Print

[blue2]

MM.  that's a good question.
When all the funding goes to wages and benefits and there is nothing left for projects then someone in authority needs to step and eliminate something.  I'd like not to be paying taxes just to employee people.
I would have more fun just throwing my money away.

[The Fuzz]

I personally think they should let the Rd Commission go bankrupt and start over under the County Board.

From what I gathered at the meeting is that the County will be responsible regardless as the road commission is a sub-arm of the county.  Letting them go bankrupt is not an option based on what I understood this evening.

[Maverick]

The benefit to them going bankrupt would be that the union contracts would be voided. All the union control would go out the window and maybe we could hire people for something other than an outrageous wage and benefit package.

[sammy]

Hard to believe you posted an anti-union thought. You will be excoriated forthwith!

[Tiny]

MM.  that's a good question.
When all the funding goes to wages and benefits and there is nothing left for projects then someone in authority needs to step and eliminate something.  I'd like not to be paying taxes just to employee people.
I would have more fun just throwing my money away.

They have been that way for many many years. My brother was on the Frenchtown Board over 10 years ago when they were fighting with the road commission over paying for roads in Frenchtown Twp.  I remember him telling me they found out that all their funding went to pay wages and benefits, so they made townships pay for their own road repairs. (of course they HAD to have the MCRC do the work and pay for supervision of their own people) Frenchtown didn't want to pay to fix county roads, the MCRC was supposed to take care of them. The MCRC always wanted Frenchtown to pay because they had big money.

[The Fuzz]

The benefit to them going bankrupt would be that the union contracts would be voided. All the union control would go out the window and maybe we could hire people for something other than an outrageous wage and benefit package.

I understand that that could be advantageous, but it doesn't sound like that is an option....it is still a county "ownership".  That was how I understood it tonight.

[The Fuzz]

There are some strained dynamics going on between the County Board, and the Road Commission that I was not fully aware of.

The full 9 member county board votes tonight at 6:00 PM in chambers (open to the public) to take over the road commission or leave it independent as it currently is.  My guess is that the road commission will soon be history.

There has apparently been some cross words between the two governing bodies where some of the road commission members openly challenged a few of the board members in regard to their professional credentials.  This was brought up last night in the closing board member comments. 

There is a letter from County Board Chairperson, LaMar Frederick, to Penrod and the Road Commission that is just scathing.  http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/docs/Ltr__Chair_Frederick_to_Rd__Cm__Exeter_Rd__4_29_12.pdf

It kind of summarizes the performance of the Road Commission along with stating numerous county resident complaints regarding the Commission's treatment towards them.

There is also another interesting independent operational study posted on the County Board website that answered a few of the questions I was curious about in terms of how their financial measurables stacked up against others in the area.  Another scathing report that makes the future of the Road Commission look highly doubtful.  http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/docs/Phase_1Road_Comm_Analysis_2nd_REVISED_FINAL.pdf

The summary says it all:

Other Comments Regarding Financial Position

Included in assets of the Road Commission is inventory of approximately $1,352,000 at 12/31/10. Included in this amount is road materials (gravel, stone, salt) of approximately $1,125,000. This amount represents 7.3% of operating expenditures. By comparison, looking at two
other counties (one larger and one smaller), Washtenaw and Calhoun County Road Commissions have 3.4% and 5% of inventories in relation to total operating expenditures. The amount of inventory as an asset has an equal amount reserved, or considered nonspendable of
the Road Commission’s fund balance.

Summary of Road Commission’s Financial Position and Outlook for the Future

1. Administrative costs as a percentage of expenditures have increased over the past decade, and at 12/31/10 is at a level which is higher than average of the other road commission’s in this comparison analysis. Reasons for the higher relative costs of the Road Commission should be determined.

2. Spendable fund balance of the Road Commission has been decreasing over the past decade, which is similar to the trend of other road commissions in Michigan. However, at December 31, 2010, the Road Commission’s spendable fund balance percentage is less than half of the average of the other road commissions in this comparison.

3. Annual debt service as a percent of expenditures is nearly 1.5 times higher than the average of the other road commissions in this comparison. Debt service expenditures, of course, reduce the amount of revenues that can be used for primary and local road projects.

4. The OPEB liability for retiree health and life insurance is considerably higher than the average of the other road commissions in this comparison. The Road Commission must find ways to either advance fund this OPEB liability by contributions to the OPEB Trust fund, or by changing the requirements for this benefit which will reduce costs in the future. Increasing contributions to the OPEB Trust fund obviously will reduce the funds available to perform preservation and maintenance on primary and local road projects.

In summary, the financial condition of the Road Commission has deteriorated in the last two decades. Certain key ratios, including spendable fund balance to annual operating expenditures, fringe benefits to labor costs, staffing levels to annual revenue/expenditure activity, percentage of construction/structural improvement costs to total expenditures, and the OPEB obligation to spendable fund balance have all reflected adverse trends over this period of time. Facing the increased legacy requirements (primarily as a result of the OPEB obligation costs), and increased wages, fringes, fuels, and materials, coupled with stagnant MTF distributions, the ability of the Road
Commission to preserve and maintain its primary and local road system will be challenged more than ever in future years. Additional State funding would mitigate this situation, but the possibility of increased MTF funding is unknown at this time.

[The Fuzz]

Is the MEN covering this story and I am just missing it since I do not get a hard copy paper?

[Maverick]

The meeting tonight at 6 will be to decide if the takeover of the Road Commission by the County Board will be on the November ballot. The Road Committee that met last night has already voted to forward the question to the full board. They will be acting on that question tonight.
Then the question of who will run the Road Commission will be up to the voters in November if it gets on the ballot after tonight's meeting.

Last nights paper said the meeting starts at 7 but that was incorrect. The official special meeting starts at 6.

Mav

[Maverick]

The MEN was there last night. Josh Kennedy. It would be a guess as to whether they will cover it accurately.

[blue2]

Not sure what the MEN is doing with this story.  They published an article about the 80% for one day and it didn't appear again.  Unlike some things they let run for days. 

[The Fuzz]

Yup, thanks, I stand corrected....and knew it as I typed that the vote tonight was whether to put it on the November ballot or not.

If what the Commissioners last night said were true regarding the numerous complaints expressed to them at their Fair booths than I suppose the ballot initiative to dissolve the Road Commission will pass.

I know I would vote for eliminating them based on my research....unless there is a strong case made to keep them, but I don't see it. 

[nails]

If the Road Comm. goes bankrupt, or gets into irreversible financial trouble,
the County is ultimately responsible. 
It only makes sense for the County to take control before that happens
and do what they can to reverse that path as soon as possible.

There is clearly a leadership problem with the current Road Comm. 
It needs to change.

 

[blue2]

If this makes it to the Nov ballot any citizen that votes to keep the road commission should be banned from ever voting again.  Citizens can't allow an organization that is to provide a valuable resource spend all their money on wages and benefits.
In my mind it doesn't matter if the Road commission is solvent.  They are not providing the service the tax money is for.  Employing people is not a service I'm interested in and I doubt anyone else is unless you're one of the employees.

[ducksoup]

If this makes it to the Nov ballot any citizen that votes to keep the road commission should be banned from ever voting again.  Citizens can't allow an organization that is to provide a valuable resource spend all their money on wages and benefits.
In my mind it doesn't matter if the Road commission is solvent.  They are not providing the service the tax money is for.  Employing people is not a service I'm interested in and I doubt anyone else is unless you're one of the employees.

Blue, not to be insulting, but I don't understand your logic.  Spend on resources and no labor?  By road patch an let it sit because there is no one to use it?  Plow trucks sitting in the lot with 10 inches of snow because there is no employees to use them?  Plenty of salt, no men to spread it?