumm then made a point she makes frequently when it comes to transportation planning, which is that she feels the city should not pursue multiple initiatives simultaneously, but rather prioritize them and pursue them on a priority basis.

Lumm attributed the failure of a recent effort to expand transportation within Washtenaw County to a lack of priorities in its approach, which she contended had led to a waste of resources. She noted that the AATA’s accounting for the planning of the countywide initiative gave it a $1.4 million price tag [over the course of three years], and she lamented the fact that the city’s initial investments in the study of a preferred location for a new Amtrak station turned out not to qualify as the required match for a federal grant – resulting in the need to expend an additional $0.5 million. The “whereas” clauses perpetuate a “we want everything notion,” presupposing that commuter rail is a priority, Lumm said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took a different view of the clauses. He understood where Lumm and Kailasapathy were coming from, but he regarded the clauses as basically statements of fact. Community discussions did take place about rail, he said, and he found the “whereas” clauses to be descriptive of that effort. Whether or not someone agrees with the idea that commuter rail is something that’s important, Kunselman felt it’s important to let the state legislature know Ann Arbor has had these discussions – and that it has caused consternation in the community.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3)

Kunselman indicated that he didn’t think bus rapid transit ["rolling rapid transit"] is the best option for the east-west corridor described in the RTA legislation, saying that he thought, for example, if a bus were sent down Michigan Avenue toward Detroit, it would take “forever” to get to Detroit. He didn’t think that bus rapid transit might actually meet some need. He felt that 10 or 15 years in the future, rail would be the best option, so he felt it’s important to include the clauses that addressed rail. “We’re not green and naive when it comes to transit services for our county,” Kunselman said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the amendment, saying he’d take a different approach for that support than the one taken by Kailasapathy. Before the establishment of the RTA, there was no agency authorized to provide rail service in the east-west corridor. Because there’s now an authorized agency – in the form of the RTA – to provide that service, he didn’t see a unanimous vote by that agency’s board to be an “onerous and offensive” provision. And because the RTA was not necessarily the only agency that eventually could be authorized to provide rail services, he felt the unanimous vote didn’t impose too high a bar.

Warpehoski elaborated on other agencies that could be authorized to provide rail services by relying on a 13-page memo the council had been sent about an hour and a half before the meeting by Conan Smith, executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, who also is a Washtenaw County commissioner representing one of the districts in Ann Arbor. Smith’s memo cites a provision of the RTA legislation that states:

Sec. 7. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, an authority may do all things necessary and convenient to implement the purposes, objectives, and provisions of this act and the purposes, objectives, and powers vested in the authority or the board by this act or other law, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
…
(v) Create separate operating entities.

From this part of the legislation, Warpehoski concluded that it would be possible for the RTA to create an operating entity to implement rail service with a simple majority vote. And he counted two votes from Washtenaw County, two from Wayne County, and a vote from Detroit on the nine-member board that could be used to create a rail authority that would serve the east-west corridor. [Each of the four counties would get two seats on the board and the city of Detroit would get one.]

By way of background, a different reading of the legislation is that the language in the section “except as otherwise provided in this act” precludes the ability of the RTA to create such a rail authority – or at least would preclude the use of the RTA’s local revenues to fund the operations of such an authority. That’s because of the requirement that any determination to “acquire, construct, operate, or maintain any form of rail passenger service within a public transit region” be subjected to a unanimous vote of the board. At the city council planning session following the Dec. 10 special meeting, mayor John Hieftje indicated that was the understanding of the legislation that had been conveyed to him from the governor’s office.

Warpehoski agreed with Kunselman that bus rapid transit was not a preferred option for the east-west connection. But he did not think the language of the “whereas” clause was factually sound, so he would support the amendment.

Hieftje asked Warpehoski if it was (7) or (6) – or both – that he was in favor of eliminating. Warpehoski indicated that he had no factual disputes with (6).

So Warpehoski moved to amend Kailasapathy’s amendment to keep (6) but still remove (7). Kailasapathy appeared inclined to accept the amendment to her proposed amendment as friendly, but Jane Lumm (Ward 2) objected.

In deliberations on Warpehoski’s amendment, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) pointed to the ability of the RTA to create a separate operating entity, which could be in any mode – based on the contention in Conan Smith’s memo. So she felt that the legislation did acknowledge “the readiness to further commuter rail service from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti, Metro airport, Dearborn and Detroit,” which was counter to (6). Because of that, she was not inclined to support Warpehoski’s change, which was a proposal to leave (6) intact in the resolution – that is, to remove it as a candidate for deletion.

Outcome: Warpehoski’s change was approved. Voting yes were Warpehoski, Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Margie Teall, John Hieftje, Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere. Voting no were Marcia Higgins, Mike Anglin, Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

That meant the amendment before the council was to eliminate “whereas” clause (7). There was no further discussion on the amendment.

Outcome: The council rejected the amendment. Voting no were Taylor, Kunselman, Teall, Higgins, Anglin, and Hieftje. Voting for it were Warpehoski, Kailasapathy, Briere, Lumm and Petersen.

Main Resolution

Deliberations on the resolution commenced with only Chuck Warpehoski’s previous friendly amendments – which softened the request from a veto to having the legislation altered.

Main Resolution: Who Can Provide Rail Service?

Stephen Kunselman led things off by questioning Warpehoski’s contention that no transportation authority currently exists that could provide rail service. He wondered if it were not already provided in the state statute that an entity like the AATA could also provide rail service. So he questioned whether it was the RTA legislation that had created this ability. City attorney Stephen Postema told Kunselman he believed Kunselman was right, but couldn’t answer the question conclusively.

Just before the meeting concluded, the citation from Act 55 – under which the AATA is incorporated – was provided by the city attorney’s office, which Kunselman read aloud:

“Public transportation”, “public transportation services”, and “public transportation purposes” mean the movement of people and goods by publicly or privately owned water vehicle, bus, railroad car, rapid transit vehicle, taxicab, or other conveyance which provides general or special service to the public, but not including school buses or charter or sightseeing service.

So Kunselman concluded that the AATA already has the ability to provide rail service. He quickly added that it’s not an ability he wanted the AATA to exercise – because it’s very expensive. But he thought it’s not appropriate to think of the RTA as an entity that will provide commuter rail for Ann Arbor.

Warpehoski questioned whether Act 55 allowed for the AATA to extend operations into the geographic area of the entire corridor between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Kunselman observed that the AATA already runs express commuter bus service between Ann Arbor to Canton: “If they’re going to Canton, they might as well go to Detroit.”

Main Resolution: Federal Funds

Jane Lumm asked for some clarification about the status of the RTA as the future “designated recipient” of federal funds. Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation manager, indicated that in a geographic area where there are multiple transportation operators, there’s just one designated recipient. He gave as an example the fact that the AATA is the designated recipient for federal funds granted to Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE). The AATA receives the money directly from the federal government, and administers it by passing it on to WAVE.

Lumm asked if the RTA is created without Washtenaw County, would that mean “it’s just us versus something larger?” The question from Lumm related to Smith’s memo, which raised the specter of an RTA without Washtenaw County being less competitive for certain types of federal funding:

Particularly under the Obama administration which has indicated a clear preference for regional collaboration and metropolitan organizations, there is a reasonable risk that if AATA finds itself competing directly with an even better organized Detroit applicant, we may actually see a decrease in discretionary funding.

Cooper didn’t appear to respond directly to Lumm’s point, but described the general idea of a designated recipient as one that expedites the work of the Federal Transit Administration and makes it more efficient.

A bit later in the meeting, Sabra Briere said she got the impression that if Washtenaw County remains within the RTA, then when the AATA wishes to apply for a grant it goes through the RTA. And if AATA is applying for discretionary funds, then it would be applying in competition with other transit authorities, she ventured. Cooper allowed that she was correct, but today that kind of evaluation would be made either in Lansing by MDOT or else in Washington D.C. by the FTA. What the RTA does is bring things together at a sub-regional level, Cooper said.

Main Resolution: Disproportionate Shares?

Lumm asked about the resolution’s “whereas” clause that states:

Whereas, Washtenaw County funding will support transportation service outside of our county disproportionate to what it receives;

Cooper explained that for the local funding mechanisms that are available to the RTA, 85% of the revenue that’s generated must be invested in the county where it’s collected, which would leave 15% available for supporting other services the RTA wanted to offer outside of Washtenaw County. From the RTA legislation:

Sec. 10 (4) An authority shall ensure that not less than 85% of the money raised in each member jurisdiction through either an assessment under subsection (2) or a motor vehicle registration tax under subsection (3), or both, is expended on the public transportation service routes located in that member jurisdiction.

That provision, together with other parts of the legislation, led Cooper to conclude that an opportunity would be created for funds to be guided to other communities. Those other provisions involve the fact that the new RTA would be the designated recipient, as well as the body that reviews and approves federal and state funding. The set of criteria for evaluating how to allocate the region’s assets – all the state and federal funds that currently flow to the individual operating entities – says the RTA should consider efficient and effective service and ensure a state of good repair for the transportation system, Cooper said.

Eli Cooper, city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager and a board member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Cooper called the council’s attention to a possible comparison to the state of good repair of AATA assets and assets of other transit authorities – factors like the age of the fleet, and the number of miles driven between breakdowns. The AATA equipment is in a state of good repair, he said. [Cooper serves on the board of the AATA.]

Cooper allowed that he could not speak to the details of the condition of operating equipment for DDOT [Detroit Dept. of Transportation] or SMART [Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation]. But having seen broadcast media reports of buses that are not able to roll out of the garage and trips that are not made, he ventured that was an indication of an older fleet, not in a state of good repair. As the RTA tries to rationalize an effective and efficient transit service, Cooper felt that those criteria, together with the relative condition of AATA assets compared with those of SMART and DDOT, provide the opportunity for funds to be directed to other communities outside Washtenaw County, which clearly have a need.

By way of background, the set of criteria Cooper referenced in the RTA legislation includes the following:

Sec. 8 (5)
…
In preparing a consolidated application under this subsection and determining the proposed allocation to each public transportation provider, the board shall consider how the allocations will contribute to each of the following:
(a) The ability of each public transportation provider to maintain current services and infrastructure.
(b) The effectiveness and efficiency of public transportation service throughout the public transit region.
(c) Achieving and maintaining the public transit region’s transit infrastructure in a state of good repair.
(d) The matching federal aid for federal applications approved by the board.
(e) The coordination of public transportation services among public transportation providers in the public transit region.
(f) Strategic investment in a regional rolling rapid transit system.
(g) Other factors determined appropriate by the board and included in written board policies or procedures.

Proponents of the RTA for Washtenaw County contend that Sec. 8 (5)(a) offers assurance that the kind of re-direction of funds described by Cooper should not be a concern.

Proponents also claim that Washtenaw County is more likely to receive more transit service than its proportionate share, based on the two local funding options available to the RTA – a vehicle registration fee or a property tax. Either of those options would have to be approved by a majority of voters in the entire four-county region. The AATA is estimating the vehicle registration fee would generate $7-8 million annually from Washtenaw County residents. That’s consistent with the estimated $25 for an average vehicle that the possible registration fee would generate, and the 277,388 vehicles registered in Washtenaw County in 2009, according to data from the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study. [.pdf of WATS profile]

A planning document from Anderson Consulting – which sketches out possible costs for rolling rapid transit – puts a price tag of $120 million in capital costs on the 47.3-mile corridor between Detroit and Ann Arbor. Of those miles, 12 would be in Washtenaw County. Apportioning the capital costs on a per-mile basis would yield $30 million in capital costs for Washtenaw County.

The Anderson Consulting document also estimates an operating cost for all four rolling rapid transit corridors – totaling around 110 miles – of around $20 million per year. Apportioning that uniformly to Washtenaw County’s 12 miles would put operating costs in Washtenaw County at around $2 million. Conclusions about Washtenaw’s relative contribution to costs would depend significantly on how capital costs are paid for – as it’s common for significant portions to be shouldered by federal and state grants.

But the Anderson Consulting document does not appear to have enough detail about estimated costs to draw solid conclusions about whether the estimated $7-8 million per year generated through vehicle registration fees in Washtenaw County would be adequate to establish and operate rolling rapid transit in the corridor between Detroit and Ann Arbor.

Main Resolution: Rapidity of Rolling Rapid Transit?

Lumm continued with a question about dedicated lanes along the key routes. She asked Cooper what implications that would have for city streets.

Cooper indicated that the RTA has the right to “take over” particular lanes on particular streets and make them “transit only” facilities. He said it’s hard to envision that in downtown Ann Arbor in the vicinity of the AATA’s Blake Transit Center, where all the lanes are multipurpose. [BTC is located between South Fourth and South Fifth avenues, north of William.]

However, out on a multi-lane arterial roadway, Cooper added, it’s easier to imagine how an edge or center lane could be dedicated to transit. In Michigan currently, he said, there aren’t a lot of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) routes, but in other states that concept has been implemented. If it takes away a general purpose lane and allocates it to transit, that can lead to severe congestion on the other general purpose lanes. He gave Maryland and New Jersey as examples where that approach has been taken. A more standard practice is to construct new lanes alongside existing roadways, but that can’t be done in a downtown area.

Hieftje ventured that if the east-west corridor were to be equipped with a transit service that was “truly rapid” rolling rapid transit, then the lanes would need to be added on US-12 or I-94. Hieftje speculated that it would take millions of dollars and several years to do that. Cooper indicated that if independent roadways were to be developed, it would take millions of dollars and several years, but he noted that there are ways to implement it more quickly.

Hieftje then described the different stops that a rolling rapid transit system would need to make and how the vehicles would need at some points to mix in with regular traffic. Cooper described how the city’s own transportation plan also includes additional lanes at some points – for queue-jumping at intersections, for example – but not necessarily everywhere. Cooper described it as not a bad strategy, but the question is whether it’s a wise investment when there are other transportation tools that are available to meet the needs.

Hieftje recalled how Cooper had worked in transportation systems in other metro areas – Seattle and Minneapolis. So he asked Cooper what his estimate would be for a rolling rapid transit system to make the trip from Detroit to Ann Arbor.

The net operating speed of rolling rapid transit works out to somewhere between 15-30 m.p.h. – which factors in all the intermediate stops, Cooper said. And given that it’s a 45-mile trip, that’s an hour and forty-five minutes to two hours. As Cooper was delivering his remarks, Conan Smith – who attended the meeting as an observer – reacted to the time estimate with a skeptical snicker, saying, “Oh, my god, really?”

By way of background, Smith followed up the meeting with a written message to the city council acknowledging the reasonableness of Cooper’s estimate: “I scoffed during the meeting, but I probably owe him an apology for that. Thinking it through, that’s not a wholly unreasonable scenario.”

Hieftje then cited some statistics that the AATA had provided to the city. Between 2007 and 2011, AATA received $10.7 million in federal discretionary funding and is scheduled to receive $4.29 million for the Blake Transit Center in the coming year. That’s the type of funding that would come under the authority of the new RTA. Hieftje said that’s troublesome to him.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution of protest. [.pdf of resolution as amended]

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next regular council meeting: Monday, Dec. 17, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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 original resolution approved by the city council called on Gov. Rick Snyder to “veto the bill and return it to the Legislature with an objection to the inclusion of Washtenaw County as a defined Qualified region in the RTA.” That language was softened to ask the governor and legislature to amend the legislation. And a “whereas” clause in the resolution indicates the council’s support for a provision in the legislation that allows for adjacent counties of the RTA region voluntarily to join the RTA at a later date. [.pdf of the original draft of the council resolution]

The resolution indicates concern that the inclusion of Washtenaw County in the RTA would potentially risk the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s ability to continue its role to serve effectively as a transportation provider for Ann Arbor.

Among other additional reasons given in the resolution for the council’s objection is the characterization of the bill as containing “onerous and offensive provisions related to consideration of rail based transportation.” That’s a reference to part of the legislation that requires unanimous approval from the 9-member board of the new RTA to “acquire, construct, operate, or maintain any form of rail passenger service within a public transit region.” An east-west rail connection has been an aspiration of Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje and other local officials for several years, and is reflected in a current study being done with federal funds to determine a locally preferred alternative for the location of a new Amtrak station.

The RTA legislation specifically mentions “rolling rapid transit” – a technology based on buses, not trains – as a possibility for four major new regional corridors: along Woodward, along Gratiot, from Pontiac to Mt. Clemens, and from Detroit to Ann Arbor. Supporters of the RTA with Washtenaw County’s current inclusion have contended that a rail-based east-west commuter line between Ann Arbor and Detroit is still achievable, or even likely, despite the requirement of unanimous board support. However, if the RTA were to implement a rail-based east-west service, that service would elude a provision in the RTA legislation designed to give assurance to other transit providers statewide – that the major costs of the RTA’s rolling rapid transit systems would not be eligible to tap the state’s comprehensive transportation fund.

The transit services offered by the RTA are imagined to be funded by a tax or a vehicle registration fee, either of which would require approval by a majority of voters in the four-county region. The proceeds of the kind of vehicle registration fee that additional legislation would allow the RTA to place on the ballot could potentially generate an estimated $75 million per year in the four-county region, and would cost the owner of an average vehicle about $25 per year.

The city council’s action echoes sentiments expressed by a Washtenaw County board resolution, passed on Nov. 7, 2012, which opposes the RTA unless it included the ability of county entities to manage designated transportation funding and the right of county entities to independently manage a transit system – which the RTA legislation doesn’t do. The county board’s resolution also indicated the view that it should be Washtenaw County residents who elect to join such an RTA. [.pdf of Washtenaw County board resolution] The board’s recent 6-4 vote came after an earlier expression of support for an RTA approved on Sept. 21, 2011.

Current county board chair Conan Smith has been a prominent supporter of the RTA legislation both in his role as county commissioner and as executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. It’s the chair of the county board that would make Washtenaw County’s two appointments to the 9-member RTA board – and that’s a role to which Yousef Rabhi is expected to be elected in January 2013. In a message sent just an hour and a half before the council’s 4 p.m. meeting on Dec. 10, Smith pled with councilmembers to back off the position expressed in the resolution. The 13-pages worth of documents that Smith sent included detailed technical background on the RTA.

It’s possible that an attempt might be made in 2013 to bring back to the county board a resolution of support for the RTA. That’s because the decennial redistricting of the county resulted in just nine seats instead of the current 11, and among the nine commissioners there might be sufficient support for such a resolution. Enacting a resolution like that would at this point have no material effect on Washtenaw County’s actual participation in the RTA – but it might sway legislators against altering the legislation to accommodate the numerous concerns listed out in the Ann Arbor city council’s resolution. Councilmembers did not appear to harbor any realistic hope that Snyder would heed the call for a veto, even when that language was included in their resolution, but they did hope to provide a basis on which legislators might themselves elect to alter the legislation.

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