Transit options in the three scenarios – which the AATA has labeled Lifeline Plus, Accessible County, and Smart Growth – are nested subsets, starting with Lifeline Plus as a base, which expands on existing services and focuses on services for seniors and disabled people. Accessible County extends services by adding fixed-route bus service to connect all the county’s urban centers. The Smart Growth scenario includes north-south and east-west commuter rail regional components, as well as high-capacity local transit options for corridors like Washtenaw Avenue and State-Plymouth.

Development of the TMP for countywide service has been identified by the AATA board as a necessary step to take before reorganizing the AATA as a transit authority for the entire county. In December 2009, the board held a special meeting to seek advice on various options for reorganization under Act 196 or Act 55. [Chronicle coverage "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

This brief was filed from the Ann Arbor District Library boardroom, where the AATA board holds its regular monthly meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Left to right: AATA board members Jesse Bernstein, Roger Kerson and Anya Dale. The group fell one short of the four needed to constitute a quorum. (Photos by the writer.)

A quorum – the minimum number of board members needed in order to conduct business – consists of four members for the seven-member AATA board.

In attendance were Roger Kerson, Anya Dale – who were both recently appointed to the board – plus board chair Jesse Bernstein. The usually cheerful Bernstein seemed a bit glum, when he announced  that no quorum would be achieved.

Bernstein told the handful of people assembled in the room – members of the public and the AATA staff – that he was “sorry and disappointed” and offered his apologies. He noted that it was the first occasion of a meeting scheduled at the library, and that the CTN staff were on hand to ensure the proceedings were videotaped. “See you next month!” he concluded.

At the board’s Feb. 17, 2010 meeting, the question of a change of venue for the board’s meetings was entertained, but not voted on. At the next month’s March 24, 2010 meeting, the board voted to change the bylaws to specify the downtown library as the new meeting location. The rationale was to provide better accessibility to the board’s deliberations by making use of the library board room’s video taping equipment. The AATA board room is not similarly equipped.

The change to the library location for AATA board meetings was delayed until August while physical accessibility issues were addressed, in connection with the construction of the new underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue. From the  June 23, 2010 board meeting:

During public commentary, Clark Charnetski, who was there to deliver the report from AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), noted that the library had been made more accessible, because the removal of the flower box on the Fifth Avenue side had been completed and there is a new ramp to the William Street side. That should make it a lot easier to get from the A-Ride (para-transit) stop on William Street. People could watch for the mini-bus to arrive. He thanked the AATA for any role that they had in helping that process along. Bernstein said that staff had been diligent. Ford indicated that an intercom system would be installed in the library to aid in alerting riders of the para-transit system when their rides were there.

On Thursday, one of the members of the public who appeared at the scheduled meeting, only to be disappointed, was Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She told The Chronicle that although the new ramp was ADA compliant – its shallow slope did not trigger a requirement for handrails – it was dangerous just the same. The danger arises from the side of the ramp opposite the slope, where there is a step. The step is highlighted with yellow marking, but can be missed, she said. Grawi told The Chronicle that the previous Friday, a woman using a walker had fallen off the edge.

Orange cones have now been placed along the edge of the ramp to help prevent future mishaps.

View looking west from the library's entrance on the east side of Fifth Avenue. The construction barrels are part of the street closing in connection with the construction of the underground parking garage.

The fourth-floor library board room affords a spectacular view of the underground parking structure currently under construction. This view looks east. This is the "dogleg" of the structure that extends to Division Street.

This view is to the north from the library board room.

Present: Jesse Bernstein, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Absent: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 16, 2010 at at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Brian Kerr

Nine months have now passed between views of the world from the end of a teeter totter. This most recent view down the board was of Brian Kerr. One way I know Brian is as a downtown pedestrian who strolls hatless down the sidewalk, even in bitterly cold weather, and who must be admonished as you bicycle past: “Put on a hat, it’s cold out here!”

The chosen venue of our teeter totter ride was the middle of the intersection of Main and Liberty streets last Saturday morning, the last day of the Ann Arbor art fairs. We compromised on our chosen venue somewhat by moving to the edge of the intersection, to accommodate concerns of art fair staff.

It was a small concession to make – we’d already dealt with the disappointment of being denied access to the bottom of the pit being dug for the underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue, just to the northeast. Construction sites can’t reasonably be expected to be made accessible to random members of the general public – patrons of the arts, teeter totter riders, wheelchair users, the blind. That makes construction sites somewhat different from websites.

Under the Section 508 amendment of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal agencies are required to make their websites accessible to people with disabilities. It’s a different piece of legislation from the Americans with Disabilities Act, which just recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. But Section 508 is to websites what the ADA is to buildings – the idea is to make things accessible to disabled people.

Kerr works for a company called Deque, which specializes in helping to make websites work well for hearing- and visually-impaired people.

Here’s a simple example. Visually impaired people sometimes use a screen-reader to get information from a website – it’s a software program that tries to interpret the page using text-to-speech technology. If there’s a picture on a page, say of a guy sitting on teeter totter, then what the screen reader interprets – and what the visually-impaired person hears – is just an indication that there’s an image. If the author of the page supplies some description in the “behind the scenes” coding, the visually-impaired person might hear: “Brian Kerr, who is sitting on the end of a teeter totter. The view is down the board.”

Like librarian Metta Landsdale, Kerr has a professional interest in making information accessible to people. And like Lou Rosenfeld, Kerr is a product of the master’s degree program at the University of Michigan School of Information. And like Brandon Zwagerman, Kerr was one of a group of co-founders of ArborUpdate, a now-defunct local news and discussion website.

But there’s something else that Kerr has in common with Landsdale, Rosenfeld and Zwagerman.When they took their teeter totter rides, they were all leaving Ann Arbor. Landsdale was leaving for Traverse City to take a job directing the public library there. Rosenfeld was leaving for Brooklyn, New York, to start a publishing company. Zwagerman was also leaving for Brooklyn to take a job with an urban planning firm.

Kerr is leaving for Seattle, Washington, to continue to work for Deque – he already works for the company. Deque is headquartered in Reston, Virginia, so the geographic move is not job-related. It’s fair to say that the kind of key-pressing that Kerr will continue to do for Deque allows a certain amount of geographic freedom.

Kerr is somebody I really knew of more than really knew during his time here in Ann Arbor. I kept up with him through the occasional blog post he’d write, a comment he’d leave, or a Tweet he’d send out into the world. That’ll continue, I’m guessing.

What I will miss, though, is seeing him walking downtown and collecting a wave from him as I bicycle past. But there’ll be bicyclists in Seattle for him to wave at, too.

For the complete conversation with Kerr, read his talk.

University of Michigan provost Teresa Sullivan, left, and vice provost Phil Hanlon brief the media about tuition rates immediately prior to the regents meeting on June 17. Hanlon will become provost when Sullivan leaves at the end of the month for her new post as University of Virginia president. (Photos by the writer.)

This year, with two regents dissenting, a tuition increase of 1.5% for in-state undergraduates was approved for the Ann Arbor campus. UM executives noted that it’s the lowest rate increase in 26 years – but if their projections for state appropriations prove too optimistic, they cautioned that they might need to return to request raising tuition later in the fiscal year.

University officials say they’re buffering the tuition increase by substantially adding to the amount of financial aid available to students – $126 million, up $8.3 million from the current year. They’re also launching a new “economic hardship” program, adding $500 in financial aid per year for up to four years for qualified students.

Tuition makes up a large portion of the general fund operating budget. For the Ann Arbor campus, a budget of $1.55 billion in FY 2011, which begins July 1, marks a 6.75% increase from FY 2010.

Regents also approved the FY2011 budget for the UM Hospitals and Health Centers – revenues are projected to top $2 billion for the first time during this year, with a $66 million operating surplus.

And UM athletic director Dave Brandon gave a briefing on the athletic department budget, though it doesn’t require regental approval. Projected revenues of $105 million includes $38.19 million from ticket sales, while the budgeted $100.3 million in expenses includes a $9.22 million debt service payment for Michigan Stadium renovations.

In addition to budgets, regents approved several construction projects, including a $56 million renovation of Alice Lloyd Hall and a $1.6 million repair of Burton Memorial Tower, which will close the landmark site – and silence its carillon – for about a year, starting in August.

Budget Overview

Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, began the budget presentations with an overview of the university’s financial status. The university has $13.8 billion in assets – both financial and in its physical plant – and $4.5 billion in liabilities, resulting in net assets of $9.3 billion.

In discussing UM’s liabilities, Slottow cited several threats to the balance sheet. “People often ask what keeps a CFO up at night,” he joked. “This is the list.” Future liabilities include deferred maintenance of buildings, retirement health benefits and increasing future debt liabilities, he said.

Other threats include unprecedented market volatility, which will continue, he said, as will volatility in energy prices, which have swing “wildly” up and down. But the one thing that never seems to go down is health care costs, he said – this year, those costs for UM have increased 2.8%, compared to a national average of roughly 10%.

He discussed efforts to endow the general fund – in FY 2010, the general fund was supplemented by $210 million from the endowment. That money is used primarily for scholarships, professorships and academic programs, Slottow said. Strategically, the move to endow more general fund activities began five years ago, and has included gifts to endow building maintenance and operations for facilities like the Stamps Auditorium and Kelsey Museum. The endowment for the general fund today stands at $213 million, he said, yielding annual revenue of $12 million. The university’s total endowment is an estimated $6.7 billion.

Slottow reviewed the physical plant of the Ann Arbor campus, as a reminder of the infrastructure that the university supports. That includes:

• 25 miles of roads and 4.5 million square feet of sidewalks, steps, and plazas
• 7 miles of utility tunnels and 150 miles of fiber optic cable
• 280 acres of parking lots/decks
• 32 million gross square feet of buildings and core infrastructure
• 601 buildings, 1,807 classrooms and instructional labs, 1,113 study rooms, and 6,125 research labs/rooms
• 540 elevators and escalators
• 14,000 trees and 12 million square feet of turf
• 100,000 network desktop computers

For all three campuses, the university employs 28,809 regular staff and 6,967 instructional, clinical and research faculty. Slottow pointed out that about 40% of employees will be eligible for retirement within the next few years, as will more than 50% of UM’s managers. They need to start preparing for that with leadership training, knowledge transfer and career development for a smooth transition, he said.

As of March 31, 2010, the university’s debt totaled $1.58 billion. Slottow said a prudent debt management policy has helped the university earn the highest possible credit rating from Standard & Poor’s – a triple-A. And soon, he added, UM’s provost will be the only living person to have worked as a senior executive for three universities with that rating: Texas, Michigan and Virginia. Provost Teresa Sullivan, who previously was executive vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Texas, will be leaving at the end of June to become president at the University of Virginia.

Tuition Rates, Financial Aid: Ann Arbor Campus

Provost Teresa Sullivan presented the FY 2011 general fund operating budget for the Ann Arbor campus, which included tuition rates and fees. [Regents had approved housing rates at their May 20 meeting – a 3% average increase in room and board.]

For the fiscal year beginning July 1, total general fund operating revenues are projected at $1.55 billion – up 6.75% from the current year. Sullivan cited several reasons for the revenue increase, including higher undergraduate enrollment and increased research funding. [Stephen Forrest, UM's vice president for research, had briefed regents on the latter topic at their Jan. 21, 2010 meeting.]

Julia Darlow was elected chair of the board of regents at their June 17 meeting, succeeding Andy Richner. She's holding an iPad, which regents are starting to use as part of an effort to reduce paper documentation.

The budget assumes the university will receive $315.1 million in state appropriations. Given the state’s financial crisis, “there is the possibility that this assumption is too optimistic,” Sullivan said. She noted that since 1960, state support as a percentage of UM’s general fund has dropped from 78% to 20%. Conversely, tuition and fees accounted for only 20% of UM’s general fund in 1960 – today, it accounts for 65% of general fund revenues.

Sullivan also outlined the university’s cost containment efforts, noting that the budget assumes $39 million in cuts. Those cuts are coming from greater sharing of benefits costs with employees, the consolidation of information technology units, more efficient use of space, and reform of UM’s travel/hosting policy, she said.

Over the past seven years, Sullivan said the university has trimmed $159 million in recurring general fund expenditures – and more cuts are to come. There are five task forces looking at ways to find further budget savings, as well as exploring ways to increase revenues. And a committee that’s examining the costs of retiree health benefits will be presenting its report in the next few weeks.

Sullivan said these efforts also involve reallocating resources to fund academic initiatives – for example, the FY 2011 budget includes expanded funding for the popular undergraduate research opportunity program (UROP). The budget also includes funding for 50 additional faculty hires, above the previously targeted 100 positions that UM plans to add. The new hires are in response to increased undergraduate enrollment, she said, and will make smaller class sizes possible.

The university is increasing its centrally awarded financial aid to $126 million – $8.3 million more than the current year. That’s in addition to financial aid that’s available from individual schools and colleges, Sullivan said. She also pointed out that some families are eligible for a federal tax credit for tuition – as much as $2,500 for families earning up to $160,000 (in a two-income household) or up to $80,000 for a single-income household per year.

In addition, UM has launched the “economic hardship” program, which will provide an additional $500 in financial aid to in-state students with family income in the $60,000 to $100,000 range. The grant will be renewable for up to four years, and will cost the university about $3.6 million over that period.

All of this set the stage for the recommended tuition increase: 1.5% for in-state undergraduate students, and 3% for non-residents. First-year undergraduates would pay roughly $11,837 in tuition and fees, or $178 more than the current year. Non-residents would pay $36,001, or an additional $1,064 per year.

The 1.5% increase is the lowest since 1984, Sullivan noted. [Last year, regents approved a 5.6% increase, with regents Julia Darlow and Denise Ilitch dissenting.]

Tuition rates for both in-state and out-of-state graduate students will go up 2.8% –or $498 per year for in-state graduate students, $1,000 per year for out-of-state students. A tuition decrease of 15.4% for doctoral candidates will keep tuition revenue neutral, Sullivan said, due to a new continuous enrollment policy that requires students to pay tuition throughout their candidacy. [Regents were briefed on that policy change, which has been controversial among graduate students, at their December 2009 meeting.]

Tuition for UM and peer institutions. (Image links to larger file.)

Sullivan put the tuition increases in the context of peer institutions, noting that UM’s increase will bring its tuition rates to fourth among Big Ten universities. She also compared tuition for out-of-state students with a range of private universities, noting that UM tuition ranks near the bottom.

She ended her presentation with a caveat: If the state appropriations turn out to be lower than projected, the administration might return to regents to request a mid-year tuition increase.

Sullivan said the university takes very seriously its responsibility to students to keep tuition increases to a minimum. This budget does that, she said, while also ensuring continued quality.

Comments from the Regents

There was no discussion of the budget proposal, but several regents read prepared statements or made remarks before the vote was taken.

Julia Darlow, who voted against tuition increases last year, expressed support for the entire budget, but directed her remarks specifically toward the budget for the Ann Arbor campus. The limited tuition increase of 1.5%, coupled with significant increase in financial aid, show that the university is reaching out to hard-pressed Michigan families, she said – they know how difficult the economy is. This year, the university is also proposing a huge amount of help for middle-income families as well, she added, citing the new Economic Hardship Program that will add $500 in grant aid to qualifying students. Darlow said she did her own calculations, and was satisfied that, in fact, many families would be paying less in tuition than they do now. It’s not a resting point, she said, but it’s a step toward making the university accessible to all.

Regent Denise Ilitch talks with Tim Slottow, the university's CFO, prior to the start of the June 17 board of regents meeting. Ilitch voted against tuition and fee increases, as well as the overall budget for FY 2011.

Citing the challenges of Michigan’s economic crisis, Denise Ilitch argued against the tuition increase, saying that the university must solve its budget crisis from within, not on the backs of working-class families. She noted that she voted against increases last year, and would do the same this year. The university needs to be more innovative in finding ways to control escalating tuition. Michigan families are strapped, and with each dollar increase in tuition, the university limits the low- and middle-income students who can attend. The price of admission limits the economic diversity of the student body, she said. Ilitch acknowledged that the administration and regents have made progress, including more financial aid, a lower rate of tuition increase and an effort to cut costs – she noted that many executives at the table had foregone salary increases. “Yet we can do more, and we must lead by example.” It should not be the assumption that tuition is raised, she said, adding that the university saw new revenue this year that isn’t being passed on to students. Other universities have stepped up to control tuition, and UM should do the same. She said she’d keep prodding to make sure they did more.

Andrew Richner said he was happy and proud that his son will be one of the 6,000 or so freshman coming to UM in the fall. “I’ll be awarding him my own personal regents scholarship,” he joked. “I hope he appreciates it.” Richner said that’s why he has a very keen interest in this budget, and believes it balances the interests of affordability and accessibility, while preserving quality.

Libby Maynard said she would also be supporting the budget. She agreed with Darlow that it wasn’t an end game, but she felt that the budget preserved the quality of the institution.

Larry Deitch described the budget as restrained. He pointed out that regent Andrea Fischer Newman had been the first to advocate for endowing the general fund budget. He said he shared Ilitch’s passion for working families, and noted that no one worked harder than Darlow in coming up with a budget that balanced all of these interests. He planned to vote for the budget because they need to keep an eye on the long-term. Michigan is in the midst of an economic crisis, but they’ve lived through these before. And when the university celebrates its 200th anniversary in 2017, they’ll still be here, he said, leading the state and the world. They need to balance the needs of the people in the short term with the needs of the institution in the long term, Deitch said. The value of a quality education can’t be underestimated, he said, and unfortunately, it’s more expensive than they’d like it to be.

Votes on the Budget, Tuition, Fees

The board then voted on three budget-related items: 1) The university’s 2010-2011 revenue and expenditure operating budgets, which includes the general fund, designated fund, auxiliary activities and expendable restricted fund; 2) the Ann Arbor general fund operating budget; and 3) Ann Arbor tuition and fee rates.

The items passed, with dissent from Ilitch and Newman.

The budgets for the Flint and Dearborn campuses were presented separately. Both UM-Flint and UM-Dearborn had proposed a 3.9% increase in undergraduate tuition and fees, and a 2.9% increase in graduate tuition and fees.

Before the vote on these items, Newman commented that she would be supporting those increases, even though she had voted against lower tuition hikes for Ann Arbor. The reality is that the Flint and Dearborn campuses have less opportunity for bringing in new revenue, she said, compared to the Ann Arbor campus. The budgets from the three campuses aren’t intertwined, she noted, and Flint and Dearborn don’t get money from Ann Arbor. Newman said she was very aware of how important the general fund revenues were to Flint and Dearborn.

The tuition increases for UM-Flint and UM-Dearborn were approved, with dissent from Ilitch.

The board unanimously approved several fee assessments, which were not raised for the current year. They are, per student: 1) $7.19 to fund the Michigan Student Assembly; 2) $6 for Student Legal Services, 3) $1.50 for school/college student government organizations; and 4) $171.20 for the University Health Service.

UM Hospitals and Health Centers Budget

Doug Strong, CEO of the UM Hospitals and Health Centers, made a presentation on the FY 2010 budget, which ends June 30, as well as a budget plan for FY 2011. He began by noting that UM is the only health system in Michigan that serves people in every county throughout the state.

In looking ahead, he outlined some challenges and risks faced by the system, including a slow economic recovery and the impact of uncompensated care. There’s been a 17% increase in uncompensated care within the system in the past year, and a higher percentage of patients are being covered by government plans, including Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburse at lower rates than private insurers. Other risks include the consolidation in the industry – as other health care systems merge, that threatens UM’s referral base, he said. The state budget’s impact on the Medicare program is another concern, Strong said.

Completing the new C.S. Mott Children’s and Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital is another challenge, Strong said, and they look forward to opening the facility in the fall of 2011. He also cited the uncertainties and impact of recently passed federal health care reform as a challenge the system will face.

Revenue for the current fiscal year is expected to reach $1.975 billion – next year, it’s expected to top $2 billion for the first time. This year’s operating surplus is expected to be $66 million, for an operating margin of 3.3%. Next year, the system is projecting a surplus of $83 million, for a 4% margin. The numbers for FY 2011 are premised on a nearly 6% increase in revenue, while keeping expenses down. Payroll for the coming year is projected to be $1.075 billion, up 4.6% from the current year.

Strong said the system remains financially strong, but needs to generate cash to invest in the future.

Vote on the UM Hospitals & Health Centers Budget

Regents had no questions or comments on the budget, which they unanimously approved.

Athletic Department Budget

The regents are not required to vote on the athletic department budget, but they heard a brief presentation by athletic director Dave Brandon. The department’s current cash flow is sufficient to sustain a healthy operating margin, he said, describing the budget as fairly conservative on the revenue side – they’re projecting $105 million in revenues for FY 2011, with $100.3 million in operating expenses. That leaves a projected operating surplus of $4.73 million. For the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, the department expects a $16.1 million operating surplus on $100.9 million in revenues.

Ticket sales account for the largest chunk of revenues – $38.19 million for FY 2011, including $32.5 million from football alone. Football revenues will take a hit because Michigan will have one fewer home football game this season, Brandon said, with only seven games played in Ann Arbor. This year, ticket sales brought in $38.26 million. An additional $11 million is anticipated from premium seating at Michigan Stadium.

The department expects to get $20.22 million in FY 2011 from Big Ten conference distributions, including $16.59 million from the TV broadcast of football and basketball games. This year, conference distributions accounted for $18.35 million in revenues.

Total debt – now standing at $175 million – has increased, Brandon said, primarily because of the Michigan Stadium construction project. The FY 2011 includes debt service payments of $9.226 million – $2.84 million in principal and $6.38 million in interest. The balance on the project as of June 2010 is $147.38 million. Two additional projects – Crisler Arena renovations and the adjacent Player Development Center – will increase debt to $215 million.

Endowment balances as of March 2010 stood at $56 million, Brandon said.

The FY 2011 budget includes a $1.5 million contingency line item, Brandon noted, which he said affords him the flexibility to restructure the department, as incoming athletic director. Brandon took over the job from Bill Martin earlier this year.

The athletic department budget also includes a $2 million transfer to the university’s need-based financial aid fund for non-athlete UM students. For the current year, the department transferred $1.6 million into that fund.

Construction, Facilities Projects

Regents approved several infrastructure-related projects, with no discussion. They include:

• $4.8 million for the annual Information and Technology Services maintenance and replacement program. Major project include replacing the networking infrastructure that supports the university’s data network, and upgrading the campus voicemail systems.
• A $56 million “deep” renovation of Alice Crocker Lloyd Hall, which is located on Observatory just south of Ann Street and houses about 560 students. Integrated Design Solutions LLC will design the project.
• A $1.6 million repair of Burton Memorial Tower, to be completed by the fall of 2011. The work will include repairs to the concrete and steel structure that supports the 55-bell, 12-ton carillon on the tower’s 10th floor – the carillon will be silenced during the project. In addition, workers will replace and waterproof the bell chamber floor, and replace the transmission system on bells affected by the structural work. This is only the second time that the carillon has been silenced in the tower’s 75-year history – the first time was in 2006, when a pair of peregrine falcons were spotted in the tower. Tim Slottow, UM’s CFO, told regents that workers would take care to accommodate the falcons. The engineering firm of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. will design the project, which also includes exterior work.
• A $1.7 million renovation of the molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) lab in the Carl A. Gerstacker Building at the College of Engineering. MBE is a procedure used in the design and manufacture of semiconductors, photovoltaics, and other devices.

In addition, regents acted on seven conflict-of-interest items. State law requires that regents vote on potential conflict-of-interest disclosures related to university staff, faculty or students. The items typically involve technology licensing agreements or leases, but cover other issues as well. This month’s batch, for example, included disclosure of plans by UM’s Office of New Student Programs to buy beverage break service during parent orientation sessions from Thayer Street Ventures. The item required a vote because Mark G. Pavach, a UM Health System employee, is a partner of Thayer Street Ventures.

There was no discussion of any of these items, which were all unanimously approved.

Additional Misc. Approvals

Regents unanimously approved several other items, without comment. They include:

• A new School of Nursing degree program – the doctoral of nursing practice.
• Renewal of the interlocal agreement for the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, a joint effort between UM and Washtenaw County. [The agreement has previously been approved by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at their June 2 meeting.]
• The FY 2011 business plan for the Michigan Health Corp., a nonprofit entity that’s part of the UM Health System.
• Establishing a new regental committee on health affairs. Currently, there are two regental committees: the finance, audit and investment committee; and the personnel, compensation and governance committee.

Teresa Sullivan, outgoing UM provost.

Farewell to Teresa Sullivan

Earlier in the meeting, regents honored Teresa Sullivan, who was attending her last meeting as UM provost and executive vice president for academic affairs. In opening remarks, president Mary Sue Coleman noted that Sullivan is at the heart of the budgeting process, and expressed deep gratitude for her leadership, acumen and counsel. Coleman also highlighted Sullivan’s sense of humor, “which is more than required in her position.”

Regent Andy Richner, citing the budget challenges that the university has faced over the past few years and its ability to manage them well, joked that they are now “victims of our own success – we’ve lost our provost.” Sullivan has been appointed as president of the University of Virginia, starting Aug. 1. She’s leaving UM at the end of June.

Richner read a resolution in her honor, which highlighted her role in identifying funding for the hiring of 100 new tenure-track faculty, developing a systematic process of reviewing capital projects within the schools and colleges, and establishing task forces on cost reduction and revenue enhancements, among other achievements.

In thanking regents, Sullivan said that she and her husband, Doug Laycock – a UM law professor – “have enjoyed every day in Ann Arbor.” She thanked the board, her colleagues and staff. Regents and others in the boardroom gave her a standing ovation.

Public Commentary

Renee Echols was the only person to speak during the public commentary portion of the meeting. Identifying herself as a doctoral candidate and secretary for the Graduate Employees Organization, Echols told regents in the coming year the GEO will be entering contract negotiations with the university, as they do every three years, and they’d be coming to the regents to bring up issues related to that.

Renee Echols, an officer in the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO), spoke to regents during public commentary.

One concern is the issue of accessibility and accommodations for graduate student instructors with disabilities – she noted that she is visually impaired. The university has an excellent system of accommodation for students, she said, but that doesn’t extend to graduate instructors. When accommodations are requested from a department, they are usually turned down, she said, mainly due to a lack of understanding of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

In their upcoming contract negotiations, the GEO hopes to propose some procedures to help solve this problem, Echols said. Specifically, they’d like to develop concrete processes by which graduate instructors can request accommodations through their departments.

Denise Ilitch asked Echols for examples of requests that had been turned down. Echols said she’d twice been turned down for a request to have an assistant in the classroom to help during a course she was teaching. Other graduate instructors with chronic pain issues had requested a specific type of chair to use while teaching – those requests had been turned down, too.

Julia Darlow expressed concern, and asked the university’s general counsel, Suellyn Scarnecchia, whether graduate student instructors were considered as employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Scarnecchia said this issue hadn’t been brought to her office yet, and they’d follow up on it. It’s not just a matter of contract negotiations, she said – there’s a lot of law that applies to these issues.

Libby Maynard said the issues that Echols raised are essential to making the university what they want it to be – an inclusive institution.

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow, Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Olivia Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Martin Taylor, Kathy White.

Next board meeting: Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 3 p.m. in the Fleming Administration Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Michael Ford, left, had extra copies made of the treasurer's report and distributed them to audience members. (Photo by the writer.)

The board’s resolutions were complemented by a treasurer’s report from Ted Annis that laid out a possible budget within which the countywide system could be designed. Presentation of that report revealed some conceptual differences among board members in their preferred approach to engaging an outside consultant to do the countywide system design: (i) Here’s a budget, now design the system; or  (ii) Design us a system, then tell us how much it would cost.

Key to the budget that Annis proposed was the assumed elimination of Ann Arbor’s transportation millage – on Annis’ assumption, Ann Arbor residents would pay the same countywide millage as other county residents if such a millage were approved.

In other business, the board approved service changes to Route #2 in northeast Ann Arbor.

Also generating discussion was the plan to repair, refurbish or reconstruct the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor, which was described as “dilapidated.”

The board also received an explanation for the decreased ridership compared to last year, and a report on the move to different office space by the getDowntown program.

Countywide Vision for AATA

The adoption of the vision statement itself generated little board discussion – that had happened at the committee level. Board member David Nacht quipped, “I was not there for its creation … a spectacular job was done creating it.”

AATA Vision Statement: The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority shall be the public transportation provider for Washtenaw County. Our customers shall see AATA’s expanded services as the preferred option for traveling to destinations within the county, as well as to and from the county. AATA will offer appropriate modes of transportation with the most efficient use of resources. These services shall enhance the quality of life for Washtenaw County stakeholders while promoting the economy, safeguarding the environment, and strengthening communities.

Outcome: The board unanimously adopted the vision statement.

Countywide Plan for AATA: Wording of the Resolution

Discussion of the resolution to develop a countywide system focused on three issues: (i) the need to educate the public about how the system is currently funded, (ii) the use of the word “staff” versus “consultant,” and (iii) the definition of “values based public transportation systems.” [Original Draft of Countywide Resolution (Scanned and OCRed .pdf)]

Board member Jesse Bernstein, who had attended a meeting of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) earlier in the day, led off discussion of the resolution by saying that the message he’d heard from WATS was loud and clear: Communicate clearly to the public what the AATA is trying to do.

To that end, he suggested amending a “Whereas” clause to make clear where AATA’s funding comes from:

Whereas, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is a recognized provider of public transit services within the city of Ann Arbor, supported by a citywide millage and with purchase of service agreements with local government units …

That suggestion of Bernstein’s met with approval from Ted Annis and the rest of his board colleagues.

In the interest of making clear the enormous number of stakeholders and systems that the AATA would engage in developing the countywide plan, Bernstein then suggested that the resolved clauses be amended to read:

Now therefore it is resolved, staff shall take steps to develop a countywide service plan that includes other transportation initiatives, and positions AATA to identify funding and operating opportunities to coordinate and integrate values-based public transportation systems within all of Washtenaw County, including connecting as appropriate to transportation services of adjoining counties.

And it is further resolved that AATA staff shall seek advice, guidance and approval from the board prior to implementing major segments of the countywide transportation system.

Annis chafed at the use of the word “staff” because the intent of the AATA is to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to design the system. After discussion of the issue, Bernstein suggested that the wording be changed to “staff, with appropriate outside consultation,” and Annis was amenable to that change.

Annis was also puzzled by another phrase: “What’s values-based public transportation systems?” he wanted to know. CEO Michael Ford immediately jumped, in saying, “I’m the one who put that in there!” He clarified that it was meant to reflect that the transportation system in a particular community would reflect the values of that community – there’s no one level or kind of service that would meet the expectations of all communities. Board member Sue McCormick, Ann Arbor’s public services administrator, confirmed that “values-based” was a term that the city often used in the same context. Annis was then content that it was a “term of art.”

Annis then went on to suggest that the board might want to contemplate changing the name of the agency to the Washtenaw Transportation Authority to make clear what the vision is. “Talk about communicating a message!” he said. In response to the suggestion, the board chair Paul Ajegba cautioned that this was something the consultant should first take a look at. Annis replied, “I would submit that we don’t need a consultant to decide that.” While board member David Nacht agreed that “Ted’s gut feeling is right on the money,” the board did not take up the suggestion that evening.

Outcome: The board unanimously adopted the resolution to move forward with developing a countywide system. [No dollars where authorized with the resolution.]

Funding the Countywide Plan for AATA: Treasurer’s Report

Ted Annis, who serves as the board’s treasurer, produced a report that he’d condensed to a single sheet. In response to board members’ requests, copies were made and distributed to board members who hadn’t brought their own copy and to audience members. [AATA Treasurer's Report, scanned and OCRed .pdf file]

These are the key recommendations in that report:

Treasurer’s Recommendations

• Shift the transportation tax by eliminating the current perpetual Ann Arbor Transportation Tax of 2.06 mills and replacing it with a countywide tax of 1.0 mill. (The elimination needs to be contingent upon approval of the countywide tax.)
• Give the outside consultant an operating budget design objective of $33,000,000/year for the countywide system and a bus operating budget guideline of $84/bus service hour.
• Separate WALLY, the North-South rail system proposed between Washtenaw and Livingston counties, from the above planning and funding; and handle it separately.

The recommended budget objective of $33 million a year is based on the following breakdown of the funding structure. In the left column is the current funding structure, which depends on a 2.06 mill tax levied just in the city of Ann Arbor, plus purchase of service agreements (POSAs) with other communities. In the second column is the funding structure that would result from eliminating the roughly 2-mill tax currently levied in the city of Ann Arbor and replacing it with a countywide tax of 1 mill. For residents of Ann Arbor, on this scenario, their transportation tax bill would be cut in half.

                Just A2 Tax  Countywide Tax
Local Taxes     $9,700,000   $15,000,000
POSAs            1,141,000             0
Fares            4,334,000     7,000,000
State            6,754,000     6,750,000
Federal          3,170,000     4,000,000
Other              361,000       500,000
Total Revenues $25,460,000   $33,250,000

-

Annis then prompted some discussion by stressing that it was important to provide a budget constraint within which the consultant should work in developing a plan for a countywide system. He noted that in previous conversation with board chair Paul Ajegba, he’d been offered a different view by Ajegba, which Annis characterized as: “Let the guy design it and see what it costs.”

Board members David Nacht and Sue McCormick expressed their appreciation for the thoughtfulness that had gone into the report. Nacht said, “This a treasurer thinking like a treasurer should.” McCormick said she’d be looking for some additional detail behind certain assumptions – like the increase in revenues from fares – as the conversation moved ahead.

Board member Rich Robben, who is executive director of plant operations at the University of Michigan, drew an analogy to building a new hospital: “It’s important that the program [purpose] for a new building match the budget.” He suggested that it’s more an iterative process of agreeing on a program, then seeing what it would cost.

Ajegba emphasized that the scope of work defined for the consultant should include countywide service provided at the current level of service.

Annis identified Robben’s “iterative process” as something he could support.

Funding the Countywide Plan for AATA: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the meeting, Larry Krieg of Wake Up Washtenaw presented a perspective on funding a countywide system that had been prompted in part by a comment on an Ann Arbor Chronicle article, “AATA Plans for Countywide System,” which suggested that residents of the county did not want and could not afford AATA.

Krieg walked the board through some background data, and arrived at the conclusion that 112,980 households in Washtenaw County have more than one car. He contemplated the possibility that a countywide transportation system could allow 20% of of those households to reduce their car ownership by one car. On the assumption that elimination of one car could save a household $9,190 each year, Krieg arrived at a countywide savings totaling $207 million.

If split 75-25 between households and the public transportation system, that would yield $51 million for the transportation system, Krieg concluded. [Details of Krieg's analysis: "Can we afford a countywide transit system?"]

Service Changes: Route 2

The board also considered a resolution to change service in the northeast part of the city in order to run buses to the new park-and-ride lot being constructed at US-23 and Plymouth Road. [The facility is now waiting for DTE to hook up electricity to the site.] The proposed service change will create three routes out of two existing routes – #2 and #2X. The new routes will be called #2A, #2B, and #2C. [Route details]

Routes 2A and 2B (image links to .pdf document with maps and descriptions of 2A, 2B, and 2C

During public commentary, Jim Mogensen pointed out to the board that the Federal Transit Administration had issued a circular that described how transit authorities receiving FTA funds are supposed conduct a study of any service changes, to ensure that minority and low-income populations are not adversely affected by such service changes.

The circular cited by Mogensen is FTA C 4702.1A, which is available in MS Word document here: [FTA C 4702.1A]

Mogensen also stressed to the board that regardless of whether there was a negative impact, the requirement was for the study to be completed. He also expressed the concern that the service changes were being driven by a desire “to make the numbers work” if a countywide millage did not pass.

When the board considered the resolution changing Route 2, board member Sue McCormick asked Chris White, the AATA’s manager of service development, to speak to the issue that Mogensen had raised.

White declared: “Mogensen is correct.” He confirmed that the staff had done the required analysis and that there was only a small percentage of the protected populations in the service area that was affected, which also factored into the analysis.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the changes in service on Route 2.

Service Changes: Route 6

During public commentary, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living reported that she was thrilled to be working with CEO Michael Ford on a tweak to Route 6, a plan which would have the bus turn into Research Park Drive off of Ellsworth as it heads from Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor. The obstacle to having the bus enter Research Park Drive from State Street on its way from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti is the need to turn left from Research Park onto Ellsworth, which is difficult without a stoplight.

For now, however, the plan starting in January 2010 is for the bus to turn into Research Park from Ellsworth on its Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor run.

Blake Transit Center

In her remarks during public commentary, Carolyn Grawi expressed some frustration that the Center for Independent Living had not been included as a stakeholder as discussions had proceeded within the AATA about the physical condition of the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. There were accessibility issues involved, she said, that CIL would want to have input on.

The board did not consider any resolutions on the BTC, but the work done in the planning and development committee, reported out by board member Rich Robben, did generate considerable conversation at the board table.

The options generated by the engineering consultant were as follows:

Option 1 – Refurbish the existing BTC to bring it up to today’s building standards and maintain the existing square footage. The estimated cost for this option is approximately $1-$1.3million.

Option 2 – Refurbish the existing BTC to bring it up to today’s standards and add approximately 370 square feet to expand the office and drivers’ room spaces. The estimated cost for this option is approximately $1.5- $1.9 million.

Option 3 – Construct a new transit center using today’s codes on the existing footprint that would double the current square footage of the facility. The new building would be two stories and have an estimated cost of approximately $2.7-$3.7 million.

Option 4 – This option was developed at the urging of CEO Michael Ford and included the development of a completely new transit center using the combined footprint of the existing BTC and that of the old YMCA property (where the city of Ann Arbor recently constructed a surface parking lot). The estimated cost of this option is approximately $9.6-$10 million and does not include the cost of the property.

Ford reported at Wednesday’s board meeting that he’d talked to Ann Arbor city administrator Roger Fraser about the possibility of parking located next to the current BTC property.

Board member Ted Annis expressed his view that the newly proposed Fuller Road Station needed to be factored into any discussion about BTC. [For some previous Chronicle coverage on that station, which is to include over 1,000 parking spaces, see "Work Session: Trains, Trash, and Taxes"]

Board member David Nacht said that he’d raise that question during the committee meeting. Whatever happens with Fuller Road Station, Nacht said, BTC needs to continue as a significant presence in downtown Ann Arbor. Half of all morning boardings of AATA buses have downtown as a destination, Nacht said.

In response, Annis pointed out that half of the BTC traffic is transfers, and that it was possible that Fuller Road Station might take some of the transfer load off BTC. Annis also wanted to know what the possible impact of the north-south Plymouth-State Street connector might be. [A study of the corridor – paid for by AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the University of Michigan – is currently underway.]

In the course of discussion it emerged that the federal grant money that would fund the project needed to be committed soon, on pain of losing the funding. It was important to actually use the federal grant so as not to weaken future grant applications – if grants awarded by the federal government are not used, the feds might prefer in the future to award the money to some municipality where it might have an actual impact.

Into the mix, board member Jesse Bernstein threw the question: “How will we make this decision?” The exact answer did not seem to emerge, but there was no argument about the fact that it would need approval by the full board, not just the planning and development committee.

Ridership

Board member David Nacht took a close look at ridership numbers in the performance monitoring committee’s report and wondered about the clear decline in ridership: Was it due to the fare increase that the board had passed earlier in the year?  Nacht observed that the AATA had raised fairs “a lot,” but board chair Paul Ajegba objected to that characterization.

What had drawn Nacht’s attention were year-to-date numbers for the current fiscal year, which begins in October at the AATA. Ridership is down, while revenues are up.

          October 2008    October 2009
Rides      650,238         566,262
Revenue   $377,918        $395,432

-

Chris White, the AATA manager of service development, pointed out that there was one fewer weekday in 2009 than in the 2008 period being compared. Further, he said, the number of rides by seniors and those with disabilities had increased on the fixed route system – fares for that category of riders were decreased. [On a related note, in her report from the Local Advisory Council, Rebecca Burke had suggested that the language of the council's charge needs to be overhauled to replace "elderly" with "seniors" and "handicapped" with "people with disabilities." It was a change board member Ted Annis said he welcomed, because he preferred not to be called "elderly."]

The theory that the fare increase had caused a decrease in ridership, White said, was not supported by the fact that among riders who did not pay their own fares (e.g., UM affiliates) ridership was also down.

CEO Michael Ford said that declining ridership was a nationwide trend.

Nacht then inquired about the new Canton-to-Ann Arbor express bus service. Ford allowed that there’d been some challenges. “As bad as Chelsea?” asked Nacht. It was about the same, replied Ford. White allowed that “it’s really disappointing.”

getDowntown Moves

Out of the performance monitoring and external relations committee came the report that the getDowntown program would be moving out of its current offices within the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce to a location on East Washington Street. The move will take place in the next two weeks. The chamber is attempting to sublease its current space to another tenant, and does not intend to continue its current arrangement to provide space to getDowntown.

The getDowntown program has been a four-way partnership between the chamber, the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor DDA, and the AATA. Going forward in the short term while the remaining partners develop a longer-term plan, the AATA will temporarily take over getDowntown’s payroll functions, and the DDA will pay the rent on the new office space.

CEO’s Report: Special Meeting

CEO Michael Ford made a special point of thanking AATA staff, who he said had been “running fairly hard” in the last few months.

He reported some progress in discussions with McKinley properties at Glencoe Crossing on the possibility of allowing buses to turn in there as a way to help solve the situation at Arborland. [In the summer of 2009, Arborland's owner did not choose to continue the arrangement that allowed the AATA to use a bus stop inside the parking lot at Arborland.]

He reported some discussions, which would continue, with the city manager of Ypsilanti to improve security at the Ypsilanti Transit Center.

For the special board meeting on Dec. 8, Ford  noted that he’d invited some CEOs from other transit authorities in the state that had formed under the Act 196 legislation. The AATA is contemplating using that enabling legislation in the formation of its own countywide authority.

Present: David Nacht, Ted Annis, Jesse Bernstein, Paul Ajegba, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben
Absent: Charles Griffith

Special meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

University Townhouses, the polling location for Precinct 5 in Ward 3, had specific improvements made under a 2005 grant. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

In a letter dated Sept. 1, 2009, addressed to Ann Arbor’s city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, the nonprofit Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service Inc. gave the city a Sept. 15 deadline to respond to its concerns about accessibility to polling locations in Ann Arbor.

The response deadline comes two weeks ahead of the expiration of a grant for which the city was approved in 2007 under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The grant was for improvements in accessibility to Tappan and Eberwhite schools.

Lansing-based MPAS is concerned that the city has not submitted work for reimbursement under the 2007 grant. And that would put in jeopardy the city’s 2009 grant application for improvements to five additional locations – Northside, Dicken, Lawton, Lakewood and Pittsfield elementary schools. The MPAS letter paints a picture suggesting the city has not made progress towards addressing problems that the city itself identified in 2004 at 21 of the city’s 48 precincts.

However, after checking into the matter with MPAS, the state’s Bureau of Elections, and Ann Arbor city staff, The Chronicle has concluded that: (i) the situation with the 2007 grant is a matter of non-communication and paperwork follow-through, (ii) that prior to 2007, the city of Ann Arbor completed work under HAVA grants, with some reimbursements already made, and other payments still in process, and (iii) the city’s strategy for ensuring access uses a variety of temporary measures on election days, as well as a work plan for more permanent fixes.

Where The Chronicle Started

The letter from MPAS cites 2005 as the year when the city of Ann Arbor identified polling places in need of accessibility improvements. A phone call to MPAS pointed us to a 2005 HAVA grant award for specific improvements to be made at three different polling places: University Townhouses (Ward 3), Ann Arbor Community Center (Ward 1) and the Second Baptist Church (Ward 5).

If MPAS was contending that 2007 grant money hadn’t been used, we wondered: What about the 2005 grant? So we began with those 2005 locations.

We had recent familiarity with those places. The Chronicle had toured all polling locations in Wards 3 and 5 during the Aug. 4, 2009 Democratic primary elections – which included the Second Baptist Church and University Townhouses. The Chronicle also covered the city Democratic party candidate forums held at the Ann Arbor Community Center.

Second Baptist Church in Ward 5 (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

It had been our recollection that those three locations had some kind of ramps and signage – but it takes more than some ramp or sign to meet accessibility requirements. So we elected to return to those locations as part of this report to document photographically their outside entrances. The Ann Arbor Community Center didn’t appear to have had any work done recently. But the Second Baptist Church and University Townhouses showed signs of having recent work completed.

Was it enough to make the locations accessible? Had the city of Ann Arbor sought and received reimbursement? If so, was MPAS aware of the city’s past HAVA record?

First, though, what is the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service and the Help America Vote Act?

Background on MPAS and HAVA

The outcome of the Gore versus Bush 2000 presidential election was controversial – due to how ballots were counted and evaluated initially and during recounts. At least partly in response to that controversy, the Help America Vote Act was passed in 2002. Goals of that legislation included improvements in voting systems (how voters actually indicate their vote) and the overall administration of elections.

As a part of that act, funds were made available for improvements not just in voting equipment, but also to make improvements in the accessibility of polling places. In Michigan those federal funds are provided in the form of grants awarded and administered by the state Bureau of Elections. The award of a grant does not mean that funds are transferred – the work must be completed and paid for, and is then reimbursed.

Physical access to polling sites is supported by federal laws: the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) of 1984, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires access to places of public accomodation. The ADA requires removal of architectural barriers to the extent that such removal is readily achievable, but the act does not require structural changes if other methods can accomplish the same goal.

Where does the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service fit in? MPAS is an entity designated by the governor to advocate for people with disabilities. And with respect to HAVA grants, MPAS verifies that the polling places identified by a municipality are, in fact, currently deficient. A HAVA grant award is made to a municipality based on a recommendation from MPAS.

That’s what happened in 2005 when Ann Arbor was awarded $16,750 that it could claim in reimbursements. In the press release from Sept. 30, 2005, issued by the state Bureau of Elections, Beaudry is quoted as saying, “The polling place improvements made as a result of this grant award will provide for greater independent access to the precincts and the voting process for all residents of the city of Ann Arbor.”

Improvements at Ann Arbor Polling Places

-

2005

Returning to the apparent improvements that The Chronicle had noticed at the Second Baptist Church and University Townhouses: Was any of the 2005 HAVA grant money spent on those projects?

According to the state Bureau of Elections, out of the $16,750 awarded that year, $4,450 was paid. The rest of these funds were canceled and a new application processed. Those remaining funds would have gone to reimburse work at the Ann Arbor Community Center – but around that time, in the summer of 2006, the future use of AACC as a polling place was uncertain. The center faced a financial crisis described in a June 28, 2006 Ann Arbor News article [this link goes to the Ann Arbor District Library archive, which requires free registration]. The article states:

Barring a major infusion of cash, the center at 625 N. Main St., which specializes in serving the black community, had faced the possibility of closing Friday. But in an emergency meeting Tuesday, its governing board set up a plan for the center to operate with limited hours starting next week.

On the phone this week with The Chronicle, city clerk Jackie Beaudry recalled how in November of 2006, Precinct 4 in Ward 1 had moved its polling place to Community High School, doubling up with Precinct 3. Given the uncertainty of the center’s future, Beaudry said, the grant application was withdrawn. Reapplication would be made in 2007.

2006

In the 2006 HAVA grant cycle, Ann Arbor was awarded $15,300, with $2,400 paid to date. According to the city of Ann Arbor, and confirmed by the state Bureau of Elections, that grant was for work at King, Tappan, and Eberwhite elementary schools. The work at King was completed, but extensions were requested for Tappan and Eberwhite to the summer of 2009.

According to Beaudry, the work for Tappan and Eberwhite was completed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools in the summer of 2009. We can lend partial support to that contention, based just on our Aug. 4, 2009 primary elelection report, for which we toured all the precinct locations:

3:05 p.m. Ward 5. Eberwhite Elementary. Lots of construction around the school. Sidewalk repairs and whatnot. Ann Arbor Public Schools seems to have a capital maintenance program running up til the opening of school session.

It’s the fact that the Tappan and Eberwhite grants are still open that eventually led to the current focus and scrutiny by MPAS. The Sept. 30 deadline in the MPAS letter comes from the Bureau of Elections, which wrote in an email to The Chronicle: “We are waiting to hear what they [the city of Ann Arbor] want to do with this money prior to September 30, 2009.”

2007-2009

In October 2007, with the Tappan and Eberwhite grants still open, Ann Arbor applied for three additional grants:

1. Slauson Middle School (elevator, parking)
2. Clague Middle School (exterior ramps)
3. Ann Arbor Community Center (reapplication for parking, sidewalk, door and vestibule)

But according to Wendy Rampson, who’s head of planning and development with the city, Ann Arbor didn’t receive any official notification about those applications from the Bureau of Elections.

So in May 2009, city staff requested official responses on the 2007 applications. There’s been no response from the BOE to date, according to Rampson. Also in May 2009, the city applied for five additional grants, and has not yet received official notification from the BOE:

1. Dicken School (parking, thresholds)
2. Lakewood School (thresholds)
3. Lawton School (parking, thresholds)
4. Northside School (parking)
5. Pittsfield School (thresholds, vestibule)

Open Grants: Source of Friction

Because the Tappan and Eberwhite grants are still open, the Bureau of Elections did not respond to Ann Arbor’s 2007 grant request, nor to the followup in 2009, which included additional grant requests. For Beaudry, the BOE’s non-response on the matter didn’t communicate what was really happening – BOE was not responding due to the failure to close out the Tappan and Eberwhite grants.

Given that the work at Tappan and Eberwhite has recently been completed, Beaudry is now working with the Ann Arbor Public Schools to get receipts for the work, so that those grants can be closed. Ideally, she says, she’d like to be able to tell MPAS by their Sept. 15 deadline that the receipts have already been submitted for reimbursement. Beaudry says that in any case she’ll be meeting with a representative of MPAS to talk about how the city of Ann Arbor approaches accessibility to its polling places.

Ongoing Polling Place Improvement Process

Part of Ann Arbor’s approach to accessibility to polling places can be seen in a 2004 list of locations [link to Excel spreadsheet] identified as needing improvements. MPAS confirmed that they’d also visited those locations and agreed with the need to make improvements. On that list, 21 of the 48 precincts in the city of Ann Arbor were identified by the city as needing work. Because four locations serve as polling locations for two precincts each, the total number of different locations identified as needing improvements was 17.

The Chronicle has merged the 2004 list with the city’s current list of all polling places – provided by Rampson – together with their current accessibility issues and grants into a single spreadsheet [link to Excel spreadsheet].

Selecting out those on the 2004 list and sorting by precinct gives a good overview of what’s been happening with the 2004 problem locations over the last five years. In the list, each location is preceded by its [Ward]-[Precinct]:

• 1-04 Ann Arbor Community Center 2005 grant (parking, sidewalk, door and vestibule improvements) Grant turned back due to financial issues at AACC; reapplication in 2007 (parking, sidewalk, door and vestibule); 2009 requested response
• 1-05 Northside Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking)
• 1-06 Northside Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking)
• 1-07 UM Bursley Hall
• 1-08 Ann Arbor Open Elementary *Accessible*
• 1-09 Clague Middle School *Grant Requested* 2007 applied but no BOE response (exterior ramps); 2009 requested response
• 2-02 UM Mary Markley Hall
• 2-06 Clague Middle School *Grant Requested* 2007 applied but no BOE response ( exterior ramps); 2009 requested response
• 2-07 King Elementary *Accessible* 2006 grant (parking, ramp) – completed in 2007
• 3-01 UM East Quad
• 3-02 UM East Quad
• 3-03 Tappan Middle School *Grant Approved* 2006 grant (parking, door hardware, threshold) – extension requested to complete in summer 2009
• 3-08 Pittsfield Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (thresholds, vestibule)
• 4-01 UM South Quad
• 4-07 Dicken Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking, thresholds)
• 4-09 Lawton Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking, thresholds)
• 5-04 Slauson Middle School *Accessible* 2007 applied but no BOE response (elevator, parking); 2009 requested response
• 5-05 Slauson Middle School *Accessible* 2007 applied but no BOE response (elevator, parking); 2009 requested response
• 5-06 Eberwhite Elementary *Grant Approved* 2006 grant (parking, ramp, door improvements) – extension requested to complete in summer 2009
• 5-07 Dicken Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (parking, thresholds)
• 5-08 Lakewood Elementary *Grant Requested* 2009 applied (thresholds)

The gaps in activity on the list have a clear pattern – Bursley, Markley, East Quad, and South Quad are University of Michigan residence halls.

Asked about that pattern, Beaudry said that conversations with the University of Michigan were ongoing about “possible polling place relocations.” In addition to accessibility concerns, Beaudry reported, UM has other concerns about the future use of the residence hall sites due to campus safety and security.

The collaboration with the Ann Arbor Public Schools, Beaudy said, reflected a certain commitment to the long-term use of the sites as polling locations.

For sites like UM residence halls – which show no grant activity to support accessibility improvements – or for Ann Arbor school sites, which have improvements pending, how accessible are these locations on election day?

The spreadsheet of polling locations includes a description of temporary measures that are implemented at each polling location on election day, to ensure that people can access the polls. For example, for East Quad, the notation is that “No accessible parking space available.” The remedy is specified as follows: “On Election Days, bag metered on-street parking space near intersection curb ramp for accessible space.” The responsibility for that is assigned to the city clerk.

The goal, says Beaudry, is to achieve permanent solutions to accessibility at polling places. That’s a goal supported by the Center for Independent Living, she explained. The CIL works along with the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, the Washtenaw County clerk’s office and the Ann Arbor District Library on the Voter Access Committee.

Photos: Ann Arbor Community Center

-

Ann Arbor Community Center in Ward 1. Entrance from parking lot. There are issues with the ramp and the signage, as well as the door frame. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor Community Center entrance on North Main Street. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor Community Center sidewalk from front entrance down to entrance off parking lot. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

-

Photos: University Townhouses

-

University Townhouses (Ward 3) entrance. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

University Townhouses entrance door. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

University Townhouses ramp with handrails. (Photo by the writer on Sept. 7, 2009; links to higher resolution file.)

The board met at its usual location in the DDA offices, but this time it was recorded by three new wall-mounted video cameras. There's no schedule yet for the airing of the video material on CTN.

Downtown Development Authority board meeting (April 1, 2009): The board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday and passed  a resolution – with some dissent – recommending that city council eliminate the character districts from the A2D2 zoning proposal.

The board also authorized spending around $75,000 to help start a business district in the Main Street area – an idea mentioned in our report on the board’s December 2008 meeting.

Additional spending, totaling around $25,000, was authorized for bicycle parking – some of it on-street.

The board also heard a report from its ad hoc committee on the discussion of the parking agreement with the city of Ann Arbor. Initial indications are that there was clear (but not unanimous) sentiment on the committee against renegotiating the existing agreement, but for exploring other alternatives.

Accessibility was a theme that came up in the form of DDA meeting material as well as real-time parking data.

A2D2

Planning commission has forwarded to city council a set of recommended zoning changes to downtown. Council is due to hear a first reading of the changes at its next meeting on April 6.  Previous coverage in the Chronicle:

• Feedback Wanted: Downtown Zoning Revisions
• Council Begins Downtown Zoning Review
• A2D2 Zoning in the Home Stretch

At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, the board considered a resolution recommending amendments to the proposed zoning revisions:

1. Given that one of A2D2′s most important goals is to encourage increased residential development in the downtown, we recommend that the premium credit for residential be calculated as 300% of FAR, not 300% of residential. The recommendation as currently written would not allow mixed use buildings to get to the maximum 700% with premiums.

2. We understand that an ordinance is under review by the Planning Commission that will address the FAR utilized by mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, and other non-habitable portions of a development. We recommend that the City alter the A2D2 zoning ordinance amendments to allow an increase in a project FAR to match the FAR required for mechanical and other requirements of a building.

3. We recommend that diagonals not be used to determine building form. They work to accommodate office construction, but discourage residential development, because they favor a square floor plate as most efficient, rather than a rectangular floor plate preferred for residential projects.

4. We recommend that no building height limit be established in the D1 zoning area. However, we prefer a building height limit with no diagonal to determine building form, rather than no height limit and a diagonal.

5. If City Council elects to establish a building height limit, we recommend parking should not be counted toward the maximum allowable FAR. We would like to encourage developments to include parking to reduce demand on the public parking system, not penalize them by reducing the amount of habitable space.

6. One of the important goals of the A2D2 process was to simplify the zoning process. We recommend that the character area elements of the zoning ordinance be eliminated as this information will be addressed in the design guidelines.

7. We recommend that the ground floor active use limitation be removed from the A2D2 zoning ordinance. We fully appreciate why this was suggested, but we believe that this is not the way to accomplish the goal of an active street frontage. In difficult economic times a restriction like this will ensure that a street frontage will be inactive because commercial space may sit empty for want of an attractive tenant. And in good economic times we have seen the market place operate effectively to create a mix of uses in each commercial area.

John Mouat, Marcia Higgins, Leah Gunn, Gary Boren.

Of these points, it was (6) that generated discussion among board members. Sandi Smith, who also serves on city council, suggested that (6) be stricken from the resolution, saying that design guidelines that also rely on the character districts would be passed  soon. [Differences between character districts have to do with differences in streetwall heights, setbacks, and stepbacks].

Board member Joan Lowenstein expressed her thought that the resolution without (6) would make it stronger, because a great deal had been invested in the notion of character districts. “If we come in and say all of a sudden, let’s get rid of them, that weakens our resolution.” That was a sentiment echoed by board chair Jennifer Hall.

The arguments against character districts discussed by board members were based on what Roger Hewitt called their arbitrariness and their complexity. Hewitt said that the goal of the four-year process had been to simplify the zoning. Being able to walk down the street and in the space of a few blocks cross as many as four different character districts was not, he said, consistent with the goal of simplification. Board member Leah Gunn agreed that character districts introduced unneeded complexity – developers needed to understand clearly what they could do by right. The purpose of the exercise, she said, was to provide clarity, not to create a multi-layered set of rules.  She said that the D1-D2 areas were a layer, historic districts represented a layer, active use areas were a layer, and character districts were yet another layer.

Hall countered that based on her prior service on the planning commission, clarity could arise from complexity.

Outcome: Resolution passed with dissent from Smith and Hall, and abstention by Marcia Higgins, citing the fact that she was there only to fill in for Mayor John Hieftje and that it would be coming before council.

Outcome: On the amendment to strike (6) from the resolution, only Smith and Hall supported it, and it thus failed. On the main resolution, the vote was unanimous, with one abstention by Marcia Higgins, citing the fact that she was there only to fill in for Mayor John Hieftje and that it would be coming before council.

Also related to the A2D2 zoning were some of Ray Detter’s remarks, giving his update from the regular meeting of the Downtown Citizens’ Advisory Council. He said that a recent letter circulated by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce that included a policy statement on business development was a controversial point in the council’s discussion [full text of policy statement]. Among the more controversial points, said Detter, included the following:

• The downtown area’s decades-old present defined boundaries should be reevaluated and expanded beyond those of both the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment financing district and the current greater downtown area, thus permitting logical, necessary growth for benefit of future generations;
• The definition of the downtown area, as well as development densities, should be closely considered relative to U-M properties and the appropriate development relationship;
• Development densities should be maximized in the downtown area to increase the City tax base, to maximize existing infrastructure, and to increase walkability and efficient use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes;
• Further downtown historic district expansion should be curtailed, and current boundaries and policies should be reevaluated to more effectively promote development opportunities;
• City staff and officials should approach the redevelopment of structures and parcels in non-historically designated areas with the same zeal and energy they approach protecting structures in historically designated areas;

Detter said that the chamber’s policy ran counter to much of what was contained in the downtown plan.

Business District

The board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount includes roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency.

What is a BIZ?  The zones, which are enabled by Public Act 120 of 1961, allow property owners within a district to assess themselves a higher property tax to be used to promote economic development. In this particular case, the area consists of the three blocks of Main Street from the north side of William to the South side of Huron. And economic development consists of funding services above and beyond what regular city services would provide: sidewalk snow removal, trash pickup, planters, and the like.

During public comment at the start of the meeting, Bob Dascola, owner of Dascola Barbers on State Street, spoke in favor of the appropriation for the BIZ, saying it was a step in the right direction for improving downtown. Steve Bean, who described himself as a “near downtown resident,” also expressed his support for the BIZ during public comment.

Local developer Ed Shaffran had initiated the BIZ idea along with Ellie Serras, former president of the Main Street Area Association. Although Shaffran had been scheduled to speak, Serras appeared to say that Shaffran could not attend until later due to an unforeseen circumstance.  Shaffran arrived in time to see the vote, which was unanimous.

We caught up with Shaffran by phone later in the day to ask how things stood with the process – the DDA financial support does not actually create the BIZ. That’s a process that requires as an initial step that a petition be submitted to the city clerk signed by 30% of property owners in the proposed district. Here the percentage reflects a weighting of individuals based on the value of their property. One wrinkle in the weighting is that there’s a maximum weight of 25% for any one individual. After submitting the petition, there’s a required informational meeting, and a vote conducted by mail. To succeed, the vote needs a 60% majority – with the weighting of votes again based on property values. The city can recoup the cost of administering the election from the district.

Shaffran said that the petition had not yet been submitted, but that he thought they had probably already achieved 60% support, based on conversations with property owners. He clarified that while the district specified Main Street, the services provided would wrap around to the sides of properties that fronted Main.

Shaffran said that the intent of property owners on Main Street was to provide assurance – by undertaking to assess themselves a higher property tax – that the kind of services they wanted would actually be provided into the future. Shaffran went on to speculate that this could be a pre-cursor of “a la carte government” as revenues to municipalities dwindled. He suggested that the concept of a BIZ could be extended to residential neighborhoods as well. The strategy for providing services, he said, could evolve to be a system where a minimum baseline level would be provided by government, with BIZ-like affiliations electing to augment (or not) that baseline level.

What about other downtown areas that might want to form a BIZ? In board discussion of the proposal, Sandi Smith had explained that out of the current proposal the DDA would get a template for creating other areas. In our phone conversation, Shaffran suggested that another possibility was that other areas could be added to the Main Street BIZ. [The areas must be contiguous, according to the enabling legislation.] He said that the initial concept was to include the entire DDA district, but that they’d opted to start small and possibly expand.

Outcome: unanimously approved.

Bicycle Parking

Two resolutions were passed addressing bicycle parking. Both came out of the transportation committee, chaired by John Mouat. It was board chair Jennifer Hall, however, who described the projects to the board. The first one authorized spending $20,000 for fabrication and installation of  100 “bike circles” on the parking meter posts that will become available when new E-Park stations are installed. The metal rings will be attached to the posts as a way to adapt the posts to the function of a bike rack. After the meeting, executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay said that the idea had come from a citizen who’d made the suggestion and provided examples of other cities that had implemented similar projects.

The second bicycle parking resolution dealt with in-street bicycle parking. Five racks at $1,200 apiece were authorized. The racks will be installed in on-street parking spaces. They will be temporary in the sense that they can be removed during the winter season, or moved to different locations as special events might dictate [example of in-street bicycle parking]. Asked by mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins who would move the racks and where they would be stored, Pollay said that arrangements had been made with Republic Parking to store the racks, and that the logistics of moving them had not been worked out in detail. [Higgins was filling in for John Hieftje, who serves on the DDA board as mayor of Ann Arbor – he's attending a conference on solar energy.]

Keith Orr and Roger Hewitt.

Keith Orr expressed the hope that local fabricators could be found for the bike circles. Gary Boren asked that the liability issue be considered in light of who actually owns the parking meter posts.

In a public speaking turn at the start of the meeting, Steve Bean expressed his support for the bicycle circles, saying that they could help alleviate the problem with bicycles being locked to trees, which was not good for them.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously.

Discussion of Parking Agreement with City

[See previous Chronicle coverage for background on the upcoming discussions between the DDA and the city on the question of the parking agreement between those two entities.] The name of a committee appointed by board chair Jennifer Hall at the last board meeting is the “Committee to Discuss a Mutually Beneficial Financial Agreement with City Council.” It consists of board members Roger Hewitt, Gary Boren, Jennifer Hall, and Rene Greff. In her report on its first meeting, Greff, who chairs the committee, began with a light-hearted suggestion to shorten the name to the Mutually Beneficial Agreement committee – MBA – which would “make it sound very smart.”

Greff  then ticked through what the committee had done. They had: (i) reviewed history of DDA parking agreements with the city, (ii) reviewed TIF (tax increment financing) capture, and (iii) reached a majority view – with dissent from Hewitt – that they should not re-open the discussion of the existing parking agreement. It was not the role of the DDA, Greff said, to cover gaps in the city budget. The committee had given some consideration to taking over city tax-funded activities (e.g., snow removal), and had contemplated purchasing the right to meter enforcement in downtown. The latter would allow the DDA to control a piece of the public’s experience with the downtown area.

Board member Leah Gunn asked about the city’s side of the committee. Greff explained that the city council had not yet seated their committee, and the DDA contingent had met so that they would have something more concrete to bring to the table when the first meetings with the city took place.

Accessibility

The theme of accessibility of information and the DDA came up on a couple of different occasions during the meeting. At the start, DDA executive director Susan Pollay announced that the meeting would be recorded with three wall-mounted cameras, with a replay schedule on CTN as yet undetermined.

Towards the end of the meeting, board chair Jennifer Hall suggested that the entire board packet – not just the agenda – be made available on the DDA website. For people who wanted to watch video of the meetings, she said, having the written materials to which discussions referred would be helpful. Pollay noted that the language of any resolutions was already available on the website. Board member Gary Boren asked if the supporting documentation [which typically includes the previous month's parking structure usage data, among other material] was also included – it’s not.

Board member Sandi Smith suggest that the partnerships committee, which she co-chairs with Russ Collins, could take a look general issues surrounding accessibility and the website.

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Tyler Erikson, who is a research scientist at Michigan Tech Research Institute, spoke to the issue of accessibility of online parking data.

Background: On signs outside parking structures are indicators of how many open parking spots are available in that structure. The DDA provides the same real-time data on availability of parking spaces on its website. A couple of different initiatives independent of the DDA recently took advantage of the availability of this data on the web to make parking space data available by phone to drivers planning to park – call a number, get automated access to parking availability at a structure. The DDA eventually blocked access to the parking data from servers making the queries to the DDA website for the phone application. As outlined in a response to a FOIA request by Edward Vielmetti – which  could not be granted per se – access to the data for use in the phone application has since been conditionally restored. The number currently used by the automated phone application is 734-272-0909. In his update from the operations committee on Wednesday,  Roger Hewitt said that the DDA had set up a customer service line to provide parking data [734-761-9477], administered in-person by an attendant. Hewitt said that the number could eventually be automated, but that the intent was to first gather information about what types of inquiries people had when they called.

Tyler Erickson: Erickson said that it was in January 2009 when he first became aware of the real-time parking availability data and thought it was interesting from the point of view of his work as a research scientist. Erickson specializes in the analysis of space-time data. He said that the problem identified was that people don’t drive around looking at a laptop computer or hand-held screen – which led to the development of the phone application. Erickson noted that the work had received a positive response in the tech community and in the media. Although the issue seemed resolved at this point, he said that the initial result of the DDA being unsure about who was accessing their website was to block access to the data. The resulting online commentary, he said, as well as an article in The Ann Arbor News about access getting blocked, was that six out of the first 10 search results on a Google query for “a2dda” were about blocking access to data. This was a negative association, he said.

Erickson said he’d like to facilitate a way to block that negative trend by explaining what the  community of interest was: researchers, small-business people, students working on projects, among others. “There’s a lot of minds who would like to work on the data,” he said. If Ann Arbor wants to encourage students, he continued, and convince them that they can have a great IT  career here, instead of leaving and going to Boulder and Portland, then the DDA needed to stop blocking access to data and be aware of the community interested in it.

Updates and Miscellania

415 W. Washington: John Mouat reported that Wendy Rampson, with systems planning  at the city, had forwarded a new draft of the RFP, which would be re-issued sometime soon.

Giant Hole: Where will all the dirt go from the giant hole that will get dug for the new underground parking structure? Roger Hewitt said that it would be deposited in a hole at the city-owned airport, which had resulted from the Ellsworth road construction. Adrian Iraola of Washtenaw Engineering Co., who manages many of the DDA’s projects, said that a final decision was pending an analysis to see if the dirt to be removed from downtown meets criteria for clean soils. The 200,000 cubic yards of dirt represented about 5,000 truckloads, he said.

The LINK: The next transportation committee will take place as a “moveable mini committee retreat” on Wednesday, April 22 at 9 a.m. The committee will board the LINK, ride for a while, and then take a walk back through downtown to the DDA. This, after their last meeting with Chris White of the AATA, when they focused on The LINK and what options might exist for its futre – from killing it, to increasing its frequency, to expanding its geographic reach.

Present: Gary Boren, Rene Greff, Jennifer Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat, Keith Orr, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn

Absent: Russ Collins

Next board meeting: noon on Wednesday, May 6 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Public commentary at the start and at the end of the meeting covered a range of topics, from snow removal at bus stops, to the status of RideTrak (it’s back on line a few days earlier than scheduled), to the proposed fare increases, to accessibility issues, to the AATA’s Capital and Categorical Grant Program. This last item was the subject of one of the two resolutions considered by the board (the board approved the 2009-13 plan), the other being its annually required notification of intent to apply for financial assistance from the state. [Meeting Packet 4MB .pdf]

Nacht’s Presentation to Ann Arbor City Council

The topic of board chair David Nacht’s remarks to Ann Arbor city council the previous evening was threaded throughout the entire board meeting.

Board meetings begin with communications and announcements. Nacht reported that he’d spoken in front of Ann Arbor’s city council and that councilmembers Stephen Rapundalo and Marcia Higgins had asked some questions, made some comments, and that councilmember Carsten Hohnke had asked a question. But besides Rapundalo and Higgins, Nacht said, no one else on council had expressed an opinion with regard to AATA. To whatever extent that an Ann Arbor News article about the presentation had left the impression that council as a body had shot down a proposal or made some decision, Nacht wanted to clarify that this was not the case.

He allowed, however, that it was true that he was “grilled” by two of the council’s members – and that it was a healthy process and a good back-and-forth.

[One of the questions he'd heard as a part of the grilling concerned the unavailability of RideTrak, which provides real-time bus information online and to hand-held devices.] Nacht asked AATA staff attending the board meeting if AATA’s Internet services had fully transitioned to the city’s data center. The report from Jan Hallberg, manager of information technology, was that there was some “cleanup” yet to do, but that everything was on line, including RideTrak. [Minutes from the performance monitoring committee meeting of Jan. 14, which are on pages 51 and 52 of the board packet, indicate that RideTrak had not been scheduled to be reactivated until Jan. 26.]

The topic would return at the end of the meeting during public commentary in the form of a query from Matt Hampel, who had arrived at the meeting just after it was announced that RideTrak service had been restored.

Matt Hampel: Hampel made a brief inquiry about the status of RideTrak, saying that it was useful to him as a bus rider to know exactly when the bus was coming.

After hearing that it was back up and running, Hampel asked why it had been down for six weeks and had only now been restored. Hallberg explained that  AATA’s IT system, which she characterized as “vast,” had been transferred to the city of Ann Arbor’s data center during that time period. She declined comment beyond that, but Nacht pointed out that the interruption in AATA’s Internet service was a matter of public record.

During question time for Dawn Gabay, AATA’s interim executive director, the city council presentation made by Nacht came up again.

Nacht requested that Gabay initiate correspondence with councilmembers Higgins and Rapundalo to address the questions they’d raised. In connection with this, board member Charles Griffith asked if there was some kind of analysis that had been done about the assumed effect on ridership of higher fares. Board member Ted Annis said that work had been done and the calculations had been made. Gabay said the work had been done some time ago, and Griffith indicated he was keen to see it. It was agreed that the data needed to be sent along to councilmember Higgins, who’d raised the question.

Nacht also asked about the situation that Higgins had referenced at the council meeting of a trip from the north side of Ann Arbor to the south side taking 1 hour and 15 minutes. Nacht said that it was his understanding that if one timed the routes correctly, depending on how “north side” was defined, it was possible to make the trip to Briarwood Mall in considerably less time than that. He asked that Higgins be provided with options available in the schedule.

Nacht reported that Rapundalo had expressed clearly his concern about raising fares, but said that he was not sure what the specific nature of Rapundalo’s concerns were about level of service. Nacht suggested that staff might watch the replay on CTN and that any specific questions they could identify needed to be given a response to Rapundalo.

The question of travel times discussed at city council’s meeting arose again during public commentary from Jim Mogensen at the end of the board meeting.

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen characterized the nearly two-hour bus trip described at city council’s meeting [by councilmember Carsten Hohnke] from Jackson Road to Lakewood Mall as theoretically possible but unlikely. However, he described a situation where he needed to attend a meeting at Catholic Social Services, and calculated that if he’d taken the bus, he would have had to leave two hours early, in order to make sure that he got to the meeting on time. Mogensen concluded that there are situations where trip time is a problem, even in the urban area.

Mogensen’s second concern related to the proposed fare increases. He drew an analogy to the health care system, whereby if you have insurance, there’s a negotiated lower price that the insurance company pays, but if you don’t have insurance, you have to pay the full value of what the hospital says it costs – and you get a bill, and you get it fast. With the AATA, Mogensen said, we have a lot of people in the system who have the fare paid for them, but people who have to pay cash, have to pay more. He said that’s why he’d brought up at the last board meeting the importance of having as much access as possible, and to make it as easy as possible to get discounted fare packages.

Resolutions

The two resolutions on the night’s agenda, which were passed unanimously without discussion, were (i) the adoption of the Capital and Categorical Grant Program, and (ii) the application for state funding eligibility to the Michigan Department of Transportation. The text of the resolutions is on the PDF pages 71 and 72, respectively, of the [Meeting Packet 4MB .pdf]. The grant program that was adopted runs from pages 38 to 49.

Accessibility and the AATA

In public commentary at the beginning of the meeting, Tom Partridge addressed the grant program on the agenda.

Tom Partridge: Partridge began by stating that the board needed to provide reasonable accommodations to seniors and people with disabilities by providing a desk or flat table top, as well as more open space for wheelchair access, so that people might more properly address the board. He also asked that a timing light be provided, but that timing and topic requirements be waived for seniors and people with physical challenges. On the subject of the agenda items, Partridge said that there should be a resolution on the agenda that would reorganize the AATA to emphasize a system around the most vulnerable in our community. As far as the Capital and Categorical Grant Program, which was on the agenda, Partridge said he’d seen no evidence of the AATA board’s recognition of the needs of the most vulnerable segments of the population. He asked that the board pass a resolution asking staff to bring forward by the Feb. 1 deadline (for the CCGP application) plans and proposals for substantial grant programs to ensure improved service for disabled bus riders and senior citizen bus riders.

Following Partridge’s remarks, Ted Annis provided some information that responded in part to Partridge’s comments. He said that the AATA spent about $5 million per year for on-demand services: A-Ride, senior taxi, senior ride, and ride-share. These programs, said Annis, served people with disabilities who were unable to use fixed-route services. Annis pointed out that he himself was eligible for the senior taxi service. And he concluded by saying he wanted to remind people of what a great job the AATA did for older people and for people with disabilities.

Accessibility of services was also a theme of Carolyn Grawi’s remarks during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting.

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi distributed copies of Access magazine, which is the annual publication for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She pointed out that the AATA is an advertiser in the magazine.

She reported that an increased number of people were coming to the center trying to learn how to use the transit system. She said that the center did not have anyone currently who was dedicated to training people in how to use the system. She said she’d signed up three people for the A-Ride program, and was concerned that people were getting signed up but weren’t getting any information on how to use the system. She said that of course the CIL tried to provide the information, but that she’d also heard through contacts with the A-Ride program that they get a lot of questions about how and when the system can be used. People often have questions when it’s after hours, she said, and new users sometimes don’t know what questions to ask. In that light, she asked for the re-institution of a training program so that general ridership programs as well as SelectRide and A-Ride could be used more effectively.

Another challenge she identified was the definition of “will call” rides, in particular in connection with attendance of community meetings, which have unpredictable ending times. Another requirement, that there be an hour between each reserved ride, made for a long planned day, if someone needed to go to a doctor appointment, then pick up a prescription, and drop by the grocery store on their way home.

Nacht suggested to Gabay that the services of a social work or public policy intern could perhaps help with some of the training issues.

Also related to accessibility were the remarks from getDowntown director Nancy Shore, focusing specifically on snowbanks as a barrier to boarding the buses.

Nancy Shore: Shore noted that the snow banks were making it difficult for bus passengers to get on and off buses, and that in cases where the bus stops were supposed to be maintained by property owners, that was clearly not happening. She wondered if there was a service standard that was relevant to the issue. She identified it as an issue for seniors as well as for anybody who isn’t able to climb over the snow. Shore said that she hadn’t seen any indication that something was being done about it, and she wanted to bring it to the board’s attention again. She gave a specific example of the stop near Liberty Lofts by the railroad tracks.

Gabay said that where there are snow banks that passengers can’t get through, the policy was to stop at the nearest clear driveway.

Board member Jesse Bernstein asked about the stops where property owners were supposed to clear stops, but were not doing it. Gabay said they did follow up on those situations by contacting the property owners and rectifying it. Nacht suggested putting the “nearest driveway” policy on the AATA website.

Accessibility was also a theme of Tom Partridge’s remarks during public commentary at the conclusion of the board meeting, in terms of the lack of meeting broadcasts on CTN.

Tom Partridge: Partridge noted that the board met right across the street from the CTN studios, but that the public had no access to the meetings through recording and broadcast on CTN. He also said that locally there were no impressive forums with prominent figures like Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. He suggested that the AATA board support an invitation to Barack Obama to come to Ann Arbor to discuss his plans for taking the country out of a serious depression that affected the most vulnerable residents. He asked that the board not approve the proposed fare increases. He said that participants in the senior group ride program and the disabled participants of the  A-Ride program should not be paying a penny in fares.

The Board Packet

The [Meeting Packet 4MB .pdf] is fairly dense with facts and data. As a scanned PDF file it has no text that’s machine searchable. What follows is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather to pique readers’ interest enough to dive into it in a directed way that might yield some insights or at least factoids from the material left as comments.

The planning and development committee meeting minutes from Dec. 2, 9, 16  are included on pages 9-18. PDC meeting minutes of  Jan. 6, 13  are on pages 26-35. Ted Annis, who chairs the planning and development committee, highlighted the following topics as issues they’d worked on:

• WALLY  (north-south commuter rail)
• Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update
• Blake Transit Center Improvements (list of needed repairs on page 50)
• Contingency plans in the event of declining revenues
• Capital and Categorical Grant Program (pages 38-49)
• Exploration of making AATA a countywide entity (an Act 196 organization)

Other highlights from the packet include current and proposed fare structure, pages 20-23 [in a .txt file here: proposed fare increases]. Previously reported in The Chronicle are the public hearings scheduled on the matter: Ann Arbor District Library, Multipurpose Room, 343 S. Fifth, Ann Arbor: Tues, Feb. 10, 1-3 p.m. and Tuesday Feb. 17, 6-8 p.m. In Ypsilanti, hearings will be held at City of Ypsilanti Council Chambers, One S. Huron St., Ypsilanti: Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009; 4-7 p.m. and Thurs. , Feb. 26 1-3 p.m. [confirm dates]

The service standard report starting on page 60 includes a raft of metrics used to evaluate service (including complaints and compliments, only the former having a subset of “valid” items). On-time service is one of the metrics, but due to an upgrade in the software last fall, it currently is not being reported. The software was configured to report only trips more than 9 minutes behind schedule as “late,” whereas the actual standard for “lateness” is 5 minutes:

The percent of trips on time is not yet available. The recent upgrade to a new version of the Advanced Operating System resulted in a change that provides inaccurate summary information. The raw data is accurate and staff is working to correct the problem.

Thus, for bus data geeks who have the technical skills to collect and archive the real-time on-time data from RideTrak, there’s currently an analytical gap that could be filled, with the added benefit that the data could be analyzed at one’s leisure for various lateness standards, not just 5 or 9 minutes.

Miscellany

Ypsi Invite: Nacht also announced that he’d received an email from Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, inviting him to speak to Ypsilanti city council about the AATA.

Stimulus Package: Bernstein asked Gabay to talk about any work the AATA might be doing as far as proposing items for the economic stimulus package that might be coming down the pike. Gabay said they were working with the Michgian Public Transit Association to get a coordinated mix among public transit agencies in the state of Michigan. In the next 8-10 days, Gabay said they expected to get more information from the state about what the process will be with respect to dollar amounts and timing.

Present: Ted Annis, Charles Griffith, Jesse Bernstein, David Nacht, Paul Ajegba

Absent: Sue McCormick, Rich Robben

Next meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 18 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave. [confirm date]