Mayor Albert McGeehan

Mayor Albert McGeehan (better known as “Mayor Al”) was first elected to the City of Holland’s city council in 1977 where he served four “four-year” terms.  He is now in his seventh term as mayor of the city.  Al serves as the City of Holland representative on the policy committee of the Macatawa Area Coordinating Council.  He has served on numerous MML committees, is currently serving on a committee of the National League of Cities, and is also serving as the president of the Michigan Association of Mayors.  Al’s passion for the American Civil War and related artifacts is well known—he has taught and lectured on the subject, has authored a book and several magazine articles relating to the Civil War, and he has been known to often occupy the best parking spaces at local antique shops.  He is deeply involved in a wide range of community and regional initiatives as he works with others to create strategies for both local and regional success.

Monday

March 10, 2008

It Worked For Us

The Subject: Garbage

The Issue: Multiple companies with individual contracts with residential and commercial customers, garbage trucks in every neighborhood every day of the week, poor recycling participation, negative neighborhood safety issues associated with the number of trucks, air pollution, and a reality that almost 20% of residential households were without garbage service because citizens were placing their refuse with that of a neighbor or making stealth attacks on commercial dumpsters located at private businesses.

The Solution: The City of Holland mandated that all residential households had to pay for weekly refuse service.  The city bid out a city-wide waste hauling contract.  We purchased and supplied customers with appropriate refuse containers of various sizes (more on that in a moment).  Individual customer billing was done by our Board of Public Works and refuse bills were then made part of the monthly utility bill.

The Story:  Going into this entirely new refuse program, I had no idea just how very controversial it would be to mandate this service.  When we eliminated a citizen’s opportunity to make one’s own personal arrangements to deal with household trash, we were called socialists, communists, and sometimes worse.  I quickly learned a lesson that our citizens “loved” their garbage man almost as much as they identified with their personal family physician!

With garbage cans out along residential streets any and every day of the week depending upon the schedules of multiple service providers, and with numbers in hand from those providers that far too many residents were choosing not to receive any service, our city staff and city council went to work.  This was a matter of health, safety, welfare, and fairness.  Incrementally changes were made.  First, we divided the city into zones and required every hauler to follow our schedule for pickup.  A neighborhood would have one day of pickup each week regardless of the hauler.  That reduced the number and frequency of trucks as well as it improved neighborhood esthetics, but rates went up.  Council believed that additional change was yet needed. 

Council consensus began to develop that a single contract with a single hauler was in our best interest.  Mandating participation was a hurdle that needed to be overcome.  Large public turnouts at council meetings warned us “not to go there,” but we persisted to move forward in a direction, that if given a chance, would prove to be successful. 

City staff offered a revolutionary concept that eventually sold the new program to a majority of city council.  This program financially rewarded citizens with money in their pocket based upon the amount of recycling they would do at home.  The City of Holland’s pricing structure for household garbage is based upon the size of one’s garbage container.  We offer three sizes—a 90 gallon wheeled cart, a 60 gallon, a 30 gallon, or a bag system.  Every citizen also receives a plastic recycling container (you may have an extra container at no additional charge).  The beauty of our system is that customers pay a sliding fee schedule in which the cost for a 90 gallon container is substantially more than the fee for a 60 gallon.  The cost of a 30 gallon is cheaper still, and the cost of the bags is the least expensive of all. 

How does one make do with using a smaller container?  Simple, recycle more. 

This transition was hard for members of city council.  The process appeared to some citizens that it was a typical case of “we’re from the government and we know what is best for you.”

Today, over 95% of Holland residents regularly recycle.  Our school age children are taking environmental lessons that they learn in school and putting them into practice at home; parents are immediately seeing a benefit.  Citizens have embraced the incentive of using smaller wheeled containers.  I have not had a call in several years complaining about refuse rates here in the City of Holland.  We believe ours to be among the lowest rates anywhere in the state.  Best of all, if we are looking for affirmation, all we need to do is to go to our neighboring townships where today the “Holland System” is now community wide.

Check back tomorrow to hear Al’s ideas on the ideal town/gown relationship.

You may contact Al McGeehan at 616-355-1314 or a.mcgeehan@cityofholland.com.

Tuesday

March 11, 2008

The Ideal Town/Gown Relationship

It happens quite regularly.  Wherever I go as mayor, elected and appointed officials from other Michigan cities ask me, “Mayor Al, how have you in Holland been able to deliver such a beautiful, healthy and exciting downtown?”

Truly, it is a fact that downtown Holland has become a textbook example of forming and delivering a vision through public/private collaboration and investment that others are trying to duplicate.  Since 1984, some $350 million dollars of private and public funds have been invested in our downtown.  While the term “public/private” is so very well known, Holland has one additional ingredient, one additional player that needs to be showcased.  That third piece, one that is not available to so many other cities, is Holland’s “secret weapon” for downtown success.

Holland was incorporated as a city in 1867.  One year earlier in 1866, Hope College awarded diplomas to its first graduating class.  From almost the same moment in time, Holland and Hope College have grown together.  We have matured together.  While we have different missions and different roles, we share a common place—downtown Holland.  To put it quite simply, Hope and Holland are neighbors in the very best of the definition of the term.

Make no mistake about it.  One of the most significant contributing factors to the vibrancy of downtown Holland is the presence of Hope College properties immediately adjacent and anchored on our downtown’s main street.  The presence of the College’s 3,226 students, 700 employees, and thousands of annual visitors all in our downtown with their VISA or MasterCard in hand, has proven to be a very good thing for our downtown businesses. 

A 2004 economic analysis of the impact of Hope College on our Holland region demonstrated that direct college spending amounted to $17.4 million, faculty and staff spending equaled $21.2 million, student spending totaled some $6.5 million, and visitors spent $2.7 million; much of this was in our downtown.  That study compiled by EconImpact (Louisville, KY) heralded the fact that Hope College represented a $250 million dollar value to our region!

I believe that successful downtowns are most easily recognized by the number of younger people with disposable income who are seen to congregate in downtown public and private spaces.  Hope College is bringing those young people to their campus and to our downtown!

Check back tomorrow to hear Al’s thoughts on area-wide cooperation.

You may contact Al McGeehan at 616-355-1314 or a.mcgeehan@cityofholland.com.

Wednesday

March 12, 2008

Area-Wide Cooperation

In Governor Jennifer Granholm’s 2007 State of the State Address, the Governor focused some significant time and attention to the matter of regionalism and regional relationships.  She made it quite clear in her comments that her vision for a successful strategy for moving Michigan forward involved furthering partnerships among local units of government.  In fact, the Governor went on to say with regard to future revenue sharing payments that “when local governments show us how they are cooperating, how they are collaborating and how they are consolidating, then we will show them the money.”

In their news reporting of this challenge, state-wide media played the angle that local governments would interpret this message as a threatening political “shot across their bow.”  In fact, that is not how I nor most of the other Michigan mayors reacted to the Governor’s comments.  My reaction was that this call for greater area-wide cooperation on the part of local city and township governments could be (and should be) an opportunity for us to showcase those regional collaborative efforts that we have already accomplished, much to the surprise of many elected officials in Lansing. 

Two years ago in a presentation before the Michigan Association of Mayors, a speaker defined area-wide cooperation as an “unnatural act between two non-consenting adults!”  With that comment, the presenter momentarily lost control of his audience.  To be honest, I laughed until I hurt because with more than 30 years of serving as a local elected official, and more than 14 years of serving as a mayor, I—as you have as well—have come to understand that area-wide cooperation is not easy…but it is essential.  I say that because I firmly believe that our historic political and school district boundaries have absolutely no relevance to how we currently define our communities.  Surely, they also are of no value as to how we deal with those “community issues” which present themselves to us across political boundaries and must be solved without regard to political boundaries. 

Many years ago I created a list of what I titled “Successful Partnering Efforts with Area Units of Governments.”  I did so because I found many here at home, just like so many in Lansing, to be uninformed about these success stories.  That list of successful area-wide collaborations has grown to include 41 items.  I carry it with me wherever I go.  I refer to it often and hand out copies whenever the issue comes up about “border wars” between our local units.  The list provides historic context, and most of all gives balance to the issue.

Last May, as President of the Michigan Association of Mayors, in a meeting with the Governor, I presented to her Holland’s list along with similar lists from 30 other Michigan cities.  I thanked her for calling for greater collaboration.  I also asked her to strongly consider and reward those battles already won.

Check back tomorrow to hear Al’s testimony before the Michigan Senate Committee on Natural Resources.

You may contact Al McGeehan at 616-355-1314 or a.mcgeehan@cityofholland.com.

Thursday

March 13, 2008

Testimony before the Michigan Senate Committee on Natural Resources by Albert H. McGeehan, President of the Michigan Association of Mayors

In the matter of Senate Bills 1078-1083 (Annexation/Detachment)

February 6, 2008

As President of the Michigan Association of Mayors, I am well aware that the legislation which is now up for review and consideration was first offered some five years ago.  Back then I thought that this effort, if allowed to become law, would kill Michigan cities.  I thought, too, that back then it had been put to rest.

I have not changed my mind.  But like the line in the old movie “It’s back!”

I must share with you that I am not only amazed, but quite saddened to see these bills once again being seriously considered by this committee and by the Senate.

I thought that elected leaders here in our state were champions of growth.  Each of you have spoken enthusiastically about the need for growth of Michigan’s economy, growth of Michigan’s neighborhoods, growth of our schools and universities, growth of our travel and tourism and the growth of our prestige both nationally and internationally.

To your lists of where Michigan needs to grow, I must emphatically add that if Michigan is to prosper, Michigan cities need to be healthy.  They need to be vibrant.

Yes Senators, Michigan cities, as with other elements of our communities, need to grow.

Would any of you support legislation that would stifle the growth of our business sector?  I think not.  Would any of you support legislation that would choke off growth of our educational system?  Again, I think not.

Make no mistake about it.  If this legislation is supported and is allowed to become law, the language contained in the bills will tie a noose around the necks of those cities which still have an opportunity to grow.  With that noose in place, as it is already for many Michigan cities, then Senators, the cities of our state will strangle and choke and one after another they will surely die.

That Senators, is not rhetoric.  It is the truth!

I have always believed that the strength and the vitality of every great society and every great civilization is best demonstrated and measured by the vitality of the cities of that civilization.

I do not apologize for being here today as a champion for the cities of our great state.

Michigan cities are no more or no less than Michigan’s “canaries in the coal mine.”

Friends, somehow and somewhere I read and heard that there is a new theme in the state of Michigan.  That theme embraced the goals of “collaboration, cooperation and consolidation.”  Surely to these is the goal of “regionalism.”  Thinking and acting regionally has become the new and clear best direction for moving or communities forward.

This legislation is absolutely contrary to these themes!

This legislation ignores the positive role played by the Michigan State Boundary Commission, as well as successful regional collaborative efforts as framed by Public Act 425 and Urban Cooperation Agreements.

If the goal of the sponsors of this legislation is to bring neighboring city and township governments to the negotiation table, I say that the effort is duplicative, unnecessary, and extremely time consuming.

Also, in a day of very limited financial resources for those of us at the local level, this legislation is an open invitation to long and costly litigation.

Today, Michigan policies toward land use, growth, and local governance are much maligned nationally.  Surely we do need dramatic change in these areas…but not this language.  Not this effort.

This effort, if successful, will be taking bad policy and making it worse!

Either here today, or if hearings continue next week, then at that time you may hear some very pointed charges made by West Michigan Township officials that Holland City tops the list of land hungry local city governments.

I’m here to tell you that is just not so.

Yes, over the last 50 years Holland has grown, and much of that growth has been to our south…into Fillmore Township.  This growth has never, I repeat never, been instigated by the mayor, the city council, the city manager, nor the city attorney.  It has always been initiated by township residents and township property owners.

I have never solicited nor instigated annexation efforts with any township property owner.  I have taken their calls and worked within the framework of existing state statutes which has resulted in substantial growth of my city, and may I add substantial enhancement of our community.

I do not apologize for my efforts designed to ensure the sustainability of my community.

So, embracing the themes of cooperation, collaboration and consolidation as well as regionalism, I ask you all to thoughtfully consider your vision for the future of our state and its cities.

If you concur that healthy, growing, vibrant cities are essential to our success both nationally and globally, then I ask you to set aside this legislation which is miserable public policy for Michigan cities.

Thank you.

Check back tomorrow to hear Al’s thoughts on how good process equals good product.

You may contact Al McGeehan at 616-355-1314 or a.mcgeehan@cityofholland.com.

Friday

March 14, 2008

Good Process Equals Good Product

Throughout the state of Michigan, local city councils have adopted various strategies and procedures that enable them to take public action on action items moved and seconded.  I don’t know if any one procedure is right or wrong, but I do know that our procedure here in the City of Holland works well for us. 

Our city council meets on Wednesday evenings.  For the past 10 years we have been “paperless,” meaning we receive all of our council agenda materials electronically the Friday before our meeting.  This provides each of us with ample opportunity to do our “homework.”  This also provides ample time for members of council to contact the city manager for more information if needed. 

When we gather the first and third Wednesdays for our business meeting, we gather at 5:00 p.m., download a final revised packet for the meeting, and then council and senior staff sit down for 30 minutes of what can only be called “fellowship.”  Right here in City Hall, we sit down over a light dinner and talk family, sports, weather or vacation plans.  We don’t talk “shop.”  I firmly believe that these 30 minutes are essential to the bond and common vision that we carry from those quick dinners to our public conversation.  I believe that these weekly 30 minutes of camaraderie enable us to disagree on a particular vote, but then move on and vote unanimously on the next without any bit of lingering rancor or bitterness.   

At 5:30 p.m. we reconvene for our pre-council meeting at which time we review items on that evening’s agenda.  Our business meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.  But, here’s the key point: unless an agenda item is extremely routine in nature, we have already seen and discussed the agenda action items.  This is because on the second, fourth and usually the fifth Wednesday of each month, we also gather at 5:00 p.m., have that 30-minute dinner time, and then at 5:30 p.m. we meet for what we call a study session.  These meetings decide which items we are prepared to place on a business meeting agenda. 

Some councils or boards rarely or never convene a study session.  Some of these councils have business meetings that adjourn at 11:00 p.m. or later.  I can see why.

Our Holland process works for us and it works well. 

You may contact Al McGeehan at 616-355-1314 or a.mcgeehan@cityofholland.com.

Check back on Monday to hear from Joe Borgstrom, Director for the Community Assistance Team for the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).