Listening Sessions

A Long Range Plan for Transportation, Housing, & the Environment ROOM 223 – 1101 BEACH STREET · FLINT, MI 48502-1470 · (810) 257-3010 · FAX (810) 257-3185

TRANSPORTATION LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY Thursday, May 2, 2019 2:00 p.m. (after TAC) to 3:30 p.m.

GCMPC Conference Room, 2nd Floor I.

Introductions

Participants Present: Alex Patsy (Genesee County Road Commission (GCRC)), Andrea Schroeder (City of Davison), Brad Barrett (City of Flushing), Chad Young (Mundy Township), Derek Bradshaw (Genesee County Planning Commission (GCMPC)) , Eric Johnston (GCRC), Larry Green (Mt. Morris Township), Harmony Lloyd (MTA), Lynn Markland (City of Fenton), Mark Adas (City of Flint), Michael Pifer (Flint Township), Robert Johnson (GCRC), Shawnice Dorsey (MTA) , Tracey Tucker (Flint Township), and Tim Elkins (Davison Township) Staff Present: Jason Nordberg, and Jacob Maurer II.

Overview

Our roads and bridges continue to deteriorate while state and federal funding has stayed the same or has decreased. Are there local solutions to this growing problem, such as a millage or other funding tools, that we need to begin to explore?

III.

What are the Options?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Special Assessments Local Millage Public/Private Partnerships Countywide Millage Toll Roads Local Tax Option (State needs to allow) Bonding Downtown Development Authority (DDA)/Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION www.ourfuturegenesee.org

1, 2, 3, and 4 were selected as the top options to discuss in the next exercise.

IV.

Pros and Cons of Each Option

Special Assessment: Pros: • Specific to a road segment. Know where the money is going.

• Tax exempt parcels have to contribute (excluding schools) Cons: • Expensive for the homeowner • Long Process • Others use a road not just the homeowners along a road • Community overhead costs to process • Required to have 51% of homeowners along the road segment support the special assessment • Cost for a homeowner depends on road frontage not a single fee per homeowner Local Millage: Pros • Money is locally controlled • Public can see where money is spent • Increased confidence that money collected in the community is spent in the community • Helps to fix other types of infrastructure (depending on the millage language) • Communities are able to individually select what rate is needed • Simple option. Just dealing with one community at a time (?)

Cons: • Neighborhoods compete against each other • Can they generate enough money?

• Some communities will be able to pass a millage while others will not • No common message • Public is losing confidence regarding road funding efforts • Sewer/water increases project costs (will communities be able to pass meaningful millages?)

Public Private Partnerships: Pros: • Fast and Timely • Flexible • Shared Costs K:\Plan Ideas\Listening Sessions\Transportation Listening Session Summary.docx

• Condo Associations can be partners Cons: • Not for residential unless associations participate but big portion of residential will be missing from this effort • Requires contract talks with individual businesses • Puts financial burden on commercial/business sector Countywide Millage Pros: • All inclusive. All Genesee County communities participate • More Revenue for roads • 1 message • Majority Rules. Communities that could not pass a millage individually would be included in a countywide millage • Potential for 1 source • Added to the ballot by the County Board of Commissioners Cons: • Many concerns • There is concern regarding the amount of administrative costs that the County will assess for the millage • There is concern about how the funding will be distributed • How much does each local unit of government (LUG) need?

• Hard to control the messaging for each LUG. May need to be specific talking points for each community • May be more complicated than a local millage because of all the communities involved • There is no certainty regarding additional funding from the State for Transportation but whatever happens at the State level will affect the ability to pass a local or countywide millage • Perception of too many millages in the County • Some LUGs have millages in place • Regardless of the funding source we are seeing high costs due to limited construction material suppliers V.

Select a Preferred Option

A countywide millage was selected as the top option to further discuss in the next exercise.

VI. How Do We Address the Cons of the Preferred Option?

Countywide Millage:

K:\Plan Ideas\Listening Sessions\Transportation Listening Session Summary.docx

• •

• • • •

VII.

Administrative costs for the County need to be limited to the minimum amount required and clearly defined prior to putting the millage on a ballot Have to work out distribution rules prior to putting the millage on a ballot. Funding could be distributed back to the communities as a percentage of the total that was collected in the community. If a community contributes 12% of the millage revenue countywide they could be guaranteed to receive 12% of the funding after administrative costs are accounted for Administrative costs for the County need to be limited to the minimum required and clearly defined prior to putting the millage on a ballot To address the trust issue a clear plan needs to be put together to illustrate what impact the millage will have on roads in Genesee County. Properly set public expectations Will have to work out how to deal with communities that currently have a millage in place. Have to develop talking points/common message for communities To address millage fatigue there will have to be an educational campaign/talking points for an accurate/common message to relay the importance of the millage Implementation (What is needed to move to the next step)

• • • • • • •

How much money is needed to have an impact? 2.75 Mills or $24 million per year?

How long should the millage last? 10 years?

A plan for which projects are funded first?

Develop clearly defined expectations. Develop a plan Money should stay within communities. Communities should get the same percentage of funding that they put in. Develop a fare distribution system Have to be strategic as to when the millage is put on the ballot What is the plan if a countywide millage fails? LUGs may have to attempt individual local millages

K:\Plan Ideas\Listening Sessions\Transportation Listening Session Summary.docx

A Long Range Plan for Transportation, Housing, & the Environment ROOM 223 – 1101 BEACH STREET · FLINT, MI 48502-1470 · (810) 257-3010 · FAX (810) 257-3185

SOLID WASTE LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY Friday, May 3, 2019 GCMPC Conference Room, 2nd Floor I.

Introductions Participants Present: Joe Oskey (Mundy Township) and Heather Griffin (City of Flint) Staff Present: Derek Bradshaw, Sheila Taylor, and Cody Roblyer

II.

Overview The topic for the session: How can we work together to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current solid waste and recycling infrastructure in Genesee County?

III.

Presentation Sheila Taylor gave a brief presentation about the current state of solid waste and recycling services in Genesee County. The presentation identified the three waste hauling companies that currently provide curbside residential garbage and recycling services in the County – Emterra, Waste Management, and Republic Services. Information regarding cost estimates for countywide curbside garbage and recycling services, existing recycling rates, the Genesee County Solid Waste Ordinance, and current County Solid Waste Programs such as Recycle Day were shared.

IV.

Results There were three main results that came out of the discussion. Attendees concluded that local units of government (LUG) could use assistance in understanding and negotiating solid waste service contracts, LUGs should consider working together on shared solid waste service contracts, and there is a need for more recycling education.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION www.ourfuturegenesee.org

A Long Range Plan for Transportation, Housing, & the Environment ROOM 223 – 1101 BEACH STREET · FLINT, MI 48502-1470 · (810) 257-3010 · FAX (810) 257-3185

HOUSING LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY Thursday, May 23, 2019 GCMPC Conference Room, 2nd Floor I.

Overview

Genesee County has many middle-income neighborhoods. What are some local, long-term strategies for revitalizing and building confidence in these existing neighborhoods?

II. • •

•

• • •

What are the Options?

Hiring an ordinance officer o Focus on keeping neighborhoods looking clean o Code enforcement Getting neighbors to communicate o Block groups (not as active as they used to be) o How do we encourage block groups?

▪ Plan around schools, other events, get the media involved Getting people to reinvest in tired neighborhoods o Determine who is responsible – if it is LUG’s or residents ▪ Fix sidewalks ▪ What about renters?

• Making landlords responsible • Turn renters into owners Determine demographic of tired neighborhoods o Ratio of renters to owners Fix neighborhood roads and street signs Solicit information about resources available for home improvement o Low interest loans o Having examples of homes that have utilized resources

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZATION www.ourfuturegenesee.org

Code Enforcement: Pros: • getting all residents at same level of appearances, can use incentives Cons: • “code enforcement” sounds harsh: could use softer term such as “quality control”, getting residents to actually follow the codes, being able to monitor everyone equally (having staff) Getting Neighbors to Communicate: Pros: • Can start small and continue to reach out to more people. Use incentives and inexpensive ways to bring people together Cons: • Time and budget Reinvest in Tired Neighborhoods: Cons: • being offensive to residents • funding • people not wanting property tax to go up with property value

K:\Plan Ideas\Listening Sessions\Housing Listening Session Summary.docx