untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rumor has it some Genesee County Commissioners have raised this issue again and want to make the Road Commissioner an elected position.
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/03/
27_reasons_genesee_county_road.html27 reasons: Genesee County Road Commission chief tells why agency should stay independent
Ron Fonger | rfonger1@mlive.com By Ron Fonger | rfonger1@mlive.com
on March 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Genesee County, MI -- County Road Commission Manager-Director John Daly isn't being coy about his feelings concerning a potential takeover of his agency by the county Board of Commissioners.
Some of Daly's arguments against such a move -- allowed by recent changes in state law -- were published by The Flint Journal last week.
Daly actually offered 27 reasons not to make such a move in a memorandum to all township supervisors in the county.
Here are all 27:
•If it isn't broken, don't fix it. GCRC has achieved national leadership and recognition in both improved road safety and applications of transportation asset management, fleet management, and supply chain management.
•GCRC has always had a good reputation in terms of use of road funds and for all its other activities. The County Board has not put forth a plan showing how the County Road System would be improved if the County Board were to take over the GCRC.
•GCRC created a point-driven (merit) project-selection process for the use of federal funds in Genesee County that was selected by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) more than 25 years ago as a model for use nation-wide for selecting projects for federal funding.
•GCRC was identified in an FHWA report on safety as an example of having significantly improved road safety via the development of a "safety culture" in the organization.
• GCRC has maintained a very good working relationship with the communities it serves, reinforced by 13 years of biennial Strategic Planning meetings with officials of virtually all cities, villages and townships in the county.
•In tough economic times, the county, facing tremendous political pressure, could divert road funding to other county uses.
•By taking over the GCRC, the County would inherit: The fifth largest county road system in the state, with more than 1,500 miles of county roads and an additional 820 lane miles maintained under contract with MDOT. Since Michigan's state highway system is smaller than average, many Genesee County roads would be state highways in other states. Consider: Miller Road from the city limits of Flint to Linden Road carries more traffic than most state trunklines in northern Michigan and the UP; More than $10 million in needed equipment replacements (trucks and graders that need to be replaced today); A greatly reduced work force. Compared to 2007 staffing levels, there are currently 53 vacant positions, including 31 salt truck drivers not available to plow and salt this winter. Estimated cost to fill all vacancies: $4 million annually; Additional liability exposure in terms of liability related to road defects; The county commissioners would be held directly accountable by the residents for winter maintenance, gravel road maintenance and other road problems, such as potholes; Increased cost of bids due to the fact that GCRC realizes discounts for being able to pay vendors quickly. No committees to go through for payment; Possible damaged relationships with communities since GCRC has a non-partisan relationship with all communities
•The county board of commissioners would assume the financial liabilities listed above with no real means of covering them financially. This could be worse than taking over the City of Flint. If now is not a good time to raise that state gas tax, what if the likelihood of a major increase in the county property tax?
•Would it be possible to enact a county-wide property tax millage for roads and still have a road commission? Yes. In 17 Michigan counties, there is a county-wide millage with the revenues divided between the road commission and the cities and villages. In one case, the road commission receives more revenue from the millage than from the state via the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF).
•As indicated earlier, between the years 1974 and 2007, GCRC added only 8 employees (1.5%), even though its responsibilities grew tremendously through the addition of maintenance tasks for the state trunkline system in Genesee County as well as the widening of many county roads. Instead of adding staff, GCRC privatized a lot of the work the organization previously did.
•GCRC has already privatized as much or more than any other road agency in the state. All that work is bid out to the lowest bidding private company. Even work GCRC previously did for MDOT has been privatized, such as concrete joint repair, street sweeping and slope mowing.
•When MDOT finds that it has extra funds available after winter and can pay for additional maintenance activities, it assigns the work to GCRC (like the last couple of months) instead of bidding out the work to private contractors. MDOT has indicated it is pleased with the extra work GCRC forces have been doing.
•GCRC, because it has been a leader for decades, has staff on national committees and is looked to for leadership on local road issues.
•During Governor John Engler's terms, he attempted to abolish road commissions. His purpose was obvious: Make road commissions part of the county government so that the county could raise property taxes for county roads. The state could then dedicate the gas and diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees for state highways only. Thus the "user fees" would go to state highways and tax revenues that have nothing to do with the use of the roads would go for local roads. His approach became somewhat flagrant when he tried to take all federal funds and then make local roads ineligible for use of federal funds (a.k.a. "Rationalization").
•Putting GCRC under the county would simply provide an opportunity to now carry out Engler’s plan. Road commissions have no taxing authority and thus must depend on the legislature and governor. To accomplish any goal similar to Engler’s, road commissions must be abolished.
•GCRC is the lead county road commission in the state. Take down GCRC and the remainder of the "dominoes" will fall. The Wayne County Road Commission had too many problems 30 years ago to have that kind of impact. The Road Commission of Macomb County does not command much leadership and thus much impact. GCRC, on the other hand, would be a natural target, if overarching goals related to road funding changes, are to be achieved.
•If GCRC is already heavily privatized and has been doing very well considering its responsibilities and the resources it has to work with, what is to be gained by eliminating it? What is the ulterior motive?
•If privatizing winter maintenance is mentioned, consider the following: Privatization works only if there is competition to keep prices down. No contractor has a fleet of V-bottom salt trucks with pre-wetting equipment and computerized salt spreaders to do the work (and costing about $200,000 each or more). Pay one contractor to buy the equipment, and you will have a sole source that can rip you off; Where would a private contractor house his equipment and get his salt? Communities don't want those types of massive, "industrial" facilities in their neighborhoods any more. And, the cost of purchasing the land and building the facilities would require even more cash outlay up front just to begin to do the work.
•All of this is simply one more attempt to “reorganize the deck chairs on the Titanic”. It is playing organizational games while ignoring the results of the private sector/legislative study completed 2 ½ years ago (the Transportation Funding Task Force or TF2) and the latest bi-partisan study by two state representatives (Olson and Schmidt) that confirmed the earlier study. To solve Michigan’s road problems, a great deal of new money is needed.
•Merging the Road Commission with county general government would NOT generate any additional funding for roads. This proposal may simply be an attempt to reach into someone else's pocket (i.e. the county's) for some of that money. Merging the GCRC with the general county government will actually result in less money being available for the Genesee County road system.
•Bond rating and its impact on the interest rate associated with debt issuance is a key consideration. Currently, the Genesee County Road Commission (GCRC) is rated by Standard & Poor's (S&P) as "AAA"; Genesee County currently is rated by S&P as "A". Last year, the GCRC issued $5.9 million to fund a large storm water culvert replacement program; had that debt been issued under Genesee County's "A" bond rating the additional interest cost would have been $532,000 or $53,200 annually. This is money that would have to be spent on increased interest rather than road maintenance. The cost of general liability and worker's compensation insurance if dissimilar pools of employees are merged is another key consideration in consolidation of local units of government. If a county road commission is absorbed by County government, the county will be responsible for all road and bridge tort liability – present and future.
•It has been pointed out that other states do not have road commissions. Perhaps Michigan simply had a better idea, take politics out of road work.
• HB 5125/5126 is not consistent with the general county form of government and compromises the internal controls within the general-law form of county government. The general county system of government contains a significant check and balance which not allowed for by HB 5125/5126. The significant services and day-to-day functions of a general-law county government are overseen by elected department heads (e.g. sheriff, treasurer, county clerk, register of deeds, drain commissioner, and county surveyor), whose responsibilities are established by state statue. HB 5125/5126 affords the County Board of Commissioners only the option of placing the county road system under their direct control. If roads were incorporated into the county budget in Genesee County, this would comprise 42% of the county's budget. Clearly, roads represent a significant function of county government of the type that is presently overseen by an elected department head. Further, the existing proposed legislation would, if enacted, significantly erode the internal controls existing within the existing general-law form of county government by placing budgetary responsibility, oversight responsibility, and direct control of day-to-day operations underneath the board of county commissioners. The only organizations with the legal standing to maintain controls (i.e., the Department of Treasury and the Department of Transportation) would be in Lansing.
•General Liability and Workman's Compensation Insurance will prove to be particularly difficult issues if the GCRC is absorbed by the Board of County Commissioner. |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
