From left: former Congressman Wes Vivian talks with Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) before the board’s July 9 meeting. Vivian is advocating for the board to put a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. (Photos by the writer.)

Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator, told commissioners that there’s been an increase in young men “terrorizing” their communities. The sheriff’s office and court had started working together several months ago after they began observing an increase in gang-type activity, she said, including home invasions, firearm larceny, and assaulting police officers. They’d been hopeful that they could stem the tide of violence, she added, but it had escalated with a death in Ypsilanti earlier this summer.

So the sheriff’s office and court officials have reached consensus to remove some of these young men from the community and put them into residential facilities in other parts of the state, Edwards-Brown said. The juvenile division of the Washtenaw County trial court will place at least six youths in residential facilities this month, in addition to six youths who are currently in residential placements. According to a staff memo, residential placements are costly, with a typical length of stay at nine to twelve months.

At the July 9 meeting, commissioners and staff expressed the need to continue working on this issue as a community-wide effort.

In other action, commissioners were asked to pass a resolution making mid-year budget adjustments and allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues, as well as putting the $3.9 million surplus from 2013 into unearmarked reserves.

The adjustments passed on a 6-2 vote, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) dissenting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent. Dan Smith objected to spending more than was budgeted and making budget changes outside of the annual budget affirmation process, which takes place later this year. Conan Smith didn’t state his reason for voting against it on July 9, though in the past he has advocated for spending more of the surplus, rather than setting it aside in the fund balance.

Commissioners also authorized putting a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to renew a 10-year, 0.2353-mill countywide parks and recreation operations tax. They held public hearings related to other millages that the county plans to levy later this year: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities, under Act 88. The hearings drew one speaker – Thomas Partridge.

Related to the health department, the board created a new board of health to help oversee public health services in the county. A state official was on hand to talk about the accreditation process that the Washtenaw County public health department completed earlier this year.

Commissioners voted to accept the recommendations of a task force that’s been working on a funding strategy to help end homelessness, and to sunset that task force. The board also made appointments to a new committee that’s charged with exploring funding options for road repair.

Several issues were raised during public commentary. Former Congressman Wes Vivian urged the county board to place a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot enabling Washtenaw County voters to ask the state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. That U.S. Supreme Court ruling has resulted in corporations “sloshing big money into our elections at all levels,” Vivian said.

Also during the meeting, commissioners honored Arthur Williams, who is retiring as principal of Huron High School in Ann Arbor after 19 years in that job. The board also passed proclamations welcoming the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters and the Ironworkers International. Both unions hold training programs in Washtenaw County each summer.

At the beginning of the meeting, Rabhi asked for a moment of silence in memory of Rowan David LaBarre, the newborn son of commissioner Andy LaBarre and his wife Megan LaBarre. Rowan David had passed away earlier in the week. “We all pray and hold Rowan in the light of our prayers and thoughts,” Rabhi said.

Funding to Address Juvenile Crime

The July 9 agenda included a resolution authorizing the use of $642,707 from the Child Care Fund balance to pay for a range of services overseen by the county’s dept. of human services. The use of $642,707 will drop the Child Care Fund balance from $1,041,882 to $399,175. [.pdf of staff memo]

Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator.

The resolution authorized an amendment to the Child Care Fund (CCF) budget for the current fiscal year. The request came from the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s juvenile division and the county’s department of human services – the entities that oversee programs supported by the CCF.

According to a staff memo, the CCF is a collaboration between the state and county circuit courts to support programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. The state reimburses counties for 50% of all eligible CCF expenses.

The specific request on July 9 was for an increase in the CCF budget from $1,872,928 to $2,500,000 for the 2014 county fiscal year, which runs from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31 – an increase of $642,707.

Expenditures for the children’s services department are expected to be $262,341 over the current budget during the county fiscal year. Those expenses relate to use of part-time temporary staff as well as overtime, according to the staff memo, “to ensure that Children’s Services remains in compliance with state licensing requirements for juvenile detention facilities.”

In addition, the Trial Court’s juvenile division planned to put at least six youths in out-of-home placements in July. Another six youths are already placed. The typical length of such placements is nine to twelve months at an average $260 per day, per youth. That cost can range from a low of $150 to a high of $522. The total cost for the remainder of the county fiscal year is projected to be $396,000.

In addition, detention beds in the county’s children’s services facility have been occupied at or near capacity for all of 2014, which has resulted in the need for part-time temporary staff as well as overtime pay.

Funding to Address Juvenile Crime: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the timing of this request. Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator, clarified that the request for funding is for the county’s fiscal year, through Dec. 31. However, the Child Care Fund (CCF) budget is aligned with the state’s fiscal year, from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. Edwards-Brown noted that the budget amendment would run only through Dec. 31, 2014. “We’ll be back here in a few months to look at the 2014-2015 Child Care Fund budget,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson expressed interest in seeing long-term budget projections. It’s not about the money, he added, but it’s important to find out what’s happening in the juvenile justice system. The county needs to know what its financial obligations are to address some of the issues that are occurring in the community, which are causing youth to end up in detention facilities.

Edwards-Brown told commissioners that a group of young men are “terrorizing” their communities. They are carrying weapons, displaying weapons on social media, committing home invasions, and stealing guns.

Several months ago, the sheriff’s office and the court started working together as they saw the beginning of what seemed to be gang-type activity, Edwards-Brown said. “We were hopeful that we would be able, by working together, to stem this tide of violence that we’re seeing in the community. We were unable to do that.”

Last month, a young man was murdered in Ypsilanti, Edwards-Brown said. It’s a problem that the sheriff’s office had predicted, she added. Now, collectively, the court and sheriff’s staff have decided they need to remove the young men from the community, she said. “So that’s the answer as to why we’re here tonight asking for more money for residential placements.”

The trial court has made a concerted effort over the last several years to keep youth in the community and work with them in their homes, Edwards-Brown said. But at this point, public safety is an issue, as well as the safety of these young men, she said. They can’t be “safely maintained” in the community, and need to be taken outside their homes, she said.

Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s office, reported that last summer, deputies started to notice an increase in juvenile violence and an escalation in crimes that juveniles were committing. He noted that in the early 1990s, there was gang activity in the area and a lot of those gang members were taken off the streets for 10-15 years. The question since then has been how can the community change so that when those men got back out, “things won’t go back to the way they were,” he said.

Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

Fortunately, those men didn’t go back to criminal behavior, Jackson added, but some of their children, younger siblings and other relatives are now in their teens, and are starting to get involved in gang-type activity. The good thing about having a conversation now is that it’s at an early stage, he said, “and we’re hoping we can prevent some of this.”

They’re not saying that the answer is to lock up every kid who’s associated with these things, Jackson stressed. But this is one of the answers for a small percentage of kids who are very violent, carrying weapons, doing drugs and who ultimately committed homicide.

A large task force is coming together to talk about a “holistic, wrap-around response to what we’re seeing in the community,” Jackson said, because it’s such a significant issue. He noted that about 55 community leaders – including some county commissioners – had met recently to talk about the juvenile criminal justice system, and everyone had seen an increase in problems. When he talks to high school and middle school teachers in the eastern part of the county, they all say the same thing – they see a difference in how young people are acting.

Jackson said that when you see the train coming down the track, you can prepare to get run over or you can figure out a way to stop it. People in the county are working to stop the train, he said.

Lisa Greco, the county’s youth center director, noted that juvenile detention is where kids are placed when law enforcement removes them from the community. They’re held in secure custody until decisions can be made about what to do next. The juvenile detention center has seen more than a 25% increase in population and days of care, Greco said. Managing the dynamics in the community is challenging, she said, and managing those kids in the confined space of juvenile detention is also a challenge. “I think we’ve been up to it, and have taken good care of the kids,” she said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

The community is at a crossroads, Greco added. There’s a need for an immediate response, as well as a call to action to re-examine the juvenile justice system in Washtenaw County in its entirety. “We need alternatives to juvenile detention,” she said. There needs to be early identification, intervention and assessment for kids who are struggling in the community.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern about the kids who’ll be sent to places outside of Washtenaw County. “What happens when they get done and come back here?”

Edwards-Brown replied that none of the young men will be sent out of state. They’ll be sent to Maxey Boys Training School in Whitmore Lake, Turning Point Youth Center in St. Johns, and other facilities within Michigan. “We want them to have the opportunity for their families to visit them and to participate in family therapy while they’re in these placements,” she said.

These young men will eventually be returning home in nine to 12 months, Edwards-Brown noted. So it’s important to bring change to their homes, so that they won’t be returning to the same situation, she said.

Sizemore advocated for having an individual or entity examine all the programs in the county that help youth. He thought there were duplicative services, and the services should be better coordinated. He also hoped the school districts would get involved, and that parents would be supported. He praised Jackson, sheriff Jerry Clayton and deputies for doing difficult work. But it’s time to stop studying the situation and to put some money directly into programs that will help youth, he said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said she first heard about the Ypsilanti murder on Facebook, from a friend who lived in that neighborhood. She thought that by removing these young men, it will help the community as a whole. It will provide hope to the people living there, since they won’t be living in a place of fear. It’s important to let residents know that the community cares about what’s happening in those neighborhoods, Ping said, and that action is being taken to help.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Edwards-Brown stressed that “this may not be the panacea.” Although the additional funding will help remove a certain number of young men, “there are brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and cousins – so we have a bigger problem that we have yet to address,” she said. “We’re hoping to, quite frankly, save lives – the lives of these young men, and perhaps someone else in the community. But our work is far from done.”

Peterson said the problem isn’t just isolated to Ypsilanti – it’s something happening nationwide. He noted that the funding for this request is coming from the Child Care Fund reserves, but it’s unclear where funding will come from in the future. It could be a budget that inflates much higher, because the county has an obligation to provide services to all youth in need, he said.

Peterson suggested that the county administrator, Verna McDaniel, and the county board chair, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), work with staff to identify budget projections and future demand for services. If there’s a trend, the board should be aware of it well in advance, he said. “This is not going to be a gang haven,” he said. “The is not the Wild West.” Washtenaw County has the reputation as a great place to raise children, and they need to maintain that, Peterson added.

Jackson offered to make a presentation to the board with more details about the responses that are being planned. He said he’d spoken with three different mothers who had noticed that their sons were changing, but who couldn’t find help until the situation had escalated. That’s what needs to be addressed, he added – how to structure something in this community that will align the human services with the real issues that need attention.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) drew attention to the fact that fund balance is being used. The CCF fund balance will be depleted by two-thirds with just this one allocation, he noted. It’s an important allocation, and the kind of thing that fund balances are used for, he added. “But we’re doing it regularly now – dipping into departmental fund balances for programmatic expenditures.”

At the same time, Smith noted, the board is set to add money to the general fund reserves. He expected to see other proposals from departments later this year, also requesting to use their departmental fund balances. “This is a fiscal policy question that we really ought to be grappling with,” Smith said.

McDaniel pointed out that it’s actually a $1.3 million problem – the county’s $642,707, plus an equal amount that will be reimbursed by the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the Child Care Fund budget amendment.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments

Commissioners were asked to pass a resolution making mid-year budget adjustments and allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues, as well as a $3.9 million surplus from 2013.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

The adjustments increased the general fund budget’s expenses and revenues by $720,486 for 2014, $733,233 for 2015, $745,980 for 2016 and $758,727 for 2017. The county operates on a four-year budget, with the fiscal year matching the calendar year.

The adjustments also followed the recommendation of county administrator Verna McDaniel, and set aside the $3,920,818 surplus from 2013 in unearmarked reserves, rather than spending it. The projected year-end 2014 fund balance is $20,638,675. The county board had previously approved a goal of holding a fund balance equal to 20% of its general fund budget. For 2014, the general fund budget is $103,127,202. [.pdf of staff memo and mid-year budget resolution]

In addition, the following mid-year budget adjustments were made to the general fund:

• Structural adjustments resulting in a $494,677 increase in expenditures for (1) providing employee health care coverage for autism; (2) a consultant to help with the board’s budget priority work, (3) a “local government initiatives” intern; (4) reinstatement of two full-time equivalent positions in the sheriff’s office; and (5) salary adjustments for non-union employees.
• Non-structural, one-time, adjustments that increased expenditures by $65,000 for homelessness initiatives.

The administration recommended that the remaining $160,809 be held as an undesignated allocation until budget projections improve as new information becomes available. The administration will present a second-quarter budget update at the board’s next meeting on Aug. 6, 2014.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that it’s been less than three months since Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, told the board about higher-than-expected tax revenues, which resulted in about $750,000 more revenue this year than had been budgeted for 2014.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Now, the board is already spending almost $600,000 of that surplus, which hadn’t been included in the original 2014 budget, Smith noted. There is no shortage of things to spend this money on, he continued, including over $234 million in unfunded liabilities “which we have no particular plan to pay for, other than amortizing payments over 26 years – something that our actuary is recommending against us doing.” The actuary would like to see that amount amortized over a much shorter period of 10 years.

Smith said he had no problem with making technical budget adjustments as they come along. But one of the reasons to have a four-year budget is to have a plan and then execute that plan, Smith said.

If the board wants to “be constantly in budget mode,” he said, then they could simply have a one-year budget. Unless there’s an emergency situation or deadlines that are outside of the county’s control, he thought it would be more appropriate to make these changes in the fall, during the board’s annual budget reaffirmation process.

There was no additional discussion on this item.

Outcome: The budget adjustments were passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent.

County Parks & Rec Millage

The board was asked to pass a resolution that would authorize putting a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to renew a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations millage.

Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

The resolution on July 9 was for an amended version, compared to a resolution given initial approval on May 21, 2014. That’s because some state-mandated information had inadvertently been left off the proposed ballot language in the original resolution, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2352 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.4 million annually – or about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations.

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

County Parks & Rec Millage: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) advocated for support of this millage in November. The county parks & recreation commission has done incredible things, he said. [Conan Smith serves on the commission, along with Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).] There’s a park or preserve or recreation facility in nearly every community throughout Washtenaw County, and most of the county facilities are free to the public, he noted. The parks & rec commission also leverages funds from the state, Smith added, on projects like the Border to Border trail. It’s worthy of the continued support of county citizens, he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he hears a lot from people around the state and nation about how unique the county parks & rec system is. He also supported the millage renewal.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved placing the millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

Appointments

There were two sets of appointments on the July 9 agenda – for a road funding committee, and the board of public works.

Appointments: Road Funding Committee

Commissioners were asked to approve appointments to a new committee that’s charged with exploring funding options for road repair.

The board had created the road funding committee on June 4, 2014, after debating whether to levy a countywide road millage or put a millage proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to fund road repair. The final vote to create the committee had been 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

In arguing against levying a tax at that time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy, which doesn’t require voter approval – before making a decision.

On July 9, Rabhi proposed an amendment to his original resolution, adding two new slots – one for the director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), and one for an additional county commissioner slot, to make it an odd-numbered roster.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why nine members were needed. Rabhi said he wanted to add the WATS representation because that group has been doing a lot of work on the road funding issue, and would like to participate. “It’s less a matter of the number of people, and more a matter of who we have at the table,” Rabhi said.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners approved the amendment on a voice vote.

The following members were nominated by Rabhi:

• Lew Kidder, representing the general public
• Bill McFarlane, representing the road commission
• Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission
• Rolland Sizemore Jr., the county board of commissioners’ liaison to the road commission
• Dan Smith, county commissioner
• Kent Martinez-Kratz, county commissioner
• Rodrick Green, Superior Township trustee, representing townships
• Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator, representing incorporated municipalities
• Ryan Buck, director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS)

The resolution directs the committee to meet within 60 days of this appointment to elect officers and draft bylaws. The committee is to report to the county board at its Sept. 17, 2014 meeting, and make quarterly updates after that with a final report due in December 2015.

The county administrator will help provide administrative support to the committee.

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the appointments to the road funding committee.

Appointments: Board of Public Works

Yousef Rabhi nominated Steve Feinman to the county’s board of public works for the remainder of a three-year term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

According to the department of public works website, the board of public works “focuses on assisting local communities within Washtenaw County in addressing environmental and public health issues and development needs, including wastewater disposal and collection, water treatment and supply, lake management, and solid waste management.”

There was no discussion on this appointment.

Outcome: Feinman’s appointment was made on a unanimous vote.

Public Hearings: Act 88, Veterans Relief Millages

The board held two hearings on July 9 related to millages that the county plans to levy later this year: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

For support of indigent veterans, the county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

No increase is proposed for the economic development millage, levied under Act 88 – another pre-Headlee law. The proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014, raising an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues. In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

On July 9, only one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke at these public hearings. He endorsed the veterans relief millage, and questioned whether it would provide sufficient support for indigent veterans. He also questioned whether the amount levied under the Act 88 millage was sufficient for a county this size.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. A vote to levy these millages would be made at a future meeting.

Task Force on Homelessness

Commissioners were asked to accept the report and recommendations of a task force that’s been working on a funding strategy to help end homelessness. The resolution also sunsets that task force.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The leadership group for the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services to End Homelessness made a presentation at the board’s May 22, 2014 working session. Their recommendations include the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She served on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF CEO Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation posted the position earlier this summer, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members include Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton.

There was no discussion on this item at the July 9 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the report and sunset the task force.

Public Health Accreditation

Mark Miller, director of local health services with the Michigan Dept. of Community Health, attended the July 9 meeting to talk about the accreditation process that the Washtenaw County public health department completed earlier this year. [.pdf of letter from Dept. of Community Health director]

Washtenaw County health officer Ellen Rabinowitz and sheriff Jerry Clayton.

Miller thanked commissioners and staff, including county health officer Ellen Rabinowitz and retired health officer Dick Fleece, who both attended the July 9 meeting. Miller presented certificates of accreditation, and praised the achievement. It’s the fifth cycle that Washtenaw County has completed, passing stringent standards in the accreditation program, he said. The standards are hard to meet, Miller added, especially when budgets are tight.

Ten program areas were reviewed, and of 140 indicators, the Washtenaw County health department only missed one, Miller reported. “I don’t get to go to too many counties and get to say that – generally, [other counties] miss quite a few more.” Washtenaw County eventually achieved 100%, he noted.

Washtenaw County also passed an optional quality improvement supplement, which only about half of the health departments in Michigan have achieved, Miller reported. It means the county has a comprehensive program for improvement.

“This performance is no fluke,” Miller told commissioners. The Washtenaw County health department maintains many partnerships, which allow it to leverage resources and provide better services for residents. That’s admirable, he said.

Miller highlighted several comments included in the accreditation report, including praise for the health department’s website and for support from county commissioners for initiatives like breastfeeding-friendly policies. He called out Sharon Sheldon, the program administrator for health promotion and disease prevention, for her unit’s work. Special recognition is deserved for the HIV/STD program, the report noted, because client return rates for HIV test results have exceeded 96%. Programs in hearing and vision care were also commended, as was the food safety unit, overseen by Kristen Schweighoefer, and several other programs. Miller also noted that Washtenaw County is a pioneer in trying to manage requests for vaccine waivers.

Miller concluded by saying the state was very impressed by the county health department’s efficient and innovative programs. “You guys have a really terrific health department here,” he said.

Board of Health

A resolution to create a board of health was originally on the board’s June 4, 2014 agenda for final approval, but was postponed until the July 9 meeting. The entity would provide advice on public health issues for the county. Commissioners had given initial approval to the item at their May 21, 2014 meeting.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the July 9 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Board of Health: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9), who had moved to postpone the resolution last month without explanation, told commissioners on July 9 that he had distributed three amendments to the board via email. All of them are making additions to the resolution, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Smith noted that commissioners have talked about a board of health taking a leadership role in the county, coordinating public health responses across many agencies. He thought it was important for the board of health to think actively about its role as a coordinator, so one of his amendments included that sentiment in a whereas clause.

Smith also proposed adding two resolved clauses. One clause clarified the roles and expectations of the board of health, to do three things: (1) develop and oversee the strategic plan for the department of health; (2) recommend the annual budget to the county administrator; and (3) work with the county administrator to evaluate the performance of the county public health officer.

The second additional resolved clause is to ensure that the bylaws that will be developed for the board of health will be brought to the county board of commissioners for review and approval. “That’s the document that’s truly going to delegate any authorities that we have from this board,” Smith said.

There was no discussion on these amendments.

Outcome: Smith’s amendments were approved on a voice vote.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners approved creation of a board of health, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said that establishing the board of health is a major step in improving the health for residents of this community, especially children.

Communications & Commentary

During the July 9 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Budget Work

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that Susan McGraw has been hired as a consultant to work with the board on its budget priorities. That work will kick off later this month, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Taubman Fellowship

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d learned a lot earlier this summer at Harvard University’s Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) pointed out that Rabhi had received the Taubman Fellowship for Executive Excellence, which is given to selected officials and staff through the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Peterson said that to be chosen for a fellowship is one of the highest recognitions that SEMCOG awards. “We should be honored to know that Washtenaw County and a Washtenaw County commissioner was selected,” Peterson said, joking “I just don’t know why they didn’t ask me.”

Arthur Williams, who retired as principle of Huron High School after 19 years in that position.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations

Several proclamations were given during the July 9 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Retirements

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) presented a proclamation honoring Arthur Williams, who is retiring as principal of Huron High School in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of Williams' proclamation]

Rabhi noted that he graduated from Huron High School “and Dr. Williams was my principal!” Williams was also a neighbor to Rabhi’s family as Rabhi grew up, so he knows Williams well. Williams has served as principal at Huron High since 1995.

Williams spoke briefly. As educators, he said, “we touch the future.” Many times they don’t know what the effects are of what they do in the schools, he added. Williams noted that Martin Luther King said everyone can be great, because everyone can serve. Williams said his goal has been to try to make this world a better place, by helping raise young people and families, and by trying to make an impact on lives.

He received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

The board also made a proclamation to Mary Sue Coleman, who recently stepped down as president of the University of Michigan. Coleman did not attend the July 9 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Ironworkers, UA

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Visitors & Convention Bureau, was on hand to receive a proclamation welcoming the Ironworkers International annual instructor training program, which ran from July 12-18 this year. That program, held at Washtenaw Community College, brought in about 700 participants and an estimated economic impact of $2 million. It’s their fifth year holding the program in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of Ironworkers proclamation]

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

The board also gave a proclamation welcoming the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters for their 61st annual training program. For the past 25 years, that program has been held in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of UA proclamation]

This year, the program runs from Aug. 9-15, also on the WCC campus, bringing about 2,400 participants to the county with an estimated economic impact of $5 million.

Kerr noted that the county also hosts the training week for the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) for the Electrical Industry. This year is a milestone for all three groups, she said. NJATC is in its 25th year and has been coming to Washtenaw County for six years. This year, the NJATC National Training Institute runs from July 26-Aug. 1 at the University of Michigan, and expects a 15% increase in participation compared to last year, Kerr reported.

Kerr said that a conservative economic impact estimate for all three programs is $12 million. “This is new spending in our community – spending that wouldn’t be here if these three training programs were not here,” she added. The spending is on hotels, restaurants, recreation, entertainment, shopping and transportation.

Her goal is to keep these events in Washtenaw County by providing a high level of service and making sure the unions know that they’re appreciated by the community. She thanked commissioners for their continued support.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Gun Safety

The board passed a proclamation declaring July 20-26 as Gun Safety Week in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of gun safety resolution] The goal is to increase public safety “by raising awareness and educating residents of Washtenaw County about how to keep themselves and their families safe.”

During the week, local law enforcement agencies will be providing free gun locks and gun safety information. More information about the week is provided on the county’s website.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Speaking during public commentary, former Congressman Wes Vivian told commissioners that until four years ago, the U.S. had laws that prohibited or limited contributions by corporations to candidates for political office.

Former Congressman Wes Vivian.

But four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned those laws in the Citizens United decision, he said. Now, “corporations are sloshing big money into our elections at all levels,” Vivian said. Polls show that about 90% of U.S. citizens oppose that Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, almost 20 state governments have asked the U.S. government to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. “To date, the state of Michigan has not done so, even though it’s been asked to,” Vivian noted.

The Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils have asked Michigan’s government to take action on this issue, Vivian said. But so far, the state legislature has refused to bring it up for a vote, he added. He asked the county board to place a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot enabling Washtenaw County voters to ask the state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. He didn’t have suggested wording for such a ballot proposal, but said he’d be glad to work on it.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), the board’s chair, thanked Vivian and said he hoped the board would take action of some sort at a later date. It was an issue about the sustainability of this nation’s democracy, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked Vivian for raising this issue. The idea of corporate personhood has raised many challenges, he said, “and the notion that just regular citizens are somehow second class in our decision-making process has got to be pre-empted.” It’s incumbent upon elected officials and the county board as a body of elected officials to take a stand, he said. Smith liked the idea of asking county residents to weigh in, saying it would send a great signal to people throughout the state and nation.

Ruth Ann Jamnick also addressed the board during public commentary. She pointed out that she’s one of the four candidates in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary election for the District 5 seat on the county board. She provided a handout with information about her experience and accomplishments.

Ruth Ann Jamnick.

Referring to the board’s discussion about juvenile crime earlier in the evening, Jamnick noted that she had been involved in addressing similar issues years ago in Ypsilanti Township. What makes it different now are the ages of the young people who are involved, she said. At that time, it was youth in their late teens – but now, the youth who are creating these problems are younger. It’s important to make some changes and address these issues. She also noted that the situation isn’t isolated to Ypsilanti Township.

Jamnick concluded by thanking Rolland Sizemore Jr., the district’s current commissioner, for his work.

Earlier this year, Sizemore announced that he did not intend to seek re-election. In addition to Jamnick, the three other Democratic candidates are Victor Dobrin, Wilma Gold-Jones, and Keith P. Jason. The winner of that primary will face Republican Timothy King in the Nov. 4 general election. King is unopposed in the primary.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the state legislature. He urged the public to elect Democrat Mark Schauer as governor in November, and to address the critical needs of affordable housing, public transportation, human rights and health care in Washtenaw County. Too many residents are vulnerable and don’t have the services they need, he said. He criticized the county board’s agenda for not including items that address ending homelessness, providing affordable housing and access to countywide public transportation, and supporting better health care and education for adults. These should be priorities for the board, he said.

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

Absent: Andy LaBarre.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The board had created the road funding committee on June 4, 2014, after debating whether to levy a countywide road millage or put a millage proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to fund road repair. The final vote to create the committee had been 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

In arguing against levying a tax at that time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy, which doesn’t require voter approval – before making a decision.

Members appointed are:

• Lew Kidder, representing the general public
• Bill McFarlane, representing the road commission
• Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission
• Rolland Sizemore Jr., the county board of commissioners’ liaison to the road commission
• Dan Smith, county commissioner
• Kent Martinez-Kratz, county commissioner
• Rodrick Green, Superior Township trustee, representing townships
• Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator, representing incorporated municipalities
• Ryan Buck, director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS)

The resolution directs the committee to meet within 60 days of this appointment to elect officers and draft bylaws. The committee is to report to the county board at its Sept. 17, 2014 meeting, and make quarterly updates after that with a final report due in December 2015.

The county administrator will help provide administrative support to the committee.

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

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

Commissioners had given initial approval to the idea at their May 21, 2014 meeting, after rejecting a proposal to levy a 0.4-mill countywide road tax in December. The tax would have been levied under Act 283 of 1909, which does not require voter approval.

In arguing against levying the tax at this time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy – before making a decision. The committee will consist of seven members: (1) a road commissioner or designee; (2) the road commission managing director or designee; (3) the county board’s road commission liaison; (4) one additional county commissioner; (5) a position representing townships; (6) a position representing incorporated municipalities; and (7) a member of the general public. Members will be appointed at a later date.

The county administrator will help provide administrative support to the committee. The resolution also states that the county road commission could present a road funding plan at the board’s annual meeting in the fall “as Act 283 of 1909 provides.”

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

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

The resolution, approved by the council at its May 19, 2014 meeting, allocates money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

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!

From left: Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly, Washtenaw County commissioner Alicia Ping, and Doug Fuller, chair of the county road commission board. Ping chairs a subcommittee that’s looking at the future of the road commission. Kelly is a member of that subcommittee, which met on March 1, 2014 at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

The recommendation was made at a March 1 meeting, and will be forwarded to the county board of commissioners, an elected body that has authority to make changes in the road commission’s organizational structure.

The vote came over dissent from 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. Currently, the road commission is overseen by a board with three members appointed by the county board of commissioners to six-year terms. Smith thought that asking voters to approve a countywide road millage – when the revenues aren’t allocated by an elected body – would be a tough sell. It would be especially tough to sell to voters in the city of Ann Arbor, who already pay a millage for street maintenance within the city.

But others on the subcommittee were in line with the strong support from township officials for keeping the road commission independent. Most township boards in the county have passed resolutions supporting the current structure, citing their strong relationships with the road commission staff and board.

The subcommittee also discussed the option of expanding the current three-member board to five members. Pat Kelly, Dexter Township’s supervisor, voiced concerns over possible Open Meetings Act violations: Two members constitute a quorum, so any conversation about road commission business must be held in public. “I think a three-member body in the age of the Open Meetings Act is just a dangerous thing,” Kelly said. “I just don’t think it can operate properly all the time.”

The three county commissioners who serve on the subcommittee – Conan Smith, Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – all agreed that the question of expansion was primarily a political one, and should be taken up by the county board. Subcommittee members did not make a recommendation on this issue, but indicated that they’d be willing to discuss it further, if directed to do so by the county board.

Regarding the question of whether road commissioners should be elected positions, the subcommittee unanimously passed a resolution recommending not to pursue that option. 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.

Also discussed on March 1 were possible funding options, focused primarily on (1) a countywide voter-approved millage, or (2) a levy by the county board under Act 283 of 1909, without voter approval. No recommendations were made on either of those options.

All subcommittee members agreed that action is needed to address the condition of roads, which Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz described as resulting from “inexcusable neglect from Lansing.” If the county board does intend to levy a millage for road projects, he urged them to act as soon as possible. Dan Smith noted that after the spring thaw, poor road conditions will be ”unlike we’ve ever experienced in our lifetime.”

Two of the three road commissioners – Doug Fuller and Barb Fuller, who are not related – attended the March 1 meeting but did not participate in the discussion. The third road commissioner – labor leader Fred Veigel, who was first appointed in 1990 – was in hospice and died the following day, on March 2.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.“

Subcommittee: Brief Background

In 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted amendments to Section 46.11 of Public Act 156 of 1851, which allows for county boards of commissioners to transfer the powers of the road commission to the county board. There’s a sunset to that law, however. From Section 46.11:

(s) Before January 1, 2015, by majority vote of the members of the county board of commissioners elected and serving in a county with an appointed board of county road commissioners, pass a resolution that transfers the powers, duties, and functions that are otherwise provided by law for the appointed board of county road commissioners of that county to the county board of commissioners.

So at their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, Washtenaw County commissioners created a seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” A March 31, 2014 deadline was given for the subcommittee to deliver its recommendations.

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.

The subcommittee meetings were open to the public, and were attended by various township officials and road commission staff. The March 1 meeting was the longest, lasting about 2.5 hours as the group developed its recommendations. According to Ping, it was likely the last subcommittee meeting, unless the county board gives further direction for additional work.

The road commission manages the maintenance of about 1,650 miles of roads in the county that are outside of cities and villages, including about 770 miles of gravel roads. The organization employs 115 full-time staff, down from 156 in 2004. [.pdf of 2013-2014 road commission budget] [.xls of all road commission projects 2014-2018] [.pdf list of unfunded projects 2014-2018]

Public Commentary

The March 1 meeting began with public commentary, and three people addressed the subcommittee. Robert Prehn led off by introducing himself as a Saline Township resident who is a former Saline Township supervisor. He currently serves on the township’s board of trustees and planning commission. He noted that the subcommittee has received correspondence from Saline Township opposing any takeover of the road commission by the county board. The township has a really good relationship with the road commission, Prehn said, “from the top right down to the bottom.” Township officials have an annual meeting with the road commission, he noted. “We feel as though it’s a very personal relationship.”

Prehn told the subcommittee that Saline Township officials understand the reasons for a proposed change, “and we’re not opposed to change, as long as we think it leads to an increase in effectiveness and efficiency. We don’t see that as happening … with a larger governing board being involved. We see it as being detrimental.” Right now, the system is working very well, Prehn said. He concluded by saying “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”

John Posegay, a Sylvan Township resident and road commission employee, said he’d attended the previous meeting of the subcommittee. At that time, members had indicated they’d be looking at why other counties had decided whether or not to take over road commissions. He said he hadn’t heard any report about that, and hoped it would come up during the meeting. [.pdf of report with analysis from the counties of Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson and Ottawa.]

Government leaders need to make decisions for the long-term future, Posegay said, and not make shortsighted decisions that hurt the public that they’re supposed to protect. Government leadership is supposed to support the public, whether it’s popular or not, and shouldn’t support their own special interests. He was suspicious about adding two more people to the three-member road commission board – it looked like it was more about control, and not a solution to problems.

Steve Hubbard, who lives in Augusta Township, told the subcommittee that he works for the road commission as a truck driver on the night crew. Most of the people he’s talked to at the road commission feel that the current road commission board is doing a good job. Adding two more members would add more confusion, he said. Regarding the possibility of merging operations with the county, he said he’s read the letters from local townships that oppose a merger. Those are pretty smart people who’ve investigated it, he said, so “you should probably heed what they ask you to do.” Making changes would upset the apple cart, he concluded.

Response to Public Commentary

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said that from his perspective, the reason that the subcommittee was created is because of state law, which expires at the end of 2014. He said he hasn’t been advocating for either option, but he’s heard a lot of thoughts on the issue and knows what direction he’s headed. But the county is looking into it because the board needs to make a decision before the state law sunsets, he stressed. “I don’t think it would be fair to the residents of Washtenaw County to get through 2014 and not have looked into this when we had the opportunity,” Smith said. That doesn’t mean they’ll make changes, he noted – it’s possible that the county board will ultimately decide to maintain the status quo, and he’d be fine with that.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), who is chairing the subcommittee, echoed Smith’s comments. They’ve heard from almost every township in the county, she said, and it’s been good to get the feedback. It’s been a very informative process, she said.

Input from Townships, Staff

The March 1 meeting packet included letters from four township supervisors: Gene DeRossett of Manchester Township; Spaulding Clark of Scio Township; Peter Psarouthakis of Sharon Township; and Jim Marion of Saline Township. Each letter conveyed that the respective township boards had voted in opposition of the county taking control of the road commission.

During the meeting, Pat Kelly – the Dexter Township supervisor who serves on the subcommittee – reported that Dexter Township’s board of trustees had passed a similar resolution. She’d heard from several other townships that had either passed resolutions or were planning to do that. Another subcommittee member – York Township supervisor John Stanowski – said that York Township’s board also passed a resolution that supported leaving the road commission unchanged.

From left: Roy Townsend, managing director of the Washtenaw County road commission, and county commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2) at the March 1 meeting of a subcommittee looking at the future of the road commission.

The March 1 meeting packet also included two staff reports that the subcommittee had requested. Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, did an analysis on overlapping facilities and assets. [.pdf of Dill's report] Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, prepared an analysis of any duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. [.pdf of Heidt's report]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) confirmed with Dill that a lot of collaborative work that could be done between the road commission and the county doesn’t necessarily depend on consolidating operations between the two entities. Dill replied that he and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, have had a few conversations about opportunities to collaborate and partner. Those discussions will continue, Dill said, regardless of the subcommittee’s recommendations and ultimate county board vote.

Ken Schwartz, Superior Township’s supervisor, said he had hoped to see an analysis of the existing fleet – an inventory, condition of the current fleet, and replacement costs to get the fleet and equipment up to modern standards. Townsend replied that the estimated cost to upgrade the fleet’s heavy trucks alone would be in the $12-15 million range. This year, the winter has taken a toll, Townsend added, because trucks that are 10-15 years old are being used non-stop. At the start of the winter, the fleet had 53 trucks. Now, it’s down to 38. “It’s like taking an old car back and forth to Florida six times,” Townsend said.

New trucks are more efficient, he added – it’s possible to do one pass with a lot more coverage than with the older trucks. So it does save costs, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) clarified with Dill that the county does not have a similar operation to the road commission – in terms of heavy trucks and a maintenance yard, for example. That’s true, Dill said. There’s no heavy equipment in the county’s fleet. Primarily, the county’s fleet includes passenger vans, a few pickup trucks, and other vehicles. He added that right now, an assessment of the county’s fleet operations is underway, and they’re looking at a new service delivery model. But the county does not manage a fleet that’s like the road commission’s, Dill said.

In response to a query from Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Dill said that the county contracts out for its vehicle maintenance, and it would be possible to contract with the road commission for maintenance work. Ping encouraged Dill to explore that option. Townsend noted that the road commission’s maintenance is focused on heavy trucks, and that it also contracts out to private businesses for lighter vehicle maintenance.

Schwartz said his point is that the fleet would be a potential liability to the county, if it absorbed the road commission’s operations.

Regarding Heidt’s report on human resources, Ping said she was surprised by the results. Conan Smith said he hadn’t been surprised that there were a lot of efficiencies already between the county and the road commission. None of the motivations behind this subcommittee’s work are related to inefficiencies or ineffectiveness at all, he said, adding that he was pleased to see the staff reports validate this.

Dan Smith agreed, saying the current exploration isn’t about just saving a few dollars. The road commission does an extraordinary job with the available resources and difficult circumstances, especially this winter, he said. The subcommittee’s work is about the state law, he noted, and due diligence in making a decision.

Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly said she’s read the reports about other counties that have chosen to consolidate operations with their road commissions, and often the decision is based on finding efficiencies. In Washtenaw County’s case, there really would be no gain, she said. [.pdf of report with analysis from the counties of Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson and Ottawa.]

Consideration of Options

The original March 1 agenda listed three options to consider as a recommendation to the county board: (1) maintain status quo, with no changes to the road commission; (2) combine the road commission into the county’s operations, with oversight by the county board of commissioners; and (3) maintain the road commission as a separate entity, but expand the number of members on the road commission board.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) proposed adding two more options. One was the possibility of having an elected road commission board. [The current three-member road commission board is appointed by the county board of commissioners.] He thought it would address the issue of direct accountability to the taxpayers. Another option he proposed would be to create a separate subcommittee of the county board related to Act 283, which is way to raise more funding for roads.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) suggested that funding sources – such as Act 283– should be a separate item for discussion, because the need for additional revenue relates to any option that might be pursued.

Consideration of Options: Combining Operations

Pat Kelly began by suggesting that the group focus on the main reason that the subcommittee was created: To consider whether to combine road commission operations with the county. She put forward the following motion:

To recommend that the powers and duties of the Washtenaw County road commission would not be transferred to the county board of commissioners.

John Stanowski supported the motion. The subcommittee’s purpose was to explore the possibilities provided by state law. The county would have been remiss not to do that, he said. Stanowski said he’s talked to many people, including several township supervisors, and all are in support of keeping the road commission as a separate entity. That view is based on the personal relationships that people have with the road commission board and staff, he noted. “It’s a real strong and personal bond,” he said, and people fear that bond would be lost if it were absorbed into the county.

He’d looked at a report about Jackson County’s decision to absorb its road commission, but noted that Jackson County is quite different from Washtenaw County – in terms of educational status, social status, and different economic interests. He was happy to read the reports from Washtenaw County staff, which found that there would be no efficiencies gained from a merger. That led him to believe the road commission should remain independent, Stanowski said. Other issues, like expanding the road commission board’s membership, can be done at any time, he noted, and might be explored in order to improve the transparency of the road commission.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) supported the motion, but said he didn’t strongly support it. He’s struggled with the issue – but not because of the competence of the road commission or interest in controlling it. As an elected official talking to constituents, he noted that the main thing people care about are the roads. He said he can deal with the confusion of the public – not understanding that the county board has limited control over roads – and said that’s not a reason to consolidate. But it’s an example of what happens when there are two countywide entities that in many respects are similar, he said, even though the road commission provides specialized services.

Dan Smith noted that the county has very large population centers in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. As a result, the nine-member board of commissioners has four commissioners who primarily represent cities that handle their own street maintenance, and five commissioners primarily representing non-cities that have roads overseen by the county road commission. That makes it difficult to see how consolidation could provide any real benefits to township residents, he said.

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

Conan Smith weighed in, saying he had almost a polar opposite perspective from Dan Smith. He opposed the resolution, saying it’s probably because he represents a city district – as one of the Ann Arbor commissioners. The city has a tax base of about $4 billion, and if the city wants to take care of its roads, it can, he said. [Pat Kelly quipped, "I wish you would take care of them more."] The city has the ability to get revenues from its millage to fund street maintenance, he said. That’s different from rural communities, which have a much lower tax base.

As an example, C. Smith cited North Territorial Road, which runs through several small communities that have a limited tax base. “That becomes a very complicated situation,” Smith said, because the road commission doesn’t have its own taxing authority and relies primarily on state revenue, which is declining. Even if a township levies a tax for additional road repair revenue, it becomes a significant burden on that community.

The support he hears for the road commission from township officials is that the officials are very comfortable with the “localized relationship they have with their road network.” But 10 or 20 years from now, that could be a problem, he said, because the funding stream is insufficient today and is in constant decline. Although he rarely travels on North Territorial, Smith said he cares about its condition because it provides access to some of the most beautiful places in the county. He noted that he got married at Independence Lake, and many people reach the lake by using North Territorial Road.

Conan Smith continued, saying he worried that roads within the county will be competing for diminishing resources. He also said he knows the politics involved in getting funding for projects. If the county board wants to put a tax on the ballot, “it’s a heavy, heavy lift,” Smith said. And in order to get a countywide millage placed on the ballot, “you must have the Ann Arbor commissioners – period,” he said. “We’ve never put a tax on the ballot that didn’t have the support of all the Ann Arbor commissioners.” And if you want that support, Smith added, then Ann Arbor constituents must be in support of it. “That’s just the political calculus of getting more money into this system to do things that are important countywide.”

By maintaining the separateness and political divisions of the road commission and county board, it locks in place a system that has insufficient funds for roads, Smith said. That’s why he wants to do something different.

Pat Kelly was curious why Conan Smith thought that absorbing the duties of the road commission would improve the revenue challenges. She wondered if it was because he thought that a countywide millage would be the only way to raise additional revenue.

Smith said he didn’t think a countywide millage was the only way to raise revenue, but “it’s our best and most direct way to raise revenue via the county as a whole.” The road network is the entire county’s problem, he said, and it’s not fair or appropriate for each community to handle their piece. He noted that especially in the western part of the county, a lot of land is public land for parks and recreation, so it’s not on the tax rolls. A countywide millage would be a comprehensive solution.

Kelly agreed with Conan Smith, saying she supported a countywide millage – and thought that he should support it, too, as a city of Ann Arbor commissioner. Township residents “are part of your $4 billion tax base,” she said. “We come and eat here. We come and shop here. We come to Ann Arbor all the time. There wouldn’t be a $4 billion tax base if it wasn’t for all the people who live in the townships.”

The townships also provide city residents with a “playground,” she said, in terms of parks and natural areas. So it’s a countywide problem. It’s possible to pass a countywide millage, Kelly said, if people understand all the factors and work together.

Conan Smith elaborated on what he sees as the political challenge. The road commission doesn’t have control over streets in Ann Arbor. So if he advocates for a tax to fund roads outside the city, and his constituents are looking at the poor condition of city streets, “I’m going to get hammered, right?” He told Kelly that he understood her perspective and supported it, but was trying to figure out how to tackle the political reality.

If a constituent asks how a countywide millage will be allocated, Conan Smith said, he’d have to respond by saying that the county board appoints road commissioners for six-year terms, and that there’s no control or influence over what the road commission board does. “I don’t think I can make a strong case to a resident in Ann Arbor,” he said.

Kelly replied that she had the same concerns that Smith voiced, in terms of how revenues from a countywide millage would be allocated. She’d expect that the cities would share some of the money, and that it’s possible to figure out an equitable way to do it. She didn’t see how it affected whether or not to consolidate the road commission with the county.

Conan Smith said he didn’t think consolidation was the only answer, but he thought it was the most direct way to vest authority and accountability with an entity – the county board, as an elected body – that looked at the interests of the entire county, including the cities.

John Stanowski asked Smith whether he would vote to put a countywide millage on the ballot, even if 90% of his Ann Arbor constituents didn’t want it. “Are you saying that you’d disregard the wants and wishes of your constituents, and vote for the millage anyway?” Stanowski asked. Smith indicated that he would.

When there is control and oversight of funding, you can have a different kind of conversation, Conan Smith added. He felt that if he can tell his constituents that a representative body – like the elected county board – would have a “fulsome” conversation, then he felt he could represent his constituents better in making decisions. He said he’s cast many votes that were counter to the direct, immediate financial interests of his constituents. For example, he cited the fact that he was in the majority in voting to fund the sheriff’s road patrols. It was a heavily-divided city-versus-township issue, and at least one Ann Arbor commissioner needed to support it in order to pass. He said he was a “different kind of politician than others, because I take that countywide perspective.”

Stanowski described most people as “pocketbook voters,” who wouldn’t support anything that costs them money. He wasn’t sure voters in the city would support a countywide millage for roads. He noted that if the road commission were absorbed into the county, then the townships wouldn’t have adequate representation over road funding. He didn’t see consolidation as beneficial to the townships at all.

Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, said that if there were to be a countywide road millage, “everyone would get their slice of the pie.” The county board could approve a list of projects proposed by the road commission, which could include joint projects within the city jurisdictions. In terms of control, he noted that the county would collect the millage and release the money to pay for a project after the project is done.

Townsend noted that when an Act 283 millage was discussed a few years ago, the proposal had been to form a committee that would include road commissioners, county commissioners, and township officials. That committee would help develop a project list and a long-term plan, so there would be buy-in about what projects would be completed in any given year. [The idea is that an Act 283 million could be levied by the county board without voter approval, because the law pre-dates the state's Headlee amendment. For background on previous discussions about this effort, see Chronicle coverage: "County Road Proposal Gets More Scrutiny."]

Responding to some of Conan Smith’s remarks, Dan Smith said he didn’t feel it was appropriate for individual townships to bear responsibility for maintaining major thoroughfares like North Territorial Road, Geddes Road, Pontiac Trail and others. But under the current system, he noted, that’s the only option.

Most people don’t really care about the organization of the road commission or political questions involved, Dan Smith said – it’s insider baseball. They care about getting the roads fixed.

The current structure is a bit of an historical artifact, Dan Smith observed. The board of road commissioners actually predates the board of commissioners. A century ago there were countywide elected officials like the sheriff and clerk, but the board of commissioners didn’t exist. Instead, there was a board of supervisors, which was heavily skewed toward the townships. Each of the 20 township supervisors sat on the board, and the cities got two representatives. The board of supervisors created the road commission in order to handle these cross-jurisdictional road issues.

County government provides a wide variety of specialized services, Dan Smith noted. If the county were to absorb the road commission, his assumption would be that the operations of the road commission would remain unchanged – employees would do the same things they currently do, he said.

Townships used to have more responsibility for the roads, Dan Smith added, but over the years that responsibility was taken away from them by the state. There didn’t used to be statewide funding sources for roads, from gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Rather, the townships levied taxes to pay for roads under Act 51 or through a county levy under Act 283.

Dan Smith said he’s not interested in absorbing the road commission, but he thought the historical perspective was interesting.

Kelly noted that the tensions between the cities and townships aren’t going away. Ann Arbor isn’t getting smaller, and townships aren’t going to overtake the city in population anytime soon. Solutions are coming in a grassroots way, she noted. Township subdivisions are agreeing to special assessment districts (SADs) as one approach to maintain roads. Scio Township is taking the lead on this, she added.

At the subcommittee’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, county board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) talked with road commission board chair Doug Fuller (standing).

Kelly supported having a subcommittee of the county board to work on these issues, similar to a police services steering committee that’s already in place. Public safety is another example of an issue with tension between townships and cities, she said. The interests of cities and townships are different and the tax structures are different – that’s not changing, Kelly said, and it won’t be changed in any way if the road commission is absorbed into the county.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) supported the motion not to consolidate. There are amazing people at the road commission, she said, and they are very responsive. It’s a question of whether that will always be the case, she added, “but for today, it’s working.”

Ping agreed that there are various ways to fund roads, including bonds or a millage, which she preferred. She noted that Saline Township worked closely with the road commission in deciding how to spend the money raised from a township road millage. That kind of collaboration is important.

Ken Schwartz pointed out that the current subcommittee was formed because of “inexcusable neglect from Lansing. That is the fundamental problem.” The legislature and governor haven’t solved the funding problems for Michigan roads. There’s a cobbled-together system that doesn’t work, he said. Until things change at the state level, Schwartz didn’t think that much could be done besides having the road commission take care of the county’s primary roads and as many local roads as it can. Local communities must educate their residents about the need to pay for the local roads until there are major changes in Lansing.

Schwartz supported the recommendation not to absorb the road commission into the county.

Conan Smith advocated for taking small steps toward building stronger relationships and increasing the concept of the county’s road network as a multi-jurisdictional responsibility. The current statutory restrictions inhibit that, he said. The road commission board can have either three or five commissioners, each with a six-year term. If the county were to absorb the legal structure of the road commission, he said, there would be an array of options to institutionalize the oversight authority. The county could design a system that includes representatives from townships, cities, and the county board. He wants to take the legal step to do that. “I know that strikes fear in the hearts of a lot of people,” Conan Smith added, “but, man – I think we could do it better.”

The state has the best tools to solve this problem, Conan Smith said, but the state legislature won’t do it. The second-best tools are at the county level, he added. “We have the opportunity to grab those tools and start doing something with them.” A countywide millage isn’t optimal, but it’s a powerful tool if used appropriately. That’s why he’d be voting no on the proposed recommendation.

Kelly said the road commission seems to be working well. She noted that there are some bills proposed in the state legislature that might extend the opportunity to consider consolidation beyond the end of 2014. That makes her worry less about not making a change now. “I think we’ll have the opportunity later.”

Stanowski addressed Conan Smith’s concerns about the length of tenure for road commissioners. From his perspective, the six-year term provides some stability and continuity, Stanowski said, “uninfluenced by political outsiders.” If the road commission were absorbed into the county, it would become a department of the county government. The department head might be subject to more political influence, he said. “That’s why I’m in favor of leaving well-enough alone.”

Outcome: The recommendation not to consolidate the road commission into the county was approved on a 5-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Supporting the recommendation were Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly, Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, and York Township supervisor John Stanowski. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Consideration of Options: Expanded Commission?

The subcommittee then considered a motion put forward by Conan Smith: A recommendation to expand the road commission board from three to five members.

Smith said he didn’t see it as being dramatically better, but he noted that with only three road commissioners now, if any two of them talk about the road commission’s business, then it’s a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act. He thought there should be five road commissioners, just to avoid that challenge.

Smith also thought that having five road commissioners would make it easier to ensure broad representation from all parts of the county. It does increase the costs, he noted, but he thought there were some benefits. [The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.]

Pat Kelly agreed. She likes the current road commissioners – better than any other board in the past decade or so. “But I’ve been around when I didn’t like the road commission so much, either,” she added. There were times when she felt that road commissioners weren’t representing the best interests of her township. She didn’t think the cost of expansion would be great.

The issue of possible OMA violations was also a concern for Kelly. “I think a three-member body in the age of the Open Meetings Act is just a dangerous thing. I just don’t think it can operate properly all the time.”

John Stanowski said he wasn’t opposed to expansion, but wondered how those additional members would be selected. He suggested that four of them could be appointed based on geography, and the fifth one could be a member at large. If that approach isn’t feasible, he added, “then I’m not sure five is any better than three.”

Stanowski said he was painfully aware of the OMA and how easy it would be to cross the line with just three members. He assumed that road commissioners discussed their business only at public meetings.

Dan Smith said it would be possible to put in place a selection process like Stanowski has proposed. But it would exist only as long as the county board of commissioners chose to keep it that way, he noted. State law doesn’t require that road commissioners be appointed by district – it would be possible for the county board to appoint road commissioners who were all residents of Ann Arbor, for example. So that’s a concern, he said.

Dan Smith also said he understood the OMA concerns, and for that reason alone he was interested in discussing expansion to five members. State law only allows for the options of three or five members, he noted. He said he had a host of concerns related to politics, not policy, but he didn’t want to enumerate those concerns now.

Alicia Ping said she struggled with this issue. Expansion makes sense, she said, for all the reasons that had been stated. But leaving the appointments up to the county board opens the door for a lot of politics, she noted. There’s no guarantee that the appointments will be made in the best interests of the people served by the road commission, she said. Sometimes in the past, the decisions have been made based on political favors. Even so, she was inclined to support expansion.

Dan Smith pointed out that the issue of expanding the number of road commissioners was considered by the county board in 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Hearing Set on Road Commission Expansion" and "Effort to Expand Road Commission Doesn't Gain Support."] If the proposal comes to the county board again, he said, it would likely generate a lot of discussion. Smith noted that the option of expanding the road commission board exists beyond 2014, “and I’m not sure we need to come to a resolution on this today.”

Ping ventured that because of Fred Veigel’s ill health, the timing on this issue of expansion might not be the best. Since it was likely that he would be unable to fulfill his full term on the road commission board, the county board would be appointing a replacement. [Veigel died the following day, March 2.] So in light of that, Ping thought the issue of expansion should probably be pushed back.

Ken Schwartz agreed. Although the topic has been in the background as a possibility, he said, he hadn’t really given it much serious thought and wasn’t ready to discuss it.

Kelly thought “there’s a lot more meat on the bone for discussion” and she’d be in favor of deferring action. At the county board’s request, she said she’d be happy to continue discussing it and to come up with a recommendation.

Dan Smith asked Conan Smith if he’d be willing to withdraw his original motion. Then the subcommittee could make a recommendation to the county board to continue the discussion, he said. Conan Smith replied that he didn’t really care, but he’d be happy to withdraw the motion if other subcommittee members wanted to have more discussion at a later date.

Outcome: Conan Smith withdrew his motion.

Kelly then moved to recommend that the county board direct the road commission subcommittee to continue meeting for up to six months and to provide a recommendation on the possible expansion of the road commission board.

Conan Smith said he’d oppose the motion. Based on his experience, the issue of expansion is just a political conversation among county commissioners. “I honestly don’t think any conversation [by the subcommittee] would inform the board’s conversation,” he said.

Dan Smith noted that the county board doesn’t have to act on the recommendation to continue the subcommittee’s work. Ping said she’d support this motion, but added that she wouldn’t support continuing the subcommittee’s work when the issue came up for a vote at the county board. Dan Smith agreed, saying it was a largely political discussion that the county commissioners should have.

Outcome: With six subcommittee members present, the vote was 3-3 – so the recommendation didn’t pass. Supporting the recommendation to continue the subcommittee’s exploration of expansion were Alicia Ping, Dan Smith and Pat Kelly. Voting against it were Conan Smith, John Stanowski and Ken Schwartz.

Consideration of Options: Road Commissioners as Elected Officials

Conan Smith said he didn’t support an elected road commission. It’s a heavily Democratic county, he noted. Even though road commissioners would be elected in the November general election, the real decisions would be made during the August primaries, he said. And that means that urban residents would be, for all practical purposes, making the decisions, because that’s where the highest concentration of Democrats are. He didn’t think it was the right answer to have road commissioners elected by urban Democrats to be handling decisions about roads in rural communities.

Conan Smith then made a motion to recommend that the road commissioners should not be elected positions.

Outcome: The motion was passed unanimously.

Revenue Sources: Act 283

The subcommittee also discussed possible funding sources, as a separate agenda item. The discussion focused on two primary options: A countywide voter-approved millage, or a levy by the county board under Act 283 of 1909.

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.

Ken Schwartz recalled that after he was appointed road commissioner, he worked with Roy Townsend – who was then director of engineering – to explore options provided by Act 283. At first glance, he said, he thought it was a good idea. But he’s since changed his mind.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz at the subcommittee’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting.

Act 283 pre-dated the state law that allowed road commissions to be created. Schwartz argued that levying a countywide millage for roads under Act 283 flies in the face of the state constitution’s home rule provisions. He gave the example of the city of Ypsilanti, which already has a bond for roads and an excise tax on water bills for roads. He could envision Ypsilanti accepting Act 283 revenues but then using those revenues to pay for other things instead of roads, like debt on the city’s Water Street property. He didn’t see how the county could force the city to use Act 283 revenues for roads – it would have to be more like a “gentleman’s agreement,” he said.

Act 283 was passed when townships were the main form of government, Schwartz noted, and the funding mechanism was simple. Now, with Act 51, road funding has become much more complex. There’s a divide between the townships and the cities, he said. How do you ensure that the cities will use the money for the purposes it was intended? “I’m not really sure that we would have the legal authority to do that,” Schwartz said.

Conan Smith said his understanding was that a levy under Act 283 would be made by the county, and the revenues would be allocated by the county board of commissioners. “So why would Ypsilanti have any say over that?” he asked. The money would be awarded for projects, Smith said, not handed over to communities. He envisioned the road commission developing a list of road projects that could be funded through a countywide levy. The county board would decide what the levy would be to cover those projects on an annual basis.

Schwartz replied that he thought it was too complicated for the average citizen to understand. He noted that the county has no jurisdiction over the cities, which maintain their own roads.

Conan Smith described a scenario that would include city projects. For example, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation will be doing a major reconstruction of Huron Street in Ann Arbor. Revenues from Act 283 could be used as a match to make sure the project gets done, he said.

Schwartz then gave the example of Ypsilanti Township, which has bonded for road repair and also used money from its general fund. Its roads are 95% done, he said, so how would an Act 283 levy benefit that township? It’s unworkable, he contended.

The bottom line is that this is a problem Lansing needs to fix, Schwartz said.

Dan Smith said he had some serious concerns about using the Act 283 mechanism, similar to concerns he had regarding Act 88. [Washtenaw County government levies Act 88 to fund agricultural and economic development activities. The law also pre-dates Headlee and is levied without voter approval.] Dan Smith was also uncomfortable with the process that’s spelled out under Act 283, which makes it difficult to get money into city projects.

He noted that the county board has recently “stuck its toe into the road funding arena” for the first time through a mechanism that’s difficult to replicate in other parts of the county. [He was referring to the county's participation in the Pittsfield Township State Road corridor improvement authority.] The county also has relatively new authority, granted by the state a few years ago, to spend general fund tax dollars on roads. That’s another area to explore, he said.

Dan Smith supported exploring a countywide voter-approved millage for roads, rather than an Act 283 levy.

Roy Townsend said that obviously with an act that’s so old, there are problems. He agreed that Ypsilanti Township has put a lot of money into its roads, but the needs are continuous. “Just because you’ve spend a lot of money doesn’t mean that you’re done,” Townsend said. “It never ends.”

The challenge with a countywide millage vote is that right now, he said, Ann Arbor property owners already pay a street millage. There are still needs within the city, Townsend added, but trying to convince voters to support a countywide millage would be difficult. There was legislation in Lansing that would have allowed a countywide vote to exclude the cities, he noted, but it didn’t get any traction.

Under Act 283, the county board could levy a tax annually to cover specific projects, he said, rather than doing a countywide vote.

Pat Kelly noted that one important component of Act 283 is that the road commission would need to bring forward a list of projects to the county board. It’s a year-by-year effort, she said. “I don’t think it’s a completely terrible way to try to do it.” The politics of the county will preclude ever passing a countywide voter-approved millage, she argued. She said she’d be comfortable with the Act 283 process. “It’s a tool we have in a very, very limited toolbox.”

Dan Smith said the condition of roads, after the spring thaw, will be “unlike we’ve ever experienced in our lifetime.” So it might be possible to make the case to voters with specific projects. “Given the shape of the roads, I think voters might very well be willing to do that.”

Regarding Ann Arbor’s 2 mill levy for streets, Dan Smith said that the Ann Arbor city council could choose to levy less than the 2 mills – assuming that the city could get revenue from a countywide road millage. So that would be an option for the council to decide.

Schwartz said that Dan Smith had a point, but the consequence is that you’d be setting up political arguments within cities about whether to decrease the existing levy. “I don’t think the county should be proposing a levy that will create political arguments within communities,” Schwartz said.

The need for road repair will be immediate, Schwartz said – as soon as the snow recedes. He suggested that if the county board wanted to levy a millage under Act 283, they should do it soon and supply the extra money to all communities for asphalt, gravel, limestone and labor.

Kelly again voiced support for the board to levy a millage under Act 283, noting that it would fund projects in a plan presented by the road commission. It would allow work on multi-jurisdictional roads, like North Territorial, to be completed, she said, and would allow for matching funds to be provided to city projects, like Huron Street. Selection of projects would be subject to political machinations every year, she added, but “to me, it’s a decent tool. It’s not a great tool, but given the alternatives I can’t think of a better one.”

Schwartz agreed that Act 283 is a tool. “I think it’s a politically risky tool,” he said. “Until you try it, you don’t know.”

When he’d looked at it a few years ago, Schwartz said, he and Townsend had used the county’s equalization report to come up with allocations for each community. But it would likely create political squabbles within communities, he said, because of the archaic way the law is set up.

Alicia Ping pointed to the Washtenaw Urban County as an example of communities working together to allocate funding – in that case, federal dollars from the community development block grant (CDBG), HOME investment partnership and emergency shelter grant programs. It works, even though some communities get more funding than others. It’s a good model, Ping said.

If representatives from cities, township and the county helped develop a road project plan and agreed on priorities for any given year, that approach might work, Ping said. She supported bringing people to the table to explore this possibility.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Communications: Fred Veigel

At the start of the March 1 meeting, Ken Schwartz – a former road commissioner who now serves as supervisor for Superior Township – noted that long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel was in very serious condition and had been moved to Arbor Hospice. Schwartz had received a phone call from Veigel’s daughter, encouraging people to visit him. “He wants to say his goodbyes,” Schwartz said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked staff to send out an email letting other county commissioners know.

Doug Fuller, chair of the road commission board, reported that he and WCRC managing director Roy Townsend had visited Veigel earlier in the week. He reported that the national council of the AFL-CIO held an emergency meeting and made Veigel chairman emeritus of the Huron Valley Central Labor Council. While Fuller and Townsend were visiting Veigel, members of the current Huron Valley Central Labor Council came and presented Veigel with a plaque that commemorated this honor, Fuller said. “It certainly cheered his day,” Fuller said.

The day after this subcommittee meeting, on March 2, Veigel passed away. Visitation is scheduled for Saturday, March 8 from noon to 4 p.m. and 6-9 p.m., and on Sunday, March 9 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 5-8 p.m. at Nie Funeral Home on Liberty Road, just west of Wagner Road. Funeral services are scheduled for 11 a.m. on Monday, March 10 at the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, 3109 Scio Church Road.

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

The resolution’s one resolved clause states:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, such funds from state surplus should be used in part for roadway maintenance using the fair formula allocation as prescribed by Public Act 51 of 1951 to ensure Washtenaw County benefits fairly from surplus use. [.pdf of resolution]

At the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) had indicated the likelihood of this resolution coming to the board. She reported that a subcommittee that’s exploring the future of the Washtenaw County road commission had met prior to the county board meeting on Jan. 22. The subcommittee, which Ping chairs, had voted to ask the county board to pass a resolution urging Gov. Rick Snyder to allocate the state’s budget surplus for road repair, distributed to local entities using the current state formula for road allocations.

The resolution states that the Washtenaw County road commission maintains about 1,654 miles of roads, including 770 miles of gravel roads. It also is responsible for 111 bridges and more than 2,000 culverts, and is contracted by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to maintain about 580 lane miles of state trunkline roads. Road commissioners have indicated that there are several million dollars worth of needed repairs that are unfunded.

In a statement issued earlier in the day on Feb. 5, Snyder released some details for a fiscal 2015 budget proposal, including $254 million “to match federal aid and maintain Michigan’s roads and bridges, transit services and aeronautics projects across the state.”

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

York Township supervisor John Stanowski, center, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith, who represents District 9 in Ann Arbor. They are members of a subcommittee appointed by the county board to explore the future of the road commission. (Photos by the writer.)

The subcommittee was created by the county board of commissioners, which has the authority to appoint the three road commissioners but does not oversee the road commission’s budget or allocation of funds. State legislation enacted last year opened the possibility of absorbing the road commission into county operations, which would give county commissioners direct control over funding and operations now administered by the road commission.

According to the County Road Association of Michigan, five of the state’s 83 counties have merged their road commissions into the county government. Of those, the closest parallel to Washtenaw County in size and demographics is Ingham County, home to Lansing and East Lansing – where Michigan State University is located.

At the Dec. 4 meeting, there appeared to be universal agreement that more road funding is needed, but no clear consensus about the best way to achieve that goal. Conan Smith, a county commissioner representing District 9 in Ann Arbor, noted that there are more options to explore than just leaving the road commission unchanged, or absorbing it as a county department. He said he could almost guarantee that it wouldn’t be the best option to have the county board become the road commission.

However, he argued that there are likely structural and procedural changes that can improve the coordination of countywide transportation planning and land use planning, and to ease the burden on rural townships for funding the maintenance of roads that are used by people throughout the county.

A variety of funding mechanisms were discussed on Dec. 4, including the possibility of the county board levying a countywide road millage under Act 283 of 1909 – which at this point seems unlikely – or putting a millage question on the ballot for voters to decide.

The Dec. 4 meeting drew more than two dozen observers, including two of the three current road commissioners, several township elected officials, and many road commission employees. The subcommittee plans to schedule another meeting for early January 2014, and is expected to complete its recommendations by the end of March.

Subcommittee Background

At their Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, Washtenaw County commissioners created a new seven-member subcommittee to “explore partnerships and organizational interactions with the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” Members appointed at that time 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. The Oct. 2 resolution stated that the subcommittee would be chaired by the county board’s vice chair. That position is currently held by Ping.

Also on Oct. 2, the county board had approved an amendment to that resolution – proposed by Conan Smith – to give the subcommittee a $10,000 budget for possible research or travel costs to bring in experts on the issue. The action came late in the evening, over objections from Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who said the budget wasn’t needed and didn’t look good being amended into the resolution so late.

The resolution was also amended to put a timeframe on the work, directing the subcommittee to report back to the board no later than March 31, 2014. The final vote on the overall resolution, as amended, passed over dissent from LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

Grewal resigned from the subcommittee in mid-November, and on Nov. 20, 2013 the county board appointed York Township supervisor John Stanowski to the subcommittee.

Doug Fuller, who chairs the road commission, had been asked to join the subcommittee, but declined. He agreed to act as a liaison from the road commission to the subcommittee, however, and has attended both subcommittee meetings to date.

In the past, county commissioners have discussed the possibility of expanding the three-member road commission, in part because of how its small size causes potential for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act. And some commissioners have floated the possibility of consolidating the road commission with overall county operations.

Currently, the road commission is a semi-autonomous entity that oversees the maintenance of about 1,650 miles of roads in the county that are outside of cities and villages, including about 770 miles of gravel roads. The organization employs 115 full-time staff, down from 156 in 2004.

The three road commissioners are appointed by the county board of commissioners, but decisions made by the road commission board do not require authorization by the elected county board of commissioners.

Current road commissioners are Doug Fuller, Barb Fuller – who was appointed on Oct. 16, 2013, to fill the remainder of a term following the resignation of Ken Schwartz – and Fred Veigel, who also is a member of the county’s parks & recreation commission. Barb Fuller and Doug Fuller are not related. The salary for road commissioners, which is set by the county board, is $10,500 annually.

Public Commentary

The Dec. 4 subcommittee meeting was attended by more than two dozen observers, including a few township officials and many employees of the road commission. The meeting began with public commentary.

An employee of the road commission asked whether there would be hard facts about the money that would be saved by making the road commission a county department. Alicia Ping responded, saying that’s the purpose of the subcommittee – to evaluate the pros and cons, and make a recommendation to the county board of commissioners. She felt there was good representation on the subcommittee, with four commissioners representing different parts of the county, plus three township supervisors. The subcommittee is gathering information and will be analyzing that information to make its recommendation, she said.

Another employee urged the subcommittee to look at the issue from both sides. From the county’s perspective, the pros and cons might be different than from the perspective of the townships, for example.

Ron Smith, Bridgewater Township supervisor, said he was there because Doug Fuller – chair of the road commission board – had sent him an email asking him to attend. [Fuller, as chair of the road commission, had emailed all township supervisors to inform them of the meeting.] Smith said he’s interested in this exploration process, as a relatively new supervisor. He gets a lot of comments from people about roads and the road commission, and the township has a problem getting support for road millages, he said.

Part of the problem is the interface between citizens and “the orange trucks,” he said. “They see [road commission workers] doing things they don’t understand and don’t think is correct.” Smith said Doug Fuller had been kind enough to drive around the township with him for a couple of hours, explaining some of the work that residents had asked about. “So I’d like to see this exploration,” Smith said. “I think good things can come out of it.”

Smith noted that when he had worked in private industry, “I was the guy that went into broken companies and turned them around, or didn’t” – because not each project was a success, he said. He came to this area to work for Guardian Industries, to help fix issues at the Carleton plant. Some of the issues are the same at the road commission, he added. “I watch the orange trucks drive by and I say, ‘What are they doing? Why are they doing that?’” For example, in Bridgewater Township, which is primarily rural, a worker with a shovel would be more effective than a grater in many cases, he said. So he’d like to explore the road commission’s management, and how it manages work in some of the county’s rural townships.

Subcommittee Discussion

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township’s supervisor, pointed out that the pros and cons of potentially absorbing the road commission into the county operations involve much more than money. Obviously, money is always a part of it, she said, but it’s not the only factor.

Washtenaw County commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Dan Smith, who represents District 2 on the county board, agreed that money is a consideration. “But it’s certainly for me not a motivating factor.” The road commission is already a very efficient organization, he said, and they run a very tight ship. At any large organization, there is always money that can be saved and efficiencies to be gained, he added. But he didn’t think there was a lot of money to be saved in this case.

Conan Smith, a county commissioner representing District 9 in Ann Arbor, said there are more than two options to explore. There are more options than just leaving the road commission unchanged, or absorbing it into the county operations. He said he could almost guarantee that it wouldn’t be the best option to have the county board become the road commission.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. – who represents District 5, which includes Ypsilanti Township – said his only problem with the road commission is “I think your PR is terrible.” But now that Roy Townsend is managing director, Sizemore added, “It’s changed 100%.” The road commission hasn’t done a very good job letting people know what they do, he said. Certain employees don’t answer their emails, Sizemore complained – perhaps because “they’ve got the Ann Arbor attitude, that they don’t have to,” he added.

Sizemore said he’s not willing to take over the road commission. He agreed with Dan Smith, that he didn’t think it would save a lot of money to do that. “I think we need to work closer together on some items,” he said, and the PR needs to be improved. He reported that he’s talked with other road commissions in Michigan. “They all tell me the same thing,” he said. “If it’s political, the county will take them over. If it’s economical, the county leaves them alone.” The road commission and county board both need to do a better job of PR, because now residents look at government as the enemy, Sizemore said. He thinks it’s getting better under Townsend’s leadership.

Sizemore added that he might be willing to increase the size of the road commission’s board from three members to five, but he hadn’t yet decided about that.

Subcommittee Discussion – Membership Change

Alicia Ping, who chairs the subcommittee, noted that Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township supervisor, had submitted a letter of resignation from the subcommittee. Grewal’s letter, dated Nov. 12, was included in the meeting packet of materials, and stated:

I am writing to recuse myself from the Committee established by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners to review the operations of the Washtenaw County Road Commission.

I appreciate the opportunity to serve and hope to be able to volunteer my services for the continued improvement of our community another time in the future.

Based on minutes from the subcommittee’s first meeting on Oct. 29, Grewal did not attend.

By way of background, Pittsfield Township is currently embarking on a major project to upgrade South State Street. The township has created a corridor improvement authority (CIA) that will use tax increment financing (TIF) to help pay for it, as a local match to secure federal funds. On Nov. 6, 2013, the county board approved a tax-sharing agreement that outlines the county’s participation in that project. Township officials have indicated that one reason they pursued a CIA approach was that the road commission had decided not to provide funding for the project.

At the Dec. 4 subcommittee meeting, Ping also noted that the county board had made an appointment on Nov. 20, 2013 to replace Grewal with York Township supervisor John Stanowski. Ping offered the opportunity for Stanowski and other subcommittee members to introduce themselves.

County commissioner Alicia Ping, who chairs the county board’s exploratory subcommittee on the road commission.

Stanowski said that most of his career had been spent as a prosecutor. It’s his first term as supervisor of York Township, which is located in the southern part of the county, southeast of Saline. [He was elected in November 2012.] He described York Township as a conservative community. “I tend to be a curmudgeon when it comes to spending money. I have basically conservative views on most things, and I tend to be outspoken when I feel that something’s not right.”

Regarding the road commission, Stanowski said he had no preconceived notions, but he did have some ideas. “I’ve got a tabula rasa – a clean mind.”

Other subcommittee members introduced themselves. County commissioner Dan Smith – whose district covers a portion of northern Ann Arbor, as well as the townships of Ann Arbor, Northfield, Salem, Superior and Webster – noted that he previously served on the Northfield Township board of trustees, “so I’m familiar with the townships and their view on roads as well.”

Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly noted that the subcommittee has only met once before, and that first meeting had been a short one – so Stanowski hadn’t missed a lot, she said. The subcommittee doesn’t have a clear direction yet, she said. “That’s one of the first things we need to do.”

Referring to Ron Smith’s public commentary, Kelly said she didn’t view the subcommittee’s role as trying to figure out what the road commission’s orange trucks are doing or not doing. The subcommittee needs to identify the best process to get those answers. “I don’t think we’re here to run the road commission or even to figure out why people don’t answer their emails,” she quipped, referring to Rolland Sizemore Jr.’s complaint.

Ping said she felt the subcommittee had a good balance of perspectives, and she thought that members would bring history, expertise, and representation on the question of what’s best for the county residents. Nothing is preconceived, Ping said.

Ping, whose district covers most of southern and southwestern Washtenaw County, also noted that the county is not currently running the road commission. That’s still the job of managing director Roy Townsend, overseen by the three-member road commission board, she said. [Two of those three members – the chair, Doug Fuller, and the newest member, Barb Fuller, attended the Dec. 4 subcommittee meeting. The third road commissioner is Fred Veigel.] A previous road commissioner, Ken Schwartz, was recently was appointed as Superior Township supervisor and serves on the subcommittee.

Other elected officials at the meeting to observe included Ron Smith, Bridgewater Township supervisor; Scio Township supervisor Spaulding Clark; and Webster Township supervisor John Kingsley.

Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran did not attend the Dec. 4 meeting, but had sent an email to Ping outlining the township’s position. From the email, dated Nov. 13:

Ann Arbor Charter Township has discussed the proposal that the Washtenaw County Road Commission be dissolved and its functions be folded into the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners in some fashion. No member of the Board of Trustees supports that proposal and the Board has asked me to convey that opinion to you and the County Board of Commissioners. Thank you for all of your work on behalf of Washtenaw County.

Subcommittee Discussion – Information Gathering

Alicia Ping reported that she has asked Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, to look at whether there are duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. That might be one area that could provide cost savings, Ping said. She asked subcommittee members whether there is other information that they’d like to collect.

John Stanowski asked whether it’s the opinion of the county board that there’s a problem with the road commission. Is the problem with the structure or administration? he asked. Or are cost savings the main concern? He wanted to know what the problem was, so that the subcommittee could work toward a solution.

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township supervisor.

Ping replied that this process was undertaken as a result of state legislation that aims to eliminate duplication and encourage consolidation of government units. The legislation – Public Act 15 of 2012 – gave county boards the authority to absorb independent road commissions. Previously, that wasn’t allowed. The law sunsets at the end of 2014, however, so the subcommittee was created to evaluate whether that’s a good move for Washtenaw County.

Conan Smith framed the question not as what problem needs to be resolved, but rather what opportunities are possible, and how can the structure be improved. When he was county board chair, he said, there was discussion about expanding the number of road commissioners so that there was more representation there. It evolved into a discussion of whether that representation should be geographic, he recalled – guaranteeing that there are spots for rural or urban townships on the road commission, for example.

[By way of background, over three years ago – at its July 7, 2010 meeting – the county board held a public hearing on the issue of expanding the road commission board. Conan Smith was chair of the board's ways & means committee that year. Jeff Irwin, who was a county commissioner at the time, had indicated an intent to make a formal resolution on the issue, but the expansion effort did not move forward. About a year later, when Smith was board chair, the issue arose again, this time related to a possible countywide millage under Act 283. The county board did not ultimately act on that, either. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Commissioners Discuss County Road Tax,"  "County Postpones Action on Road Millage," and "County Road Proposal Gets More Scrutiny."]

At the Dec. 4 meeting, Conan Smith posed this question: If the road commission were designed for 2010 instead of 1910, “how would we do it differently today?” The state legislature has offered the opportunity to think about that, and maybe the answer is that it’s perfect the way it is, he said. “I for one would argue that there are things that we can be doing better.” Some of that is related to structure and processes, he said.

Stanowski said it’s his opinion that if some things aren’t broken, don’t try to fix them – “because you’ll only make it worse.” If the subcommittee can come up with economic efficiencies, he said, perhaps that can be achieved under that existing governance structure.

Ping agreed, noting that there are options other than the two extremes of leaving things unchanged or absorbing the road commission into the county. “It’s not black or white – there’s a whole gray spectrum.” She described the subcommittee’s work as a “three-month SWOT analysis.” [SWOT refers to a planning method used to evaluate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.] Based on that, the subcommittee will write its recommendation, she said.

Stanowski said he’s looking at the issue from the township’s point of view. York Township has about 36 miles of roads. His concern is whether big government should take over and relinquish townships to a minor position. “We may not have the population, but we have the roads,” he said. It wouldn’t be fair to have three road commissioners from the city and just two from the townships, he added. Stanowski said he wouldn’t be comfortable expanding the road commission membership unless the townships could have the majority of positions.

Pat Kelly, Dexter Township supervisor, said the subcommittee also needs to explore whether they need the new state law in order to expand the membership of the road commission. Her personal view, she said, was that expansion could be done without the new state legislation. Conan Smith agreed that if the road commission board were expanded to five members, the county board wouldn’t need the new state law to do that. But if they wanted to expand membership to seven members, it would require that new legislation.

Dan Smith pointed out that the subcommittee had been charged at recommending one of three things. One possibility is to recommend no changes, he said. It might be that after the subcommittee analyzes the information it gathers, it decides that any changes would make things worse, on balance. Another possibility is to expand the number of road commissioners from three to five, under the law that’s existed for many years. The third option, which is only available through 2014, is for the county government to absorb the duties and responsibilities of the road commission, he noted.

If the subcommittee recommends absorbing the road commission, then the next question is: “What does a road department look like as part of county government?” Dan Smith said. In that context, there are many scenarios that could take place. But he said the feedback he’s getting from township officials and residents is that the road commission is generally working pretty well, and he’s not interested in fixing something if it’s not broken.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said his goal is to figure out how the road commission and the county can work together better. There are things that the county can do to improve, too. He again encouraged more PR and education about the road commission’s work.

Subcommittee Discussion – Funding Sources

Alicia Ping told subcommittee members that at some point, she wanted to talk about the road commission’s capital improvement plan (CIP), and what the commission would do if it had adequate funding. She noted that the county board is the only entity that could levy a countywide millage for roads, or put a countywide millage on the ballot. Or it might be the county board’s role to help townships understand how they could levy their own local road millage, she said. There are some communities that currently provide their own funding for roads, she added. Ypsilanti Township decided to use bonds for road repair. Scio Township is funding road improvements through a special assessment district. Pat Kelly said that Dexter Township is looking into that possibility as well.

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

Ping wanted to see how the county could be a resource to help communities get additional road funding, or to help them generate funding for themselves.

At the end of the day, Dan Smith said, it’s about fixing the roads, and finding mechanisms to do that. For the vast majority of people in the county, what happens to the road commission’s organization and structure is “insider baseball,” he said. Everyone in the room and on the subcommittee cares about the organization and structure, he added, but most people would say they just want the roads fixed.

So that raises the question about financing, Dan Smith said. The county board has the authority to levy an Act 283 tax, he noted, and townships have the authority to seek a levy under Act 51 or a special assessment district. The townships could get upset and decide not to turn over their Act 51 money to the county, if the county absorbs the road commission, he said. The underlying issue for anything that the subcommittee recommends should address how it helps fix the roads, Smith concluded.

Kelly responded, saying that so far, she didn’t see any way that the county could help the townships regarding the roads. The road commission helps the townships get things done, she said, noting that she has many of the phone numbers for road commission employees on her speed dial.

Kelly reported that the township gets Act 51 funding that in turn the road commission uses on roads. But it’s not sufficient to cover everything, she said, so Dexter Township has made a decision to spend its Act 51 funding only on its main roads. And that’s why the township is considering a special assessment district to pay for other roads.

Conan Smith asked whether a township is the unit of government that should bear the responsibility for the maintenance of all roads in its jurisdiction. Should taxpayers in Dexter Township, for example, be the only ones to pay to maintain those roads? People across the county all should share in the burden of making sure the whole county’s transportation network is robust and well-maintained, he said.

But there’s a structural problem that exists between the road commission and the county board of commissioners, and how transportation decision-making is made, Conan Smith noted. The city of Ann Arbor, which he represents, gets Act 51 money and also has a street millage, so the city takes care of its own roads. “Where’s the argument for a citizen of Ann Arbor to vote for a countywide road millage?” he asked. Kelly replied: “There isn’t one.”

That’s right, C. Smith said. But if people start rethinking that structure, “we can start to deconstruct that mentality and find ways that we can collectively invest.” He noted that he’s in Dexter Township a lot – he drives on those roads, and wants them to be well-maintained. As another example, Smith said his Ann Arbor constituents who are recreational bicyclists and cycle out to the county’s rural areas complain about the chip seal that’s used on roads. “But they’re not motivated right now to put additional money into making that a better system, because they don’t see a way to influence it effectively,” he said. Those are the kinds of opportunities to explore, he added, that might deliver more money into the system overall.

Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, reported that the commission had recently passed its final 2013 budget as well as the 2014 budget, which he said he could provide to subcommittee members for their next meeting. [.pdf of Dec. 3, 2013 road commission board packet, which includes 2013 budget analysis and 2014 draft budget.]

There’s also a list of projects planned for the next five years, Townsend said, as well as a list of projects that aren’t being done because funding isn’t available. That unfunded list is a lot larger, he added. [.xls file of 2014-2018 CIP with funded projects] [.pdf of unfunded projects 2014-2018]

Townsend and Doug Fuller had presented some of this information to the county board, as part of the road commission’s annual plan, at a Nov. 21, 2013 working session. Subcommittee members had also been provided with additional financial material, to help in their analysis. [.pdf of 2013 road and bridge projects] [.pdf of 2014 projects] [.pdf of 2013 2Q budget update] [.pdf of 2012 WCRC audit] [.pdf of WCRC property appraisal] [.pdf of township contributions to roads 2011-2013] [.pdf of 2012 retiree health care valuation report] [.pdf of 2012 actuarial valuation report Municipal Employees' Retirement System (MERS)]

Barb Fuller, one of three Washtenaw County road commissioners.

Townsend noted that two year ago, he and Ken Schwartz – who served as a road commissioner at the time – came to the county board with a plan for road projects that needed funding. The county board had the option, under Act 283 of 1909, of levying a millage without voter approval to pay for specific projects. Although the board didn’t act at the time, it’s another potential funding tool, he noted.

Dan Smith pointed to North Territorial Road as an example of a road that runs the entire length of the county, crossing many jurisdictions. Salem Township put considerable resources into North Territorial, he said, and Northfield Township had invested in it too. Webster Township has put some money into the road, although there are still some bad spots there, he said.

His point, Smith said, is that North Territorial Road is a major county thoroughfare. Is it really right that these individual townships are investing in that road, given that the townships have no responsibility to spend a single penny of township tax dollars on roads? But in fact, township officials do choose to spend money on roads like this because they hear from citizens about the bad roads, he said. There are other examples beyond North Territorial, he noted, like Jackson Road, Zeeb Road, Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Dexter-Pinckney Road.

Scio Township has taken an approach of doing a special assessment district, Dan Smith noted, and strategies like that make sense. The question is whether to fund these major roads in a different way, so that the burden isn’t put on the local community to come up with funding. If so, how do the townships fit in with that? Would changing the structure of the road commission help with that, or simply make it even worse? “I haven’t yet seen anything that makes it better,” D. Smith added, “but I’m willing to explore the alternatives and make a decision on this, one way or another, and not just let the clock run out [on the state legislation].”

Conan Smith added that right now, there’s a disconnected land use and transportation system in the county. Over the last decade, he said, the road commission has done a good job at starting to integrate its planning processes with land use planning. But as an example of the disconnect, Smith pointed to Webster Township, which he said has done a good job at maintaining the township’s rural character. That means the land values there will be predominantly based on agricultural values, which are lower than land that can be developed, he explained.

In turn, C. Smith added, that means the township’s ability to raise money through taxes is more difficult than in the city of Ann Arbor, for example. And although it benefits the entire county that the township remains rural, the township is being asked to take care of the roads in its jurisdiction, without asking anyone else to contribute, Smith said. “That’s part of the system that’s broken, in my mind, that we have the opportunity to try and fix.”

Kelly disagreed that the system is broken. Two years ago, the county board was presented with a “perfect” proposal that was well-researched. [She was referring to the possibility of levying a countywide millage under Act 283.] Conan Smith noted that the proposal had been presented without the involvement of any city representatives, “so how can I support a proposal like that and go back to my constituents?” he asked.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, who previously served as a Washtenaw County road commissioner. He also is a former elected county commissioner.

Kelly told Smith that he would need to educate city residents about why it’s important. It’s like a drain project, she noted – only a few people might be affected, but it’s seen as a necessary project and is funded by a much broader tax base. “You’re never going to make that political case,” she said. “You’re going to have to sit up … and be counted, and say this is the right thing to do – and just do it! Why didn’t you pass that millage? I don’t understand it.”

Alicia Ping agreed with Kelly that the Act 283 proposal had been a good one. But the way that the current governance structure is set up, county commissioners were concerned that they’d be making constituents in their districts pay a tax but the county board had no control over how the money would be spent – it would be allocated by the road commission, Ping said. “There’s a disconnect between the people who collect the money and the people spend the money,” Ping said, adding that there’s no accountability between those two entities. “That’s where the problem is.”

By way of background, Act 283 of 1909 does appear to outline a process by which the county board could exert some control over how the tax dollars are spent. It directs the road commission to present an annual plan to the county board for road projects, with an estimate of how much it would cost to fund those projects. From Act 283 (Note: the county board of commissioners was previously called the county board of supervisors, and was composed of supervisors from each township):

If the determination of the board of county road commissioners shall not meet with the approval of a majority of the board of supervisors, then the said board of supervisors shall proceed to decide upon the amount of tax to be raised for such year in such county for the purposes aforesaid, and may allow or reject in whole or in part any or all of the items for the sections of roads thus submitted for its consideration; and it shall not be lawful for such county road commissioners without the consent of such board of supervisors to spend any such moneys upon any other roads than as thus specified. [.pdf of Act 283 excerpt, with an analysis prepared for the county board in 2011 by Lew Kidder of Scio Township]

Ken Schwartz – the new Superior Township supervisor who previously served as a county road commissioner – also spoke about the fact that the road commission had approached the county board in 2011 about a proposal under Act 283. He noted that Act 283 was written in 1909, and described the law as “really flawed.”

Funding should really come from the state, Schwartz said. There really are only two viable funding options for roads, he added – the state, and the local units of government. He thought the road commission had done a good job of advising the local units of government about their options.

Schwartz thought it would be very difficult for the county to figure out a different mechanism that really works. Just like Conan Smith wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for a millage that would be spent outside Ann Arbor, Schwartz said, a lot of township officials might not feel comfortable about the county board allocating Act 51 money that’s now administered by the road commission. The issue relates to taxation without representation, he said.

Schwartz felt that the local units of government will need to step up until state officials provide more funding.

John Stanowski asked Schwartz whether he thought that the populace “just didn’t trust government.” Schwartz replied that he didn’t encounter that attitude at all. “It just seemed like Act 283 was unworkable in modern times,” Schwartz added. In order to make levying a millage fair, it would require that the taxes collected in Ann Arbor and other cities would have to be handed back to the city government. “I don’t think we could dictate how [the city] would spend that money,” he said.

Dan Smith said he agreed with some of Schwartz’s comments – Act 283 is awkward and difficult to administer. One option would be to put a millage on the ballot that would clearly indicate how funds would be distributed. In Ann Arbor, for example, if voters approved a countywide road millage, perhaps the city council would agree to reduce the city’s charter tax levy by the same amount as that road millage – so that overall, there would be no tax increase on Ann Arbor taxpayers, he ventured.

D. Smith agreed that there’s a big disconnect in the current system, because the road commission is a separate legal entity from the county government. After road commissioners are appointed by the county board, “it’s their game,” he noted. “They’re the ones that run things, and yet we’re the ones who take the [political] hit for the tax. And that’s a struggle.” D. Smith then returned to his point that residents don’t really care about this kind of insider baseball – they just want the roads fixed.

Next Steps

As she wrapped up the Dec. 4 meeting, Alicia Ping reminded subcommittee members that Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, will be preparing an analysis of any duplications in employee positions at the road commission and the county. Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, will be doing a similar analysis on overlapping facilities and assets. Roy Townsend, the road commission’s managing director, will be providing budget information and a list of funded and unfunded projects.

Ping asked subcommittee members to think about any other information that they’d like to collect, and to do their own SWOT analysis from the perspective of their jurisdictions. At the next meeting, they could review this material and see where there might be tangible or non-tangible benefits to taking any particular action.

Subcommittee members discussed the possibility of inviting representatives from other counties that had merged their road commissions with the county government, as well as from counties that had considered but rejected that approach. The consensus appeared to be that it would be a benefit to find a county with a similar demographic – like Ingham County, where Lansing and East Lansing are located. Ingham County did decide to absorb the road commission. Pat Kelly, Dexter Township supervisor, joked it would be good to look at a similar county that has a “900-pound gorilla in the middle” – a reference to Ann Arbor, with the University of Michigan, and East Lansing, home to Michigan State University.

Ken Swartz, Superior Township supervisor, cautioned that it’s important to understand the context for decisions made in other counties. In some cases, decisions are “overtly political, because people didn’t like each other.” And Macomb County, which is significantly bigger than Washtenaw County, went through a process to become a charter county, and absorbed the road commission through that charter process, he said. “I’m leery of comparing others that did it for purposes that weren’t strictly speaking what we’re trying to look at,” Schwartz said.

Ping estimated that their next meeting would be scheduled sometime in early January.

Despite some strong political pressure from supporters of the road commission to abandon this process, Ping told The Chronicle in a follow-up phone conversation that she intends to continue the subcommittee’s work and deliver a set of recommendations by March.

County board chair Yousef Rabhi, who attended a meeting of township supervisors held on Dec. 5, told The Chronicle in a follow-up phone conversation that he discussed the subcommittee’s mission and process at that meeting. A majority of supervisors who attended the Dec. 5 meeting were against absorbing the road commission into the county government, he reported, but he estimated that only about half of the township supervisors were there. Rabhi indicated that he expects the subcommittee to continue its work and provide recommendations to the county board by the end of March.

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!

From the press release: “The bipartisan, bicameral package aims to improve and maintain roads across the state, implement numerous reforms to the Department of Transportation and establish a funding source to be used only to directly improve roads, bridges and key infrastructure. The legislation also would create a regional transit authority in Southeast Michigan.” For background see “AATA in Transition: Briefed on State’s Plans.”