I've never seen Sam Merulla on the dance floor so I have no idea how he moves to music.

But the east end councillor knows how to spin, swing and shuffle round the council table when he has to. Witness his improvised soft shoe during the deadlocked debate over the fate of DARTS. He began after a proposal to let the non-profit but city-bankrolled Disabled and Aged Regional Transit System run itself had been defeated by an 8-8 vote.

Under council rules, a tie always spells defeat for a motion.

Merulla was happy about that because, as with several of his colleagues, he wants to bring the sometimes troubled transit service for people with disabilities in-house.

In other words, rather than maintaining an arms-length relationship with DARTS, he wants to see the operation come under the city's complete control like the regular HSR bus system.

Merulla believes that would impose predictability and calm on a sometimes "inconsistent, unpredictable and chaotic" service.

According to a staff report, bringing DARTS in-house would create greater accountability, clearer lines of communication and more opportunities for controlling costs. Since the city already owns all DARTS assets and provides virtually all its funding, the proposal has some merit.

On the other hand, some councillors such as Terry Whitehead argue the service is already efficient and that a volunteer board can be more responsive than a big bureaucracy.

But the real stumbling block to a takeover appears to be that the move would add an estimated $1.2 million to the city's budget.

The current DARTS operating budget is just over $9 million.

If brought in-house, it would swell to about $10.2 million, not including a one-time integration cost of $435,000.

The annual increase would come from bringing the wages of DART employees in line with HSR employees, plus the cost of joining the pension plan.

With the city already facing a $12-million budget shortfall next year, the thought of shoving it another $1.2 million into the red is enough to curl the toes of any taxpayer.

But Merulla maintains new information basically wipes out concerns about cost.

It's not clear what he's referring to, but judging by city lawyer Peter Barkwell's caution not to discuss confidential labour relations in public, it probably has something to do with closed door advice about the harmonization of wages.

Regardless, here was Merulla's dilemma:

Having just seen one council motion on the issue lose on a tie vote, how could he keep alive his proposal to bring DARTS in-house knowing council was divided right down the middle? If he put forward his proposal and lost, according to council rules, he would need a two-thirds majority vote to have it reconsidered in the future.

So Merulla tap-danced for time.

He jittered and jived, stomped and shimmied, desperately trying to come up with a motion on the spur of the moment that would keep his goal alive.

He spat out half-baked ideas and half-formed thoughts, at times talking in circles but never relinquishing the floor.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger cut in to help, even though he was on the other side of the issue.

Hard to say which one was Ginger Rogers and which one Fred Astaire until Merulla finally found a winning formula. He simply suggested that staff come back with a detailed report on the projected cost and legal implications of moving DARTS in-house. It passed 9-7.

The vote doesn't commit council to anything other than more discussion. But it goes to show that politics is as much about living to fight again as it is about winning or losing.

Andrew Dreschel's commentary appears Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. adreschel@thespec.com 905-526-3495