An expanded Washtenaw Road Commission board is the wrong answer
As the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners considers expanding the Board of Road Commissioners, our organization wanted to go on record opposing the unnecessary expansion of administrative bureaucracy. In light of the severe financial distress the State of Michigan and Washtenaw County are experiencing, it seems unconscionable that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners would be considering expanding the size of a local government board.
The expansion of the Board of Road Commissioners will come at a price and the cost will be covered with the road and bridge maintenance dollars that are already in short supply. The Road Commission has recently closed three bridges, which brings the total of closed bridges to six. The Road Commission also reported that they have 32 bridges that are severely restricted and they have no revenue to fix these bridges.
Increasing the size of the Board of Road Commissioners will do nothing to solve the revenue problem, having more policy makers is not the solution. The problem is road funding; the solution is streamlining bureaucracy and working together to solve the revenue shortfall. The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners should commit to solving the road funding problem rather than adding to the bureaucracy.
Bart Nickerson President
Bryce Mitchell Vice President
Greg Stephens Secretary-Treasurer
Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council Inc.
Comments
nxil2009
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 6:41 p.m.
Just what we need, more government. Some is good, more is better? And, $50k is $50k. But, even if it is budget neutral what makes anyone think that a larger bureaucracy is going to be more efficient? When has that ever happened in the history of man? The Road Commission is seriously underfunded in this county. We blow money maintaining one of the largest number of miles of unpaved roads in the state when paved roads are far less costly. For now, paving doesn't appear to be an option because of the budgetary crisis that exists but it was a backwards thinking bureaucracy that got us where we are now. Expanding the road commission board is not going to get blood from a stone. The stone is dry. So is the turnip. I think the BOC better wake up and get serious about cutting funding for non-mandated services. Not paring it down but eliminating it. That is the only way the road commission (as well as the other mandated services)is going to find any money to do what needs to be done. More people sitting around thinking about doing some things, and making plans to do some things, and putting together Power Point presentations, and having more meetings with action plans and "next steps", and presenting it to the BOC to have them convene a special meeting to review the findings, and talking more about it at the general meeting where there is a motion that gets it tabled until it goes before a closed session of the Ways and Means committee, and then brought back up for further study (and so on and so on and so on) is not a way to fix the problems...any problems...of this county.
David Briegel
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.
Why not just one commissioner like the flood/drain? Why doesn't the admimistration administrate? Or the Commissioners manage? We already have enough officials and bureaucrats. How many people are required to change this light bulb?
a2huron
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 8:57 p.m.
Isn't one of the current road commissioners closely connected to this building trades union? It seems like this letter and opinion is more personal than it is objective. That disclosure should have been made in the letter to editor; otherwise, it is clearly biased and the readers don't get the opportunity to know this before forming their own opinion. But then again, maybe that is intentional.
Conan Smith
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 5:35 p.m.
JW - the answer is between $0 and $50K of a $43M budget (about 1/10 of 1%, worst case scenario). There is no necessary cost increase to adding members to the road commission beyond some incidental printing for meetings. Currently, road commissioners take home an annual salary of $10.5K but that figure is set by the Board of Commissioners. In expanding the road commission we might decide to reduce that salary to make the impact budget neutral. The road commission sets its own budget for benefits and travel and might reasonably be expected to extend those to an expanded board. I might suggest too that the Building Trades Council is missing a crucial opportunity to diversify experience and skill sets on this board. We already have an overburdened transportation system, as they point out, and a board full of strong engineering and construction minds that can help us muddle through the problem. I, however, don't believe we should just be pitching a new (and unsustainable) tax at the issue. Rather we need people who can examine the entirety of the transportation system (including land uses, transit and economic development concerns) to design and prioritize a road network that can be maintained with what will inevitably be a shrinking budget. If we just want to keep doing what we've been doing, we can leave the WCRC alone. But, the complaints and concerns from citizens about state of our roads and the homogeneity of our transportation system suggest we need more minds attacking the problem. Even if that costs a little bit more today, it may save us bundles down the road.
JW
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 8:32 a.m.
It would have been helpful if this letter had more details about how much additional cost more commissioners would be to the County budget.