Thank you for using the electronic version of the RUSH-PAC candidate survey. Please submit your survey by Friday, June 6. We look forward to reviewing your responses and using them to learn more about you and your positions on transportation-related issues. We will be sharing your responses with the RUSH-PAC Board of Trustees and using them internally to make endorsement decisions. Upon request, we may discuss your answers with your county road agency(s). We will not share your responses in a public forum or with the media.

INTRODUCTION:
The state’s local road and bridge maintenance and improvement programs are suffering at an increasing rate with revenues at decade low levels. Despite the many reforms and efficiencies implemented at local road agencies across the state, there is nothing left to cut that does not impact the level of service and quality of life for Michigan residents.

Newspapers across the state have heralded the need for additional road funding as our local roads and bridges continue to crumble. It seems that everyone can tell you a story of someone who has had a bent rim or other damage caused by a pothole. This is not a short-term problem. Without increased revenues, additional cuts and continued deterioration are inevitable. The statistics are shocking.

• Approximately half of Michigan counties have returned paved roads to gravel because the failed roads are unsafe and the county road agency lacks revenue to properly reconstruct the roads.

• Nearly 20 percent of the more than 5,700 county bridges are posted with reduced weight restrictions or closed—increasing pupil transportation costs to school districts and emergency response time, and negatively impacting commerce.

• Michigan is losing $1 billion in asset value on our federal-aid road system annually as pavement conditions continue to deteriorate. The local road system is in even worse condition.

During the waning days of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, the legislatively-approved and gubernatorial appointed Transportation Funding Task Force (TF2) warned “the one choice we cannot afford is to do nothing.” This spring we are seeing the results of ignoring those warnings. To quote the words of Gov. Snyder in his 2011 Infrastructure message, “it’s time to seriously engage in this issue that is so vital to Michigan’s future.”

The questions in this survey are divided into two sections. The first covers your connections to local transportation infrastructure and the people charged with the construction and maintenance of local roads.

Michigan’s 83 county road agencies and 533 cities and villages together maintain more than 90 percent of Michigan roads. Local roads impact every facet of our lives and are crucial to business and economic development, schools and families, emergency response times, public safety and health care, tourism and agriculture, and to every Michigan resident.

The second section covers key policy and budgetary areas of concern to the members of the County Road Association of Michigan.

Section I: Local Transportation Infrastructure and You

Your relationship to officials responsible for local transportation infrastructure is an essential part of your ability to represent the needs of your constituents in Lansing. We therefore ask all survey respondents to describe for us how and why they interact with county road agencies and other local transportation experts. This helps us evaluate your involvement in and command of key transportation issues that impact your district and the state as a whole.

Additionally, in order to understand how you will represent your community and local roads, we also ask a few items about your experience and professional background as it relates to key players and institutions that impact or are affected by the condition of local transportation infrastructure.

Question Title

* 1. Candidate's Contact Information

Question Title

* 2. Which legislative position are you seeking?

Question Title

* 3. District #

Question Title

* 4. Please describe your relationship with each of your county road commissioners for the county or counties you are running to represent. Which road commissioners have you worked with in the past? Please list each commissioner with whom you have a personal or professional relationship, and be as detailed as possible. (If your district has a county road department rather than a road commission, please skip to the next question.)

Question Title

* 5. Please describe your relationship with county commissioners in the county or counties you are running to represent. Which commissioners have you worked with in the past? Please list each commissioner with whom you have a personal or professional relationship, and be as detailed as possible.

Question Title

* 6. Please provide a list of transportation and infrastructure issues on which you have worked in the past in a professional capacity. This could include advocacy, public service, professional services, contracting or some other capacity.

Question Title

* 7. Michigan’s transportation infrastructure, especially local roads and bridges, require substantial investment just to maintain. Estimates of the additional revenue needed to maintain our transportation infrastructure range from $1.2 to $2.5 billion annually just for paved roads and bridges. There are many different proposals by lawmakers and interest groups for the best way to meet Michigan’s transportation infrastructure needs.

Describe how the state of transportation infrastructure in your district impacts your local communities. Please provide as much detail as possible about the condition of roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure, and the impact on the citizens, businesses and communities you seek to represent. Use specific examples where possible (e.g. specific local roads or bridges).

Question Title

* 8. Please provide a list of (up to five) local references that we may contact. These should be individuals who reside in the district you seek to represent with whom you have a professional relationship, and who are impacted by local transportation infrastructure (e.g. business owners/managers, local government officials, road builders, school officials, local charities or social welfare groups, etc.)

Question Title

* 9. Have you or an immediate family member ever served on a county road commission?

Question Title

* 10. Please list all elected or appointed positions in which you have served at the federal, state, county or local levels of government and the years of your service.

Question Title

* 11. Please list any endorsements that you have received at the time you are completing this survey. These may include associations, interest groups, current lawmakers, local leaders, or others that have endorsed your campaign to date.

Question Title

* 12. Please provide any additional information that you believe is important for the RUSH-PAC Board of Trustees to consider as they determine which candidate will best serve and represent the interests of local road agencies.

Question Title

* 13. Section II: Public Policy and Road Funding

Exemptions from Seasonal Weight Restrictions

For the past several legislative sessions, bills have been introduced to exempt certain types of businesses or industries from the state’s annually imposed “seasonal weight restriction” period, otherwise known as “frost laws”. Seasonal weight restrictions are imposed because as the frost thaws from under the road surface, the surface/pavement becomes incapable of withstanding legal load limits, let alone excessive loads. Michigan law requires a reduced load of 25 percent on concrete roads and 35 percent on other paved or unpaved surfaces, and reduced speeds. This restriction does not apply to the all-season (Class A) road network – higher traffic volume roads that are built to withstand the stress of commercial heavy traffic during seasonal thaw periods.

Because of Michigan’s topography and north/south geography, the restriction period covers the months of March, April and May. As the frost and moisture leave the ground, and the ground under the pavement becomes stable for legal load limits, MDOT and local road agencies remove the restrictions. These restrictions are typically imposed for a period of only 2-6 weeks.

Legislation has been introduced to exempt waste haulers, well drillers and other industries capable of “divisible loads” – the ability to reduce the total capacity of their load – from seasonal weight restrictions. In the case of an emergency, road agencies are already required to work with these businesses or industries to address the emergency, which may include very early morning or evening moves, with an overall concern remaining on the weight of the vehicle(s) and the integrity of the road system.

Non-emergency exemptions currently exist for agriculture, milk haulers, utility companies and their subcontractors and propane companies. The County Road Association of Michigan opposes any effort to expand exemptions to seasonal weight restrictions to industries capable of divisible loads. This change would put an unnecessary burden on the local road system when it is at its most fragile state.

Question: Would you oppose attempts by businesses or industries that can reduce their loads (divisible loads) to receive exemptions from seasonal weight restrictions?

Question Title

* 14. Non-motorized Transportation and Complete Streets

Public Act 51 of 1951 requires that not less than one percent of a local road agency’s Michigan Transportation Funds (MTF – fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees) be expended for construction of non-motorized transportation services and facilities.

The County Road Association recognizes the need to address non-motorized transportation services and facilities. However, other state, federal and local funding sources are currently available and routinely utilized by local road agencies for such non-motorized transportation improvements.

We support legislation to allow local road agencies the flexibility to utilize other state, federal or local funding sources to satisfy the requirement for non-motorized expenditures to be equivalent to one percent of the agency’s MTF funds.

Question: Would you oppose any attempt to require county road agencies to expend more than one percent of state revenues from the Michigan Transportation Fund (revenues collected from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees) on non-motorized transportation?

Question Title

* 15. Single Member County Road Commission Districts

Both appointed and elected county road commissioners serve the entire county which requires the commissioners to consider the needs of the entire county road and bridge network, rather than just a portion of the road system.

Michigan’s county road agencies use asset management to determine which road projects are completed and how funds are distributed. Road commissioners consider the needs of the entire road and bridge network when making decisions on where to allocate limited resources, applying the right fix at the appropriate time to save taxpayer dollars. If an elected road commissioner serves a district within the county, it could bring politics into the decision making process as the commissioner seeks to “win projects” for a district, rather than meeting the holistic needs of the county.

The majority of county roads are located in townships. State election law requires all districts to be determined based on population, which would include road commission districts if approved. Single member road commission districts could result in the majority of road commission seats being filled with city or village residents, even though few or no county roads exist in municipalities. Townships and county road agencies are partners in maintaining the 90,000 miles of roads under county jurisdiction. The County Road Association is concerned that rural roads in townships may not receive adequate representation if single member road commission districts are adopted.

Question: Would you oppose legislation to create single member county road commission districts?

Question Title

* 16. Speed Limits

Realistic speed limits provide for uniform, safe, and orderly movement of traffic. To accomplish that, current law provides that county road agencies, townships, and the Michigan State Police are responsible for setting speed limits on county roads.

The County Road Association supports legislation to establish the prima facie speed limit for unpaved roads at 45 mph unless otherwise posted. While we support local input, we oppose all legislation that would remove or otherwise diminish the role of the Michigan State Police, or remove the use of traffic studies and sound engineering principles from the process of establishing speed limits on county roads.

Legislation has been debated that would change Michigan’s statutes regarding the establishment of speed limits to address localized issues where communities have disagreed with the findings of the Michigan State Police and traffic studies.

Question: Would you oppose efforts to change state speed limit laws to address localized concerns that disregard traffic studies and sound engineer principles?

Question Title

* 17. Road Utilization Equity Fee for Hybrid and All-electric Vehicles

County road agencies are heavily dependent upon fuel tax revenues derived from the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel. The ability of Michigan’s road maintenance agencies to pay for road repairs, maintenance, and construction is at risk as fuel tax revenue declines. Purchasing power has steadily eroded over the years as the fuel tax has not kept pace with inflation. The number of fuel efficient new vehicles on the road, especially hybrid and all-electric vehicles, continues to increase resulting in less fuel tax revenue for use on Michigan’s roads and bridges.

The fundamental premise of the strategy for public road funding in Michigan is that users of the road pay for the road. Currently, the use of growing numbers of alternatively fueled vehicles places a disproportionate tax burden upon the operators of diesel and gasoline powered vehicles. Many states have now adopted fees for hybrid and electric-powered vehicles to offset the loss of fuel taxes.

The County Road Association supports the establishment of a Road Utilization Equity Fee to be charged to the owners of hybrid and all-electric vehicles.

Question: If an equitable formula is developed, would you support a Road Utilization Equity Fee, ensuring owners of hybrid and electric vehicles pay their fair share?

Question Title

* 18. Competitive Bidding on Routine Maintenance

Public Act 51 of 1951 requires all federal-aid construction projects whose cost exceeds $100,000 to be performed by contract awarded by competitive bidding unless the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) finds that under the circumstances relating to those projects, some other method is in the public interest.

Currently, MDOT policy allows local road agencies, when using federal aid, to do road projects using their labor and equipment; however, their policy limits projects to $100,000 or less. Federal regulations allow local road agencies, when using federal aid to do road projects using their labor and equipment, without regard to amount or type of work.

The County Road Association opposes any effort to reduce the $100,000 federal-aid competitive bidding threshold, or to expand competitive bidding requirements to routine maintenance, including snow removal.

Question: Would you oppose the efforts to reduce the competitive bidding threshold on federal-aid projects or to expand competitive bidding to routine maintenance?

Question Title

* 19. Adequate Transportation Funding

Michigan’s county road agencies are a vital partner in keeping our state and local economies running. They are the agencies responsible for keeping roads open to commerce and safe for travel. As the enclosed brochure reveals, Michigan should be investing as much as $2.5 billion more annually in our roads and bridges than we are today. We are currently losing $1 billion annually – $3 million daily – in asset value as the conditions of our roads deteriorate to a more expensive state of repair. It is clear that we cannot continue to push this problem onto future legislatures.

Governor Snyder has proposed a mixture of fuel tax increases and other fees that would generate at least $1.4 billion annually in new revenue. Several other proposals are being discussed in the legislature.

Question: Considering the massive funding shortfall, how would you propose to resolve Michigan’s transportation funding needs?

T