You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:02 a.m.

Debate picks up over expanding Washtenaw County Road Commission board

By Ryan J. Stanton

Talk of expanding the Washtenaw County Road Commission's governing board from three to five members is gaining momentum, but some argue it may not be the right move.

A handful of Washtenaw County commissioners who are pushing for the change say the Road Commission could use more voices at the table.

David_Rutledge_ headshot_2010.jpg

David Rutledge

But others, including Road Commission officials, say now is not the time to expand — and potentially increase costs — when the agency is being forced to downsize due to budget constraints.

"From my own perspective — and not just because I'm chairing it — the commission I think is functioning really well now," said David Rutledge, chairman of the three-member board.

"We've made some huge strides in customer relations and in use of our scarce resources, the dollars which are dwindling," he said. "And we have moved from 158 staff positions to 134. In a climate like that, where we have been reducing staff really by necessity of budget, I think it sends a wrong signal to expand the commission at this time."

The issue has been debated at different points over the last few years. It will take center stage at a public hearing scheduled for the July 7 meeting of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners.

The county board, which oversees the Road Commission and appoints its board members, ultimately will make the final decision.

Jeff Irwin, one of the county commissioners supporting the idea, said he would like to add more diversity of opinion to the Road Commission.

"It's nice to have people with backgrounds in law, accounting and public organizations, and people who have experience in road building, biking and walking issues, and planning and local government," he said. "There are just so many skill sets that would be valuable to get around the table and it's difficult to do that with just three people."

Steve Puuri, Road Commission managing director, agreed an expansion would bring more voices to the table, but also could increase costs.

Each road commissioner is paid $10,500 per year. Puuri said the total cost per commissioner goes up to about $20,000 when factoring in travel and training cost, as well as computer and telephone support costs.

By those counts, he said, expanding the board to five members could add $40,000 a year in extra costs, meaning less money to fix roads. The Road Commission board is responsible for a $43.3 million budget.

Irwin said he's open to considering options to expand in a way that's cost-neutral, such as decreasing salaries for road commissioners.

"The cost thing is a red herring," agreed Conan Smith, another county commissioner supporting the expansion. "The board of commissioners has the authority to set the salary of the Road Commission, so if the incremental cost of adding two commissioners is so much of a barrier, then we can reduce the salaries of the other road commissioners."

Smith said it's important to have more voices at the table as big picture talks are happening about the relationship between the region's transit and road networks going into the future.

The way the Road Commission is structured right now, he added, a discussion between two board members constitutes a quorum and may violate open meetings laws.

The board's makeup today includes Rutledge, who owns an environmental services company in Ypsilanti and has long history of public service; Doug Fuller, a retired contractor from western Washtenaw County with a background in engineering; and Fred Veigel, president of the Huron Valley Central Labor Council and retired electrician from Ypsilanti.

Rutledge agreed it's a good idea to hold a public hearing on the issue. But he fears an expansion might be an attempt to add voices from specific county districts to the Road Commission and that could lead to pork barrel politics.

"Sometimes when you get people thinking they represent only one area, they start to focus on that area and sometimes to the detriment of other areas where there are more serious issues," he said. "That's a downside I've seen occur."

Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.

Comments

ypsineighbor

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 1:52 p.m.

I think it's a silly idea driven by politics. The Ann Arbor commissioners just want more of their own people on the Commission. Even though it WILL be more expensive and it WILL slow things down. The real "red herring" is the lame OMA compliance argument. By this rationale, all 3-person Boards should be expanded. Frankly, I'm surprised the Board would point fingers at the WCRC: the BOC was proven in court to have violated the OMA themselves. Perhaps we should expand the BOC! To my knowledge, no one has shown any evidence that the WCRC is violating it now. If there are violations then by all means let's see the proof.

Mick52

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:28 p.m.

If its not broken, don't fix it. I like 2huron's idea of spreading the pay out regardless of the numbers. More voice, same cost, sounds like a plan.

a2huron

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.

Doesn't make any sense that adding more members will slow things down. They all attend the same board meeting and make the decisions at the same meeting. If not, then they are violating the OMA and shouldn't be making such "quick" decisions anyway. If a majority of the current 3-member road commission (2 people) get together and make a decision outside of the public eye, then who wins and loses? Not necessarily the residents. Also, the last time I checked, adding more experience and perspectives is a good thing. It doesn't add costs when handled as proposed, and keeping the road commission at 3 members also doesn't improve revenues to the road system. Funding is a state level decision. Locals can't raise gas taxes.

st.julian

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.

The addtion of board members will only serve to slow the decision making process, not add one cent of revenue to fix roads, but will foster potential politilization of what should be engineering based decsion making. The County commisioners could better spend their time seeking alternative mechanisms to find funding to fix, maintain and plow roads. Would this even be raised if it were not an election year?

KeepingItReal

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.

After watching the BOC discussion on expanding the Road Commission (RC), I am in agreement with the Commissioners who supports expansion. The county has grown considerably and need the input that two additional qualified Road Commission members could potentially offer. As Conan said, if cost is a problem, split the cost among all five RCs so there will be no significant budgetary increase. I'm troubled by Mr. Rutledge's response on both the WCC issue and the RC expansion. While he touts his experience and longevity, I'm beginning to think these are not assets of his. He seems to exude a feeling of entitlement. We need leadership.

a2huron

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:55 a.m.

This board probably violates the OMA on a regular basis. I agree completely that this board needs to be broadened. It should also only be comprised of residents who live in areas serviced by the road commission. As far as costs are concerned, Conan Smith hit the solution right on the head: take whatever the collective salaries are right now and spread it out amongst five of them instead of three. Result: no added cost whatsoever. If any one of them doesn't want to serve for a lower salary, then they shouldn't be there in the first place. It is a "board" position and not a "job" after all.

Patriot

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:37 a.m.

Forget wasting money on more board members, we do not need more voices on the board - just fix the damn roads!