Comments for Michigan Association of Counties

Comment on County Road Commission District Bills Have One Last Chance by MIcounties

MIcounties — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:45:07 +0000

Thank you for your comment, Monica. We can understand your concern with this legislation from your position as an employee of the County Road Association of Michigan.

As you correctly pointed out, County Board of Commissioners can either organize road commissions through an appointed or elected process. However, we believe this legislation is needed to give county boards of commissioners a necessary option to allow for the election or appointment of road commissioners by district.

We disagree that this legislation will result in underrepresentation of rural townships but rather will have exactly the opposite effect. By allowing the option of districts, a large city like Lansing can be broken into three or five districts, paired up with larger areas of rural townships; sort of a “wheel” approach. We believe this will actually result in better representation for all the roads in the county should a county choose to do so. Remember this is optional.

Comment on County Road Commission District Bills Have One Last Chance by Monica Ware

Monica Ware — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:54:16 +0000

How will this legislation ensure all commissioners would not come from the same area of the county when law requires districts to be divided by population? Take Ingham County for example, at least one commissioner would come from Lansing and possibly another from East Lansing while both municipalities have few, if any, county roads. This will leave the rural townships with the majority of county roads but smaller populations underrepresented.

County Boards currently have the authority to appoint road commissioners by district, and to determine if the road commission is appointed or elected. If a problem exists in a handful of counties, the County Board of Commissioners already has tools available to address the problem.

Comment on Binding Arbitration Bill Passes House Amid Controversy by MIcounties

MIcounties — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:21:10 +0000

Currently, SB 1072 was returned to the Senate and passed by the House. No word on when the bill will be taken up by the Senate but MAC will alert counties as soon as it is!

For more information about the status of the bill, you can view it here: http://legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ok1x1x55lio1kiar134xcx55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2010-SB-1072

Comment on Binding Arbitration Bill Passes House Amid Controversy by Garry Quakkelaar

Garry Quakkelaar — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:20:36 +0000

Did Governor Granholm signed the SB1072? If not, when will she…..what is the stautus on it?
Thanks!

Comment on Reinsurance Program for Early Retirees by micounties

micounties — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:55:01 +0000

Thank you for your post. In response to your questions, it appears that the program is voluntary, according to the report, so employers would have to apply to participate rather than be required to participate by the federal government. Another portion of the report states that plans would be required to use the money from the federal program "to lower health costs for enrollees, (e.g. premium contributions, copayments, deductivles, etc.)." So, it appears that the savings would be passed along and presumably the employer would be required to document the "programs and procedures to generate cost savings for participants." For more information, please contact NACo if you are a county commissioner, or the White House.

Comment on Reinsurance Program for Early Retirees by Wai-Man Leung

Wai-Man Leung — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:57:55 +0000

What can we do if the early retiree medical premium stay high? Is there any law to enforce employer to apply such “reinsurance program” or to verify the savings are indeed past to the retirees?