Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, handed the microphone around to board members at a May 16 meeting so their commentary could be more easily heard. Board member Anya Dale had just finished speaking. (Photos by the writer.)

The two key documents approved or endorsed by the board were the articles of incorporation for a possible new transit authority, and a four-party agreement establishing a framework for possibly transitioning AATA to that new authority – now with the working name of “The Washtenaw Ride.” The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

Board action came in the context of various unknown factors, including continued federal funding, pending state legislation on a regional transit authority for southeast Michigan, and the number of Washtenaw County municipalities that will participate in a possible countywide authority. Another uncertainty relates to the status of the four-party agreement, which the Ann Arbor city council approved on March 5, 2012, after amending (several times over multiple meetings) the version that the AATA had first presented.

A wrinkle emerged on May 15, 21012, when the Ypsilanti city council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that requires reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor John Hieftje indicated that the four-party agreement would be back on the Ann Arbor council’s agenda for its June 4 meeting. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council]

The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement. At its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge.

Balanced against that set of uncertainties was a generally very optimistic tone during the meeting, with board chair Jesse Bernstein indicating that he felt that no matter what happened on a variety of fronts, the AATA was well-positioned for the future.

Bernstein and the board’s optimism was based in part on positive reports on several fronts. The doubling of frequency on the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Route #4 has resulted in 20-25% ridership gains on that route. The new Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro airport service had double the number of passengers in the last week of April compared to the first week of April, when it was first launched. AATA’s vanpool service is poised for implementation. And results of a survey conducted on board AATA buses late last year indicate a high level of customer satisfaction among AATA riders.

On the budget front, AATA controller Phil Webb also delivered positive news, in the context of an approved budget this year that was expected to absorb additional expenses in order to pay for some of the new service initiatives. Through the first six months of the fiscal year 2012 (which began Oct. 1, 2011) the AATA is under budget by around $500,000. The board had approved a budget on Sept. 15, 2011 that called for tapping fund reserves for $1 million. Now, Webb said, the AATA could finish the year breaking even, depending on how things play out in the second half of the fiscal year.

The board voted to support three other resolutions at the meeting: (1) approval of a contract for vanpool and rideshare matching software; (2) approval of a contract for construction of additional bus shelters; and (3) approval of revisions to the AATA’s procurement manual. The board also got updates on a number of other projects, including the construction of the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

Future Governance

The board considered two key documents related to a possible transition to a new governance structure for countywide transit authority: a four-party agreement, and the articles of incorporation of the new authority. The current working name of the new authority, “The Washtenaw Ride,” replaces a previous working name of “Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority.” [It was discovered that WATA is an acronym already in use by another transit authority.]

The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. One key element of the four-party agreement is that the two cities would pledge their existing transit millages to the new countywide authority, instead of to the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council approved a version of the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, after amending the version that the AATA had first presented. Amendments were made in several ways, and stretched over multiple meetings.

On May 15, 21012, the Ypsilanti council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that requires reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council] The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement.

But at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge. At that meeting, Ann Arbor councilmembers appeared keen to retain the maximum allowable amount of the municipal service charge.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

The AATA board’s resolution on May 16 did not try to resolve differences between the versions of the four-party agreement that have now been approved by the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Also considered by the AATA board at their May 16 meeting were the articles of incorporation of the new transit authority. The evening before, the Ypsilanti council unanimously approved, without amendment, the proposed articles of incorporation. The Ann Arbor city council has not yet voted on the articles of incorporation. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will consider the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation in the near future. County commissioners have already been briefed more than once on AATA’s countywide initiative, but have not yet formally considered the proposal.

An unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) has been seated and has met since the fall of 2011. Its membership includes the following: Membership in the 11-member U196 board is: Pittsfield District – Mandy Grewal (supervisor, Pittsfield Township); Northeast District – David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township); North Middle District – David Read (trustee, Scio Township) with alternate Jim Carson (councilmember, Village of Dexter); Southeast District – (1) Karen Lovejoy Roe (clerk, Ypsilanti Township) and (2) John McGehee (director of human resources, Lincoln Consolidated Schools); West District – Bob Mester (trustee, Lyndon Township) with alternate Ann Feeney (councilmember, city of Chelsea); Ypsilanti District – Paul Schreiber (mayor of Ypsilanti) with alternate Peter Murdock (councilmember, city of Ypsilanti); South Middle District – Bill Lavery (resident, York Township); Ann Arbor District: (1) Jesse Bernstein (AATA board), (2) Charles Griffith (AATA board) and (3) David Nacht (AATA board).

Governance: Four-Party Agreement

Introducing the voting item on the agenda, board chair Jesse Bernstein told the board that if there are changes to the agreement made by the other partners that affect the AATA, the document would come before the board again. Depending on the change, however, Bernstein indicated that the board might be simply apprised of that as a point of information.

Noting that the city of Ypsilanti had voted on the four-party agreement the previous night, Eli Cooper wondered if the AATA board was already in a situation where it would need to vote again on the issue – after Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor had resolved the changes that had emerged in the document. CEO Michael Ford told Cooper that the focus had been on the allowable municipal service charge that the two cities could deduct from their millages, before transferring the tax levy the new transit authority. So that issue will need to be presented to the Ann Arbor city council. The Ypsilanti council had made another change, Ford said, that was a clarification specific to Ypsilanti.

Cooper asked what would happen if the AATA board voted on the four-party agreement that day, and then subsequently the two cities resolve the difference: Would the AATA board need to ratify that? Bernstein felt that unless a change impacts the AATA, the board would not need to address the issue again. He felt the current situation does not impact the AATA.

[The current transit levy of roughly 2 mills on Ann Arbor taxpayers (decreased from the charter millage of 2.5 mills through the Headlee Amendment) generates roughly $9 million annually. So depending on the imposition of a 1% service charge, the city of Ann Arbor will either retain roughly $90,000 that would not be transferred to the new transit authority, or will transfer that $90,000 to the new authority.]

Bernstein continued by saying the board could bring it back for a vote anyway. David Nacht ventured that if the city council says the board should vote on it, the board would vote on it. Also, if a lawyer says vote on it, the board votes on it. If anyone says the board needs to vote, then the board votes on it, Nacht concluded.

At Roger Kerson’s request, Ford reviewed the basic timetable of approvals. The articles of incorporation still need to be approved by Ann Arbor. The issue in the four-party agreement on the municipal service charge still needs to be resolved by the two cities. Ford said the AATA had asked if the item could be placed on the Ann Arbor city council’s May 21 agenda. [In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor John Hieftje indicated that the four-party agreement would be on the Ann Arbor council's agenda for its June 4 meeting.] Then the Washtenaw County board of commissioners needs to consider and approve its part of the four-party agreement. Bernstein indicated that by early June, he hoped all the documents could be approved.

Outcome: The AATA unanimously approved the four-party agreement, contingent on Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti coming to an accord on the language that now differs in the two versions that the respective councils have approved.

Governance: Articles of Incorporation

When the AATA board came to the specific agenda item that required a vote on the articles of incorporation, no one appeared initially inclined to speak to the issue before voting. But board member Charles Griffith said he felt like he should say something, given that he’d been part of the group that had gone through the document word-by-word.

AATA board members Charles Griffith and Sue Gott.

Included in the board’s information packet for the meeting was a listing out of the team that had reviewed the articles: Jesse Bernstein (AATA board chair); Michael Ford (CEO of AATA); Charles Griffith (AATA board member); Jerry Lax (AATA legal counsel); Jeff Ammon (AATA legal counsel); Sarah Gryniewicz (AATA community outreach coordinator); Terri Blackmore (executive director, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study); Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council, Ward 3); Sabra Briere (Ann Arbor city council, Ward 1); Conan Smith (chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Alicia Ping (vice chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Paul Schreiber (mayor, city of Ypsilanti); Peter Murdock (Ypsilanti city council); David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township, U196 board); and David Read (trustee, Scio Township, U196 board).

Griffith described going over Act 196 of 1986 in great detail, describing it as a tortured piece of legislation. That was to make sure the articles of incorporation are consistent with the state legislation, he said. The original document was 2-3 pages, but it increased to around 14 pages and then the group had chopped it back down. The idea was to get solid buy-in from all the players, he said. [.pdf of one red-lined version of Act 196 transit authority articles of incorporation]

Outcome: The AATA unanimously endorsed the articles of incorporation for a new Act 196 transit authority.

Five-Year Program

Also key to any transition of governance from AATA to a new transit authority incorporated under Act 196  is a funding and service plan. The publication of details of the service and funding plan in a newspaper of general circulation is one of two requirements that must be met, before the AATA can submit a request to Washtenaw County to approve, sign and file the articles of incorporation of a new authority with the state of Michigan. The other requirement is that the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti must approve the articles of incorporation.

At the May 16 board meeting, Michael Benham, strategic planner for the AATA, reviewed highlights of the draft five-year plan. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

The draft five-year service plan includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hub services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services on weekends. The total hours of operation in the Ann Arbor district are expected to increase by 33% on weekdays and over 100% on Saturdays and Sundays.

Benham described to the board how a second round of district advisory committee (DAC) meetings was underway in each of the eight districts making up the representation on the U196 board. The goal is to provide an opportunity for continued feedback on revisions to the service plan. He indicated there was also interest expressed in a third round of meetings. Even after the five-year program document is finished, Benham said, there will be continued feedback into the future provided through the DACs.

The Ann Arbor DAC meeting had been held two days earlier on May 14 at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. During public commentary at the board’s May 16 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout – a member of Ann Arbor’s DAC – criticized the level of detail provided in the five-year plan, as well as the way the DAC meetings are being run. She said she’d read through the plan twice, and felt that more detail on Ann Arbor route schedules was called for – given the relative dollar amounts that Ann Arbor residents would be providing, which she’s calculated at 75%.

Armentrout called the DAC “not particularly functional.” Of the two meetings, she said, the first was simply an introduction, and the second was a well-meaning attempt to combine a committee meeting and a general public forum. She told the board she had walked out in the middle of the second DAC meeting, because she was unhappy with the way it was being run.

Policy Discussion

The most substantive policy discussion undertaken by the board began with a question about placement of new bus stops. The five-year program of the transit master plan calls for nearly 50 new bus stops and improvements to 100 more. It then evolved into a discussion of land use, planning versus implementation, and express commuter services.

Policy Discussion: Washtenaw Corridor – Bus Stops

Board member Anya Dale asked about placement of new bus stops along Washtenaw Avenue. Chris White, AATA manager of service development, told Dale that one proposed new stop that’s in the works is at Washtenaw and Platt, partly in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing development that is going forward.

White also described how Washtenaw County is working on developing a new parking lot on the north side of Washtenaw Avenue just east of US-23. He’s looking at the plans for that and trying to see if there might be ways to integrate a bus stop. The AATA is waiting for the result a right-of-way study that’s being done with the federal HUD grant that was awarded to the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community last year. [The county was awarded a $3 million grant in late 2011 for a project focusing on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.] Part of that study is meant to identify locations for bus stops, as well as for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements in the corridor, White said.

Policy Discussion: Land Use (Park-and-Ride)

Dale wondered about possible park-and-ride lot locations along Washtenaw Avenue. [Included in the five-year program are five additional general sites identified for new park-and-ride lots and two lots identified for improvements. The park-and-ride projects would potentially add 800 parking spaces designed for commuters to park, then take public transportation the rest of the way to their destination.]

Dale noted that the five-year program did not include any park-and-ride lots for Washtenaw Avenue. White responded to Dale by saying that AATA did not have plans for a major park-and-ride lot at Washtenaw Avenue. AATA’s review concluded that people would be accessing Washtenaw Avenue all along the corridor, not necessarily at a single point. Currently there’s a small lot next to the downtown Ypsilanti Transit Center with 11 spaces that AATA hopes to be able to expand, White said. The AATA is also looking for agreements with property owners along the corridor, to expand park-and-ride opportunities. That allows the AATA to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket and gives people options, he said.

[By way of background, the "eggs in one basket" reference was an allusion to the loss of park-and-ride opportunities in the Arborland shopping center. Around three years ago, the owner of the shopping center chose not to renew the agreement with AATA to accommodate a bus stop and park-and-ride spots in the parking lot there.]

Dale suggested that this basic strategy of smaller incremental expansion of park-and-ride opportunities could be included in the five-year program to help generate public support in the Ypsilanti area. She also felt that consideration should be given to locating a stop for AirRide (the AnnArbor-Detroit Metro service) in Ypsilanti. Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told Dale that to address that issue, he was scheduling a meeting with Tony VanDerworp, a business development specialist for the county. And AATA is meeting with the Eastern Leaders Group, Ford said.

Eli Cooper indicated that he agreed with the incremental steps that AATA is pursuing now. But taking a longer view of that corridor, he encouraged consideration of the implications of the high level of transit service that’s currently in place and that’s expected to become more robust. How that service coordinates with the regional highway system should also be considered. The Washtenaw Avenue and US-23 interchange was an area of emphasis for Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) access management studies, and part of the city of Ann Arbor’s long-range transportation plan.

Cooper – who serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager – noted that a very functional, large park-and-ride lot had been displaced [Arborland]. He encouraged AATA staff to use the current interest and current ridership, as well as benefit, to create an “intermodal opportunity” [i.e., park-and-ride lot] along that corridor. To him, he said, it seems there are a number of considerations that point to the Washtenaw corridor as an opportunity the AATA should capitalize on.

AATA board member Sue Gott, who works for the University of Michigan as its university planner.

Building on remarks by Cooper and Dale, Sue Gott suggested that looking into the future five years and beyond, she would love to see the county transition away from building larger and larger surface commuter parking lots to keep accommodating commuters. At some point, she said, the paradigm should be shifted to use land more efficiently by building parking structures. She said she understood the economic challenges of doing that. But as good stewards of the environment, she wanted to put that idea forward as something that the AATA should strive to achieve. When you look at Washtenaw Avenue, there’s not the land available for the demand that might exist. If the AATA could be innovative, Gott said, “we could set the bar in Michigan.”

Board chair Jesse Bernstein related Gott’s remarks to a concept that he said the AATA talked relatively little about, because the organization could not affect it directly – transit-oriented development. Bernstein described how many of the younger as well as the older generation are looking for more of a dense town center as a place to live. And as corridors are provided for development, that’s where development will occur, he said. Empty spaces or underutilized spaces on Washtenaw Avenue could be more densely populated living-working arrangements, Bernstein added, and the AATA can provide the back-and-forth connectivity. The AATA can aid density in a kind of chicken-and-egg way, he ventured.

Cooper said he appreciated Bernstein’s remarks on transit-oriented development. In the transit industry, he said, there’s also a notion called “development-oriented transit.” Bernstein is right, Cooper said, that as a transit authority, the AATA doesn’t control land-use decisions. However, the AATA does control its investment in transit. With respect to Gott’s point about the efficiency of land use – parking structures versus surface lots – he referred again to the MDOT access management study of the area around US-23 and Washtenaw. He noted that the study depicted a vision of a multi-level parking structure, wrapped with mixed land use, right where the Arborland parking lot is today. There are bigger “wins” out there, he said.

In terms of development-oriented transit, Cooper felt like the AATA should drive toward looking at funding the organization can obtain to guide those investments. In Minneapolis, Cooper said there was a Smart Growth Twin Cities program, which consisted of public investments – federal and regional money – to create parking structures in places like St. Louis Park. Those became the nodes for new growth opportunities in the region. And that is not going to happen unless someone takes the lead, Cooper cautioned. The AATA is well-positioned to begin to move that way, he suggested, using development-oriented transit strategies to encourage the local land-use decision makers to implement transit-oriented design.

Dale felt that in general the AATA has done an excellent job of providing service to everybody, which is the AATA’s primary mission. But there’s also an opportunity to be a leader in land-use development, even though the AATA can’t directly control it. It’s pretty well known that park-and-ride lots tend to incentivize sprawl, she said. So Dale stressed that it’s important to look at the placement of such lots. She weighed in against new flat lots just outside urban areas. She advocated instead for use of underutilized lots within the urban area.

Policy Discussion: Where’s Rail Transit in 5-Year Program?

Roger Kerson ventured that all the references to rail planning had been removed from the five-year program based on the advice of the financial task force – advice that activity should match where funding is available. But knowing the team of AATA staff and the board, he said, this would not be an arena where the AATA would be idle for the next five years. Those projects need outside funding and private partners; but because the AATA staff is as good as they are at “walking and chewing gun” and running the existing system while planning for expansion, Kerson expected some planning work would continue.

Kerson suggested that the AATA needs to think about how that can be communicated to people – that rail transit is not something AATA is going to do right now and it’s not something that a millage or vehicle registration fee would be tied to; however, there’d be activity in that area. That activity is part of the vision, Kerson said. And that’s a vision that attracts a lot of people – it’s one that attracts him, he said, when you say: If there could be a train here, wouldn’t that be great. Even though that’s not something that the AATA can deliver in the near term, he said, the AATA needs to make clear to people that there’s a 30-year vision as well as a five-year program. It would be helpful, he said, if it can be made clear that during the first five years, the AATA will still be looking at things that it will do over the longer term.

Michael Benham, AATA strategic planner, responded to Kerson’s remark about eliminating rail from the five-year program. Benham noted that reference to rail in the program has not been completely removed. Rather, rail has not been prioritized. In the five-year program document, he said, it’s noted there needs to be development work to keep those projects going. From the draft five-year program document:

Because of long lead times and requirements for involving many stakeholders, projects such as commuter rail and high-capacity transit require a level of planning investment and project development that may take place years in advance of the projects’ implementation. Accordingly, it is recommended that the AATA continue to include in its plans funding for such project development work, paid for to the extent feasible by State and Federal grants.

Eli Cooper allowed that perhaps he was the only one in the room who did not believe they’d have to wait five years to see the first next type of rail service arrive in Ann Arbor. He felt that the retreat that day would be a good opportunity to explore the AATA’s interests in defining how it sees its process as engaging in rail development – currently, not five, six or thirty years from now. The financial task force had some recommendations about two projects that have five to ten years of planning work behind them already, he noted: commuter rail and local higher-capacity transit. Cooper’s interest was in exploring as a board what the AATA’s role is with rail – recognizing that the federal and state government is in the process of investing $0.5 billion in improvements in the railroad corridor.

The most recent reports from SEMCOG, which has been the lead agency for commuter rail, is that they’re working with the Federal Transit Authority on an environmental assessment. An environmental assessment is the study that’s needed in order to access federal funds for the commuter rail service. Their timetables are within a matter of a couple of years, Cooper reported – saying that it seems like “it’s always a couple of years out.” He wondered what the AATA can do to keep it moving forward – as an entity that’s connected to and serving a community that will benefit from rail service.

Cooper was not content to say that rail is something out in the future: “The future is now.” He suggested having AATA staff coordinate with SEMCOG and MDOT, and bring forward whatever the community needs to do – AATA and Washtenaw County – to help facilitate implementation of the rail service. As the AATA is implementing express bus services, he felt that rail should remain in the plan “in a timeframe that’s deemed appropriate through a coordinated effort with the professionals.” That timeframe on the rail project can be provided back to the financial task force and the rest of the community, Cooper said.

Charles Griffith supported Cooper’s suggestion. He’s heard a lot of comments from community members expressing disappointment that the commuter rail project is not being emphasized as an option. The financial task force was making a recommendation based on the availability of funding, he said. It doesn’t mean that commuter rail is not a priority any longer. It just means that it’s on a slightly different track. It’s important to clarify within the first five years what the track looks like, he said, and what it would take to keep the studies moving forward.

Griffith also brought up the Ann Arbor Connector (from US-23 and Plymouth through the campus, downtown and south to I-94), which he described as a project that excites him and the community – the idea that Ann Arbor could have something that’s world class. It’s important, he said, to move beyond just buses – not that there’s anything bad about buses.

Griffith said he uses his bus each week to get to work, but buses don’t offer a lot of excitement, he said. New forms of transportation are something that many people in the community think Ann Arbor is ready for and should have. And the AATA is the entity that can make that happen, Griffith said. He wanted to make sure people didn’t think the AATA was de-emphasizing those projects, just because they are on a longer-term track. Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, indicated that he was actively pursuing funding for the next stage of the connector study (the alternatives analysis), working with the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor.

[What's already complete is a feasibility study. What's needed now are local matching funds for a $1.2 million federal grant that the AATA obtained last year for the alternatives analysis phase. In November 2011, Ford updated the board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis, saying that this phase – in which a preferred technology and route with stop locations would be identified – would take around 16 months if it begins in April 2012. A final report would be expected in August 2013, he said at the time.]

Ford felt he’d have a clearer idea about the status of local match money he’s pursuing from the city of Ann Arbor and UM later in May.

Later in the meeting, board members returned to the idea that the AATA needs to focus on clearly communicating about the difference between implementation and continued planning, guided by a 30-year vision, which includes commuter rail.

Jesse Bernstein said he wanted to speak to where the AATA stands as a board. Zingerman’s [a local deli that has spawned a community of related businesses] talks about the north star – the place we want to go, knowing we might never get there, he said. That’s the 30-year vision of the transit master plan (TMP). The five-year program reflects what the financial task force told the AATA could be achieved with local funding over the next five years. But Bernstein said the AATA should continue to work on everything in the 30-year vision. “We’re looking at what we can do when,” Bernstein said. Planning for rail would continue at the staff level, he ventured.

Kerson agreed with Bernstein, saying it’s a matter of communicating. The potentials for rail should be included in the AATA’s planning scenarios, he said. When the Ann Arbor city council was considering the four-party transit agreement, state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-53) addressed the council, Kerson said, and told councilmembers said Ann Arbor can’t control what Lansing does, but Ann Arbor can control what Ann Arbor does.

Sue Gott added to Kerson’s remarks on communication. The theme she felt could be highlighted is that there are items that are “in front of us” in terms of implementation. But there are other projects that are “equally in front of us” in terms of planning, but are not yet in an implementation mode. It’s a matter of making sure the AATA is using the right language so that community expectations are managed effectively, she concluded.

Policy Discussion: Express Commuter Service

Sue Gott asked Michael Benham what the methodology was for deciding express bus services. Benham explained that staff had started with a list of options that had been considered some time ago – they’d studied origin-destination pairs. Consultants had analyzed demand for those services and selected those that appeared to have the best cost-benefit ratio.

Charles Griffith allowed that there’s some concern about the extent to which the AATA emphasizes service for those who live outside of Ann Arbor and even outside of Washtenaw County. The board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, he reported, had a goal of minimizing the cost to citizens. For the commuter services, he continued, the AATA has achieved reductions in the amount of the local millage that’s used for the service – but there’s still a share paid out of the local millage.

Griffith pointed out there are also costs of not using the millage to help fund the commuter service: more cars on roads, more cars in parking structures and the like. Griffith said the board felt comfortable there’s some role for the AATA to play. It’s worth being thoughtful about how to characterize express bus services as the AATA continues to plan additional commuter services, he said. The cost of the express services would potentially be covered, he ventured, and part of the countywide initiative is an attempt to share costs more widely than just Ann Arbor. Griffith said he felt the role the AATA should play is to try to allocate fairly the cost of service to those who get the benefit.

By way of background, revenues for commuter express for the first half of FY 2012 (through March) showed $54,138 in passenger fares (some portion of which University of Michigan paid, for any of its employees who used the service) and $42,313 in state operating assistance – for a total of $96,451. Expenses for commuter express over that period were $138,053, leaving a total of $41,602 that was covered by Ann Arbor taxpayers.

Benham noted that the five-year program’s differential fares, based on geographic zone, are a part of the attempt to allocate costs fairly.

Eli Cooper recalled that when the board initially considered implementing the Chelsea commuter express service, one of the board members at that time had suggested that it needed to be self-funded. Cooper had argued that the fares needed at least to be competitive with the cost of driving and parking. The good news, he said, is that there’s more room in the cost equation for commuter service as potential riders compare costs – because “the cost of dinosaurs” (i.e., gasoline) is 2-3 times higher now than it was then. But Cooper noted a limit as to how high the fares can go on commuter service.

Cooper then highlighted why the conversation in Ann Arbor includes commuter service. The fact is, he said, that 70,000 workers commute to jobs into Ann Arbor every day. He repeated that fact for effect. Of those 70,000 people, 95% arrive in a car, he said. That causes huge expenses – parking spaces at $50-60,000 per parking space. That cost is not borne by commuters, but by the community. On top of that, there’s the congestion and the time lost because of competition for that “fleeting space.”

Locally, it’s not feasible to knock down buildings where employees work, in order to widen roads, Cooper said. And there aren’t significant state and federal funds to widen roads like M-14 or I-94, he said. So, Cooper concluded, it might be for the greater good of the community that ways are found for people to travel in groups of 50-70 people (i.e., on buses), instead of filling up lanes on the freeway and streets and creating a need to construct expensive parking structures. It’s 70,000 commuters today, but the city of Ann Arbor is planning based on tens of thousands of new employees in the next 30 years. Commuter express, he said, is an economic tool.

Gott wanted to know if “cost avoidance” is being factored in by calculating actual dollars. That’s an area the AATA could look at added data, she suggested. Benham indicated that cost-benefit analysis had been done in connection with the transit master plan, but it had been done on a fairly high level. He felt more detail could be achieved.

Outlook: Uncertainty, Optimism

Board chair Jesse Bernstein summarized his view of where things stood – in the context of the wide-ranging policy discussion, as well as a previous presentation from AATA community outreach coordinator Sarah Gryniewicz.

Outlook: Uncertainty

Gryniewicz had noted that the AATA has been working across jurisdictional boundaries. If and when the countywide process moves forward and local funding is approved, the board would need to work on a transition process, she said. That involves transitioning the board, its assets and its various committees, including the local advisory council.

As the district advisory committees give their recommendations and refinements are made and different communities decide whether to participate, adjustments will need to be made.

By way of background, if a municipality that has thus far participated in the process were to withdraw, that would reduce costs, because service would not be extended to that area. But it would also reduce revenues, because the additional funding such an area would otherwise contribute (property millage or vehicle registration fee) would not be collected. For example, on May 8 Northfield Township voted 5-1 to rescind the inter-local agreement under which it had been participating in the northeast district and the U196 board.

Ultimately, Gryniewicz said, the funding question will come to the AATA board and the U196 board. As the two entities get closer to the final five-year program and the AATA gets updates from the legislature, the financial advisory task force can be reconvened as appropriate, she said.

Right now there are two main funding options that might be available. The one that is currently available is a property millage. The five-year program currently would require the equivalent of an 0.05 mill tax countywide, she said. She compared that to the rough equivalent of the recently successful technology bond approved in the May 8, 2012 election by voters in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district.

The second option – a motor vehicle registration fee – would still need state enabling legislation, Gryniewicz said. She said the AATA is working with the governor’s office and the state legislature to make sure that option also works for the AATA. At the Ann Arbor district advisory committee meeting held on May 14 at the Malletts Creek library, Bernstein had identified Republican state Sen. Tom Casperson – who represents Michigan’s 38th district and chairs the senate transportation committee – as a legislator with whom he and AATA CEO Michael Ford were working directly. Bernstein also indicated at the May 14 DAC meeting that they were working closely with Gov. Rick Snyder, who lives in Washtenaw County.

Gryniewicz sketched a legislative update on the federal level, saying that the U.S. Congress is still working on a transportation bill. The main debate, she said, does not seem to be about transit, but rather about the Keystone Pipeline and job creation. But on the transit end, it’s encouraging, she said, and Michigan’s legislators are working hard to ensure that transit funding is maintained and that there’s room for growth.

At the state level, several transit-related policy items are being discussed, she said. One of the main sets of bills involves changes to Act 51, she said. Right now it looks like all local transit authorities – like the AATA – would be able to maintain their current state operating monies. A separate fund would be established for higher-capacity transit, like rolling rapid transit (aka bus rapid transit) or connectors. The AATA will continue to work with the state, she said, on developments that related to the regional transit authority (RTA) bill. The governor’s office and other legislators, she said, have been very supportive of the AATA’s efforts to develop the transit master plan (TMP) and are fully aware of the AATA’s planning efforts.

The RTA legislation would establish the possibility of a four-county area as a regional transit authority: Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties. For more detail on the possible RTA legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled.” At the May 14 DAC meeting, Bernstein had talked about the possibility that Washtenaw County could be separated out from the other three counties – a possibility that has not yet been formally introduced in the state legislation. Bernstein felt that if the legislature did not act before the summer recess at the end of June, the issue would not be taken up until the “lame duck” session after the November election.

Outlook: Optimism

At the board’s May 16 retreat, Bernstein said the most important thing is funding. If through “some horrendous outcome” the federal programs supporting transportation don’t continue, then the AATA would be in a very different position than it is now. The AATA board has a policy that the AATA won’t do anything that is not funded, he said.

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

Bernstein felt that the AATA is well-positioned, no matter what. The AATA could remain an Act 55 transit authority and continue to deliver services. But there’s a well-thought-out plan to change to an Act 196 authority, he said, adding that he saw the AATA moving ahead without any reservations.

If there is another option of having a regional transit authority, and another funding option based on vehicle registration fees, the AATA is in position to take advantage of that, he said. Whichever way the wind blows, the AATA is positioned to go any direction that situation leads them, he said. The reality, Bernstein allowed, is that without more revenue, AATA will remain an Act 55. But the AATA won’t give up on its 30-year vision – the AATA would accomplish the vision the best it can. Bernstein concluded his remarks with a lot of praise for the AATA staff.

New Service Initiatives: Vanpools

The board was briefed on the status of a number of initiatives the AATA has been working on. One of them is the entrance of AATA into the vanpool market. Vanpools are essentially a group of people who are provided a vehicle, and charged a price for the use of that vehicle so they can drive to work together.

AATA’s planned entrance into the vanpool services market comes in the context of the discontinuation of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation’s MichiVan program. AATA’s strategy is essentially to step in and provide an alternative to MichiVan – as the vehicles currently being used reach the end of their useful life. So AATA intends to add those already existing vanpools to its operations. The University of Michigan has around 90 such vanpools. On Sept. 15, 2011, the AATA board authorized a contract with VPSI to provide vanpool services, and on Jan. 19, 2012, the board authorized the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide the vanpool service.

During an update on board initiatives that started last year, community relations manager Mary Stasiak laid out the sharing of responsibility between VPSI and AATA for the vanpool service. VPSI handles maintenance, insurance, vehicle prep, driver training, background checks, billing, and reporting. The AATA handles contract oversight, vehicle purchase and ownership, promotion, customer service, and vanpool group formation.

The fleet is currently seven and they’re currently having decals put on. Right now, the purchased vehicles are being stored at the dealership at no cost. Stasiak expected those vehicles to be put into service quickly. The rates charged to riders, she said, are expected to cover costs. The rates are different depending on whether the trip origin and end are both in Washtenaw County. For start and end in Washtenaw County, the minimum number of riders in a pool of four plus the driver is charged at $99 per rider. For 5-6 riders plus a driver, that per-rider cost drops to $79 per rider. Outside of Washtenaw County, the respective rates for different numbers in the vanpool are $139 and $119. In all cases, the vanpool driver’s cost is zero.

Vanpools: Software

The board considered a five-year contract totaling not more than $125,000 with Ecology & Environment Inc. for rideshare and vanpool matching software. The software will be paid for using existing and anticipated federal funds, provided to the AATA through the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, a requirement of the software is that it must be accessible through standard Internet appliances, and provide instant, accurate online ride‐matches through detailed map information presented to the end‐user. It must also integrate with social networking services such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+.

Vanpools: Software – Public Comment

During his first turn at public comment, Thomas Partridge mentioned the vanpool software contract. He told the board he was there as an advocate for residents of Washtenaw County who need and deserve public transportation. He said he was a long-time and constant advocate for conversion of AATA to a countywide system. He was there to advance that cause on behalf of those people whose interests don’t appear on the agenda. There are multi-year contracts that favor people with jobs, he said, alluding to the vanpool software item. The beneficiaries of that are well-paid UM health system employees, he contended, and there were no corresponding improvements in senior and handicapped services.

Vanpools: Software – Board Deliberations

Anya Dale sought clarification about ownership of the software. Staff indicated that it was a licensing arrangement, not a purchase. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he wanted to hear somebody say that the cost includes all updates and upgrades. Community relations manager Mary Stasiak told Bernstein that was the case – unless the AATA makes requests for custom functionality.

Eli Cooper indicated he’d vote in support of it. He noted that 20 years ago, when he’d worked in the field, vanpools and transit were seen as competitors. With that background, he said, he supported the AATA’s entry into the vanpool market as movement in a positive and progressive direction.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the vanpool and ride-matching software.

New Service Initiatives: Airport Service

AATA deputy director Dawn Gabay gave the board an update on the recently launched AirRide service, which provides service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro Airport. Gabay described how the AATA had negotiated with Michigan Flyer on the public-private contract,  which provides 12 daily roundtrips between Ann Arbor and the airport. [Key to the economics of the service is the fact that the Detroit Metro Airport is not assessing an entrance fee to the AirRide service – because the Michigan Flyer buses are operating under the auspices of the AATA. Public transit is not charged an entrance fee, but private operators must pay an entrance fee.]

The promotional fares will end on July 30, Gabay said. She  described various discounts for seniors and children. She also described the other partners with whom the AATA is working on the service, including the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA has arranged for passengers on AirRide to park at the  Fourth and William parking structure for $2 for up to 2 weeks. The Kensington Court hotel, a stop on the AirRide service, is providing parking at a rate of $2/day for up to three weeks. Detroit Metro Airport has allowed wayfinding signs (that indicate public transit) and has assigned AirRide a designated bus stop. The  Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michigan Flyer and the University of Michigan have also helped promote the service, Gabay said. She provided the first four weeks of ridership statistics.

AATA ridership on the Detroit Metro Airport to Ann Arbor service: Weeks 1-4 (Image links to higher resolution file.)

During subsequent board discussion, Roger Kerson related an anecdote about his own experience with the service. He said it was terrific – the pickup from the Kensington stop was on time. On his return trip, he changed his plans and did not get on the bus he’d reserved – and he received a call saying, “You didn’t meet the bus at your spot, so when can we pick you up instead?” Kerson concluded that the level of service that’s being provided is really excellent.

The fact that the ridership has doubled over four weeks shows that this is a service that can work, he ventured. What causes him concern, he said, is that he doesn’t see “AATA” or “The Ride” anywhere in the signs at the airport. It says “public transit.” So as the AATA looks to expand the service generally, he wanted to have the AATA brand on it somewhere. Given that the name of the AATA might be different very soon, that might not be easy to change, but he felt that on the AirRide website at least, it should be clear that it’s the AATA that’s getting you to the airport.

New Service Initiatives: Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Work

A desire for an increase in frequency of service was a highlight of a recent on-board survey that included 2,824 riders. [.pdf of survey report] Increased frequency is being implemented as part of a workforce transportation initiative on Route #4 between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Route #4 performance since implementation of increased frequency of service.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, gave the board an update on the impact on ridership of the Route #4 service, since the frequency was doubled in February, to run every 5-10 minutes during peak times and every 10-20 minutes midday. Part of the implementation was to develop two variations on the route. Unchanged on Route #4 is the section  between the downtown Ypsilanti Transit Center westward to Geddes and Washtenaw. But now, half the buses go to the University of Michigan and the others go to the central campus. White explained that this route variation cuts eight minutes off the round trip of every bus, without reducing service levels at the UM hospital.

So the strategy has spread the ridership load. The impact has been beyond what the AATA expected, White said, even though the location of the route hasn’t changed. Ridership systemwide was already up about 5-7%, but since implementation of the increased frequency on Route #4, he said, the increase in ridership on that route has been 20-25%. White said he’s anxious to see how ridership continues to change on the route.

On-time performance on Route #4 since implementation of increased frequency of service.

On-time performance has also improved significantly on that route, partly due to the fact that the buses are not as crowded. White explained some amount of increased ridership was expected – because that’s typically what happens. But typically, the impact is not seen the next day, because it takes a certain period for riders to adjust and become aware of the availability of increased frequency. The increased ridership the AATA has seen on the route, he said, reflects that there’s a lot of latent demand in that corridor.

Another initiative related to workforce transportation is the expansion of the geographic area served by the AATA’s NightRide service. NightRide is a demand-response service that’s offered when the regular fixed-route bus service stops running, and on holidays. Passengers have a similar experience to ordering a taxi; the standard fare is $5. The cost is high enough so that it does not really attract a lot of casual riders, White explained. Work transportation is the predominant use.

Increased ridership on the NightRide service since geographic expansion of its service area.

White explained that the service was limited to the city of Ann Arbor when it was first offered in 1983. In April of 2011, the geographic are was expanded as far east as Golfside Road.

That had not resulted in a significant ridership increase, White reported. But in January 2012, the service area was expanded to Ypsilanti, and that had a significant effect.

The expanded NightRide service is being funded by a federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant. Board member David Nacht asked when the JARC grant ran out. White explained that it’s a continuing funding source. However, White said, it would be his preference to find a different way to fund the roughly $23,000 cost long-term, and to use JARC to fund new initiatives.

New Service Initiatives: E. Medical Center

A status update on another new initiative was the extension of the AATA’s A-Ride service to a location outside Ann Arbor – to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health Center (EAAHC), starting last year on July 1, 2011.  The university and the AATA share the cost of trips from Ann Arbor, White said. UM pays the entire cost of trips from outside Ann Arbor.

Usage of the A-Ride service is about what the AATA predicted, White said. About 17% of the rides are for passengers who use wheelchairs.

Other Initiatives: Bus Shelters

The board was briefed in moderate detail on a number of other initiatives that are not covered in this report. They include the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center, the bus garage expansion on South Industrial Highway at the AATA headquarters, development of the new AATA website, and bus stop improvements.

One news item from the presentation on bus stop improvements related to the technical problem of transmitting real-time arrival information to the lighted signs at the University of Michigan central campus transit center. That looks to have been solved, and might be implemented sometime over the summer.

One voting item that related to the general program of bus stop improvements was a contract with Duo-Gard Industries to provide shelters at stops. The $390,000 contract is to manufacture and install around 60 bus shelters and 126 benches over a three-year period. There’s an option to extend the contract twice, for a year at a time. The AATA expects to use existing and future federal and state grant funds to pay for the shelters.

During the brief board deliberations on the item, Eli Cooper said he recalled when the AATA approved its first contract with Duo-Gard, it was a local vendor that made exciting new shelters. “We’ve seen them, we love them, we’re going to get more of them,” he said. Cooper also noted that Duo-Gard was the low bidder.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the contract with Duo-Gard.

Budget Update

The budget approved on Sept. 15, 2011 by the AATA board expected to tap the fund reserve for around $1 million in a $30.4 million expense budget. The board characterized it as a calculated risk to fund some of the service initiatives on which the board was briefed at the May 16, 2012 retreat.

At the retreat, AATA controller Phil Webb briefed the board on the status of the budget. Through March (midway through the AATA fiscal year) the AATA is about $573,000 under budget. Factors contributing to that, Webb said, included the fact that the budget provided for an earlier launch of the AirRide service. The educational expenses associated with the transit master plan (TMP) have been less than anticipated. And finally, some staff positions have been vacant for part of the year.

Webb said he felt that depending on revenues, it might be possible to break even for the year, or have a small surplus. The variable, Webb said, is the cost of the education effort associated with the TMP.

Public Commentary

AATA board meetings provide two chances for public participation – one near the beginning and another at the end, each time limited to two minutes. The first session is meant to be restricted to agenda items. Commentary not otherwise included above is reported here.

Thomas Partridge said he was there as a declared candidate for the state of Michigan’s house of representatives 53rd District (a spot currently held by Democrat Jeff Irwin). His platform includes countywide, regionwide and statewide interconnected public transportation. He advocated that the board adopt the concept of integrated services – in terms of those people needing services the most, in terms of access to affordable housing,

Partridge told the board he was there to speak frankly. Many candidates for public office like to go before the public with smiling faces and gloss over serious problems. The AATA board needs to address the issue of connecting with the public, he said. He complained about the length of that day’s session, which prevented people from staying through the whole session. Partridge also objected to the fact that the meeting was being held in a venue where it was not videotaped for broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

Present: AATA board members Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to get on board with The Chronicle, too!

The agreement would establish an arrangement for Washtenaw County to incorporate a new transit authority under Act 196 and for the two cities (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) to pledge their transit tax funds levied currently for use by the AATA to the new Act 196 organization, once its governance and basis for its funding is clear.

The governing bodies of the four entities would need to sign off on the arrangement. Ford’s written report indicates that the four-party agreement is expected to go before the Ann Arbor city council for discussion at a working session on Dec. 12, with a vote possible as soon as Dec. 19.

The AATA’s planning effort to expand its services across Washtenaw County comes in the context of a proposal from Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder that would provide vehicle registration fees as a possible funding option for a regional transit authority for the southeastern part of the state, which would include Washtenaw County. [Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"]

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A detailed reported of the meeting will follow: [link]

At the board’s August 2011 meeting, Ford had announced that McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, will be co-chairing the panel of financial and funding experts. They are tasked with reviewing the report on funding options and making recommendations that will form the basis of a countywide governance proposal.

That governance proposal is expected to come from an as-yet-unincorporated board of an Act 196 transit authority (U196) to establish a countywide transit authority under that state statute. [Michigan's Act 196 of 1986 provides a mechanism for establishing a transit authority that includes a larger range of entities than just cities. In contrast, the AATA is formed under Act 55 of 1963]

The funding report to be reviewed and analyzed by the group is the third volume of the transit master plan (TMP). [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options].

Besides Berriz and Guenzel, members of the group include the following: Patrick Doyle (CEO, Domino’s Pizza); Ric DeVore (regional president, PNC Financial Services Group Inc.); Mary Jo Callan (director, office of community development, Washtenaw County); Mark Perry (director of real estate services, Masco Corp.); Andy LaBarre (vice president of government affairs, A2YChamber); Tim Marshall (president and CEO, Bank of Ann Arbor); Norm Herbert (retired treasurer, University of Michigan); Adiele Nwankwo (senior vice president, PB Americas Inc.); Mike Cicchella (financial planner, Cicchella and Associates, and former Northfield Township supervisor); Leigh Greden (executive director of governmental and community relations, Eastern Michigan University); Conan Smith (executive director, Suburbs Alliance and chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Jonathan Levine (professor, University of Michigan college of architecture and urban planning); Jason Lindauer (wealth management advisor, Merrill Lynch, and mayor of Chelsea); Mark Ouimet (state representative, District 52); John Thorhauer (president and CEO, United Methodist Retirement Communities); Jon Newpol (executive vice president, Thomson Reuters); Dennis Schornack (special advisor on transportation, Governor’s Office); Jim Kosteva, (director of government relations, University of Michigan); Paul Dimond (attorney, Miller Canfield).

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

The AATA's Blake Transit Center Fourth Avenue entry.

The latter item – authorizing AATA resources to support formation of an unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) – was approved without discussion. The resolution also authorized the board chair, Jesse Bernstein, to appoint three members to the U196 board.

In a related item, board members approved a $193,317 extension of AATA’s contract with Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), the London-based consultant hired last year to work on developing AATA’s transit master plan. SDG will work on implementing the plan – some board members indicated they’d like to see the consultant include more local resources as the process moves forward. The original contract with SDG was for $399,805. It was previously extended and increased at the AATA board’s Nov. 18, 2010 meeting by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

The infrastructure projects approved at the July 19 meeting include an expansion of AATA’s bus storage facility – in part to accommodate growth if a countywide transit entity is formed. Other projects entail replacement of bus hoists, a blanket contract for concrete work, and detention pond and landscaping improvements.

AATA board meetings are typically held on the third Thursday of the month, starting at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown boardroom, where the meetings are televised by Community Television Network (CTN). Tuesday’s special meeting, called in order to move ahead on some of these projects, began at 1 p.m. at the AATA headquarters on South Industrial, and was not videotaped. It was attended by more than a half-dozen AATA staff members, but not by CEO Michael Ford. Only four of the board’s seven members attended – it takes four members to make a quorum.

Steps toward Countywide Transit Authority

Board members took two actions in support of a countywide plan for transportation services that’s been in the works for more than a year.

The first resolution they considered authorized the AATA board chair to appoint three board members to serve on an unincorporated Act 196 board (U196), with the direction to move towards forming an active Act 196 transit authority for countywide transportation. The same resolution authorized the AATA’s CEO to use AATA resources to support an unincorporated Act 196 board. There was no discussion among board members on this item prior to their vote. [.pdf of U196 resolution]

Act 196 of 1986 is a state statute that provides for forming transit authorities that encompass wider geographic areas than just cities. It’s the legislation on which a countywide transit authority for Washtenaw County would likely be based. Under one proposal that has been presented by the AATA to various public bodies, a fully incorporated Act 196 board would have 15 members countywide, with seven of them coming from Ann Arbor.

Concerns about governance and funding have been raised by some government leaders outside of Ann Arbor. County commissioners were briefed about the countywide transit plan at an April 2011 working session of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and some of them objected to the weight that Ann Arbor representatives would be given under the proposal, relative to other parts of the county. AATA Michael Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein attended another county board working session in June, where similar issues were raised again. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Bernstein said [county commissioner Wes] Prater had raised some core questions that will have to be answered. The board of the unincorporated Act 196 entity will be the people who decide how the transit authority will be governed, he added – it isn’t set in stone. The issue of how many representatives from Ann Arbor serve on the unincorporated board is wide open, he said.

The AATA is suggesting this as a point to start the discussion, Bernstein told commissioners, but there’s plenty of room for modifications and adjustments. They’re not ready to propose something definitive.

Prater again cited concerns over creating a transit authority that doesn’t report to any government entity. He said he’s very cautious about supporting an authority that might put a countywide tax on the ballot. Prater expressed support for the model used in Grand Rapids, in which a smaller number of jurisdictions form the transit authority. He guessed that most areas in Washtenaw County, outside of the urban areas, don’t have the population to support a countywide transit system.

Bernstein reported that in talking with people in the county’s rural townships, they are concerned over the ability of residents to age in place – that is, to continue to live in their homes, even if they can no longer drive. Elected officials in those areas, he said, want transit services for residents to get to their medical care, for example.

The other issue is land use, Bernstein said. Townships don’t want dense developments in their communities – they’d rather see transit corridors, he said, so that their tax base can grow while they preserve farmland and open space at the same time.

Bernstein said it’s true that there’s not yet a funding plan, though organizers assume it will be a millage of some sort. There’s still a long way to go, he said.

Prater noted that five townships and two cities account for about 75% of the population in this county – those are areas where he supports public transportation. [He was referring to the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Scio, Superior, Pittsfield and Augusta.] Prater said he’s not convinced that the approach being pursued is the right one, adding that he’s very critical of it. If the governance isn’t fair, the initiative is already in trouble, he said.

Leah Gunn clarified that each jurisdiction involved in the transit authority would vote separately on a transit tax. She noted that Ann Arbor residents have been paying 2 mills for transit for many years – it was voted in as a permanent millage in the 1970s, and funds the AATA. Will that millage be retained, even if there’s an additional millage?

That’s one of the suggestions, Bernstein said, adding that he’s open to whatever makes sense. Some have said that every jurisdiction should pay the same amount. All of these things are decisions that need to be made. ”I have no idea what that [funding mechanism] is going to look like,” he said.

Gunn said she feels strongly that Ann Arbor should keep its 2-mill transit tax. She elicited from Ford that Ann Arbor has invested nearly $180 million in its transit system over the years. In addition, they’ve leveraged those dollars for millions more in federal funding, she noted. Ann Arbor has been very generous, she said – without that investment, AATA wouldn’t be able to provide transit services to other communities, like Ypsilanti.

Yousef Rabhi clarified that whatever future millage might be voted on would be on the ballot only in jurisdictions that wanted to be part of the new transit authority – it wouldn’t necessarily be countywide. He also pointed out that based on having one-third of the county’s population, Ann Arbor would be entitled to five seats in a 15-member transit authority board. But if the city also contributed an additional 2 mills in funding, that could justify an additional two seats on the board, he said.

Rabhi said he’d like to keep the 2-mill transit tax, noting that he uses the AATA bus system frequently. With a larger system, it’s an opportunity for more routes, more services – more of a good thing, he said.

Ronnie Peterson weighed in, telling Ford and Bernstein that a countywide system has been a long time coming. He had urged AATA’s previous two CEOs to take on this project, but they hadn’t, he said. He wished it had been undertaken when the economy was better. “Keep your foot to the pedal,” he told them.

Peterson urged Ford to bring communities to the table that already buy transit services from AATA, like Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – communities which Peterson represents on the county board. That should happen even before a formal entity is created, he said.

Bernstein concluded the discussion by noting that the next major step will be to pull together representatives into an unincorporated entity, and to develop articles of incorporation for an Act 196. Meanwhile, AATA will continue to operate its current system, he said, and they’ll work to get answers to the questions that commissioners have raised. Where they wind up must be inclusive of everyone who wants to participate, Bernstein added – they won’t return to the county board until everything is in order.

Though it wasn’t discussed at the AATA board’s July 19 special meeting, the rationale for appointing only three members of the current AATA board to the U196 board is to avoid the possibility that the actions of four or more members of the AATA board (a quorum of its members) as a part of the U196 would be understood as an action of the AATA board. That was the concern expressed at a June 3 retreat held by the board at Weber’s Inn.

The same resolution authorized the AATA’s CEO – Michael Ford, who did not attend the July 19 meeting – to use AATA resources to support an unincorporated Act 196 board. The language of the resolution differed in a subtle but significant way from a draft resolution considered but not voted on by the AATA board at a meeting held on June 3 in a retreat-style format at Weber’s Inn. The draft language from that meeting stated [emphasis added]: “… the AATA Chief Executive Officer shall use the resources of the Authority as needed and as appropriate …” The version of the resolution approved by the board at its July 19 meeting read: “… the AATA Chief Executive Officer shall use the resources of the Authority as budgeted by the AATA Board.”

Outcome: Without discussion, board members voted unanimously to authorize the board chair to appoint three board members to serve on an unincorporated Act 196 (U196) board, and to authorize the AATA CEO to use AATA resources in support of a U196 board.

Countywide Transit Authority: Consulting Contract

Also related to countywide transit, board members were asked to authorize a $193,317 extension of AATA’s contract with Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), a consultant hired last year to work on developing AATA’s transit master plan. The contract extension would provide for services from SDG through December 2012.

The original contract with SDG was for $399,805. It was previously extended and increased at the AATA board’s Nov. 18, 2010 meeting by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

The contract is intended to allow SDG to start implementing the transit master plan. The extended contract is expected to cover a range of services: (1) providing support to an ad hoc countywide transit funding task force; (2) developing “district recommendations” for services; (3) creating “service development plans” for specific services; (4) creating a fares and ticketing plan with two components: a near‐term component aimed at rationalizing the current AATA fare structure, and a longer‐term component designed to create a countywide fare policy and structure; and (5) doing other studies and planning activities to support ongoing countywide transit development efforts. [.pdf file of SDG proposal]

During his report of the AATA board’s July 12 planning and development committee meeting, Rich Robben mentioned that committee members had discussed the need for SDG to work with local companies as it implements the countywide plan. From the minutes of that PDC meeting:

It was acknowledged that SDG has institutional knowledge, but PDC members suggested that local talent be sought solely or jointly with SDG, to help achieve at a lower cost and support the local Michigan economy.

Michael Benham responded to questions regarding the possible costs of extending the SDG contract. Absent a specific proposal, it is estimated the figure would be about $40,000 in FY 2011, and approximately $160,000 in FY 2012.

The Committee concurred that they would withhold a decision on extending SDG’s contract until such time as a specific proposal was presented. The committee also concurred that a portion of the work should be completed in partnership with local consultants. Michael Ford agreed to share SDG’s proposal with Committee members and would seek to move the question of extending the contract with SDG to the full Board for consideration at its special meeting on July 19, 2011.

Countywide Transit Authority: Consulting Contract – Board Discussion

Jesse Bernstein began by saying he wanted to echo Robben’s comment about local involvement – it’s absolutely essential at this point in the process, he said. He planned to talk with CEO Michael Ford about how to make that happen. The board also needs to be closely engaged, not just the staff, he said.

From left: AATA board members Roger Kerson and Jesse Bernstein.

Roger Kerson said that the work up until this point has taken a big effort by AATA staff as well as SDG. But this is a 30-year plan, he noted, and it’s important to build staff capacity so that they could take on future work, after the consultants are gone. “The more we can do on our own, the better all around,” he said.

Bernstein spoke up again, saying the board can’t keep asking the current AATA staff to take on more work. At some point, additional resources will be needed – either employees, or contractors. The board is aware of that, he said. It’s difficult to manage an operation as extensive as AATA, at a high level of quality, while at the same time asking staff to plan for an even larger organization down the road. He hoped that in the future, the transportation authority would have money to take on more work, but they needed to be flexible.

Saying she supported the contract, Sue McCormick had a question about the contract language. AATA appears to be entering into a contract that obligates funds not yet approved or allocated by the board, she noted. Typically, the contract would explicitly indicate that the funding is subject to the availability of funds, she said, so that AATA has the ability to terminate the contract if necessary. Dawn Gabay, AATA’s deputy CEO, told the board she’d make sure the contract includes such language.

Outcome: Board members voted unanimously to authorize the contract extension with Steer Davies Gleave.

After the vote, Bernstein thanked AATA staff for their “extraordinary” work on the project. Earlier in the meeting, he had also commended staff for the thoroughness and clarity of their staff memos that accompany board resolutions.

Countywide Transit Authority: Consulting Contract – Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout spoke during the time set aside for public commentary. She said she echoed Bernstein’s comments – the AATA’s staff is exceptional.

Armentrout reported that she had attended the most recent planning and development committee meeting, where she said there had been a vigorous discussion about the SDG contract. At the time, the actual proposal hadn’t been available for committee members to review, she noted. Was that made available later?

Rich Robben clarified that committee members had received a copy of the proposal after the meeting, and had been polled individually via email about it.

Based on discussion at the committee meeting, Armentrout said, she felt that the item would have been more controversial than it seemed to be at the board meeting. Robben replied that committee members had unanimously supported the proposal, and felt that their concerns would be addressed. Bernstein reiterated his concern that SDG include quality local input as the process moves forward, saying he wanted to be sure that happened.

Infrastructure Projects

In a series of unanimous votes on separate resolutions, the board authorized expenditures for a range of different infrastructure projects at the site of its headquarters on South Industrial Highway. Projects included an expansion of the bus storage facility, replacement of bus hoists, a blanket contract for concrete work, and detention pond and landscaping improvements.

Infrastructure Projects: Bus Storage Facility

On the agenda was a resolution to expand the bus storage facility at AATA’s headquarters on South Industrial Highway. The current facility was built in the 1980s, when AATA transported about half the number of people that it does today, according to a staff memo. It was designed to handle up to 100 vehicles, but is now at capacity at about 90, because buses now are longer and wider than in the ’80s.

Expanding the storage facility on the west side of the current building would allow for capacity of up to 120 of the larger buses. If operations were to expand into countywide services, this additional bus storage capacity would be needed, according to the staff memo.

The $2.4 million project will be financed using a combination of roughly $1 million in federal America Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds and $1.4 million in existing federal formula funds.

Infrastructure Projects: Bus Storage Facility – Board Discussion

Sue McCormick clarified the number of vehicles that this expansion would accommodate – 120. Terry Black, AATA’s maintenance manager, said the footprint of the current site allows for this additional expansion. However, if even more storage space is eventually required, AATA would need to build it at another location.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the bus storage facility project.

Infrastructure Projects: Bus Hoist Replacement

A resolution to award a $980,500 contract to Spence Brothers for replacement of bus hoists was considered by the AATA board. The project will be financed by a combination of existing grants and from federal formula funds. [.pdf of bus hoist resolution and staff memo]

The AATA headquarters on South Industrial Highway includes an area for maintenance of the bus fleet. There are 10 in-floor hydraulic bus lifts, including eight that are original to the building when it was constructed in 1983. The maintenance costs for those original eight hoists is around $50,000 per year, according to a staff report.

Infrastructure Projects: Bus Hoist Replacement – Board Discussion

Sue McCormick noted that the hoists allow mechanics to work under the bus. What mechanisms are in place to allow them safely to work on top of a bus? she asked. Terry Black, AATA’s maintenance manager, described an overhead cable system with harnesses that was installed about four years ago.

AATA board member Sue McCormick, who also is the city of Ann Arbor's public services area administrator.

In response to another question from McCormick, Black said that although the staff isn’t requesting an increase in the number of hoists, they are proposing a redesign that will improve efficiencies and reduce maintenance costs. For example, the wash bay will be redesigned so that hoists will lift buses from the side, not from below – that means the hoists won’t be flushed with contaminants during the wash cycle, which will reduce maintenance costs for the hoists. He also noted that the new design will accommodate articulated buses – longer buses that bend in the middle. This type of bus has been discussed as a possibility in expanded transit plans. Black said the staff is trying to anticipate possible longer-term changes.

McCormick wondered if AATA would have enough capacity with the same number of hoists, given that the possibility of expanded transit service is being considered. Black reported that there’s currently a fair amount of dead time when the hoists aren’t being used, and that the existing number of hoists could accommodate projected increases in use.

Jesse Bernstein noted that the hoists had a projected life span of 20 years – he was glad they were finally being replaced after 28 years.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved awarding Spence Brothers a $980,500 contract to replace AATA’s bus hoists.

Infrastructure Projects: Concrete Contract

A resolution on the July 19 agenda asked the board to award Doan Construction a “blanket” contract for concrete work for a period not to exceed 5 years, and for an amount not to exceed $250,000.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution describes the type of work that might be done, including shelter pads, bus stop waiting areas, curb cuts and driveway entrances. The memo states that AATA vehicles weigh as much as 18-20 tons, and that the weight causes pavement to deteriorate or crumble, requiring repair.

Outcome: Without discussion, board members unanimously approved awarding Doan Construction the “blanket” contract for concrete work.

Infrastructure Projects: Detention Pond & Landscaping

The board was asked to approve a $98,500 contract with Erie Construction for detention pond and landscaping improvements at AATA’s headquarters on South Industrial Highway.

The detention pond at AATA headquarters on South Industrial Highway, north of Eisenhower Boulevard.

The detention pond work will be financed through a combination of Federal Transit Authority funds and federal formula funds. According to a staff memo, the FTA requires that AATA apply 1% of the total capital funds it receives toward facility enhancements. The detention pond and landscaping improvements will enable AATA to meet that requirement.

The project will include removing the existing evergreen trees around the pond and replacing them with younger arbor vitae plants; re-sculpturing the pond banks; stabilizing the eroding banks; removing rocks that currently line the pond’s bank; putting in low-maintenance xeriscaping plantings around the pond; making improvements to the flagpole terrace and retaining wall; and installing low-maintenance “garden-style” plantings at the entrance to the building.

Infrastructure Projects: Detention Pond & Landscaping – Board Discussion

Sue McCormick asked whether the work would be done in accordance with current best practices regarding stormwater management. Terry Black, AATA’s maintenance manager, said it would.

Jesse Bernstein hoped the new plantings would be heat and drought resistant – a reference to this week’s blistering temperatures.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve a $98,500 contract with Erie Construction for detention pond and landscaping improvements.

Disadvantaged Business Policy

The board was asked to authorize a policy establishing a goal that 3.4% of U.S. Dept. of Transportation contracting opportunities be given to disadvantaged businesses in fiscal years 2012-2014. That status is designated for firms that have 51% ownership by an individual or individuals who are considered socially and economically disadvantaged – a category including women, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, and other minorities found to be disadvantaged by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

The U.S. DOT requires that entities receiving federal funds, like AATA, have a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. The program must include the kind of goals that the board approved. The AATA policy approved at the July 19 meeting specifies that of the 3.4%, 2% is to be achieved through “race conscious” methods and the remaining 1.4% through “race neutral” methods. [.pdf of DBE resolution and staff memo]

Disadvantaged Business Policy: Board Discussion

Jesse Bernstein began by asking for clarification of the terms “race neutral” and “race conscious.”

Ed Robertson, AATA’s human resources manager, explained that race neutral meant that bids didn’t take race into consideration – if a DBE firm happened to win the bid, that would count toward the race neutral goal. “Race conscious” means that a request for proposals (RFP) would stipulate that the bid must include a percentage of DBE participation. Robertson emphasized that these are goals, not quotas. If a contractor for a particular project can’t achieve the percentage goal cited in the RFP, the contractor must at least show evidence of a good faith effort to do so.

Sue McCormick wanted to know how this will influence the selection process. Robertson again stressed that these were goals, not quotas. If a contractor submits a bid and is qualified for the work, and also demonstrates participation by a DBE, then AATA has some leeway on the price structure, Robertson said.  That is, AATA wouldn’t have to award the contract to the lowest bidder, if a contractor with a higher bid can show that DBEs are participating in the work.

Roger Kerson observed that in the past few years, AATA hasn’t been meeting its DBE goals. What’s being done to improve that?

Robertson said that in the past few years, the AATA hasn’t undertaken federally funded projects that would be conducive for DBEs to bid on. Most of the projects using federal dollars have related to vehicle purchases, planning or maintenance, he said. But now, AATA is embarking on several construction projects that will likely be more accessible to DBEs, he said. In addition, the process of getting certified as a DBE is somewhat burdensome, Robertson said, especially for small businesses, which DBEs tend to be. AATA has taken the stand that they’ll continue to do business with firms that would qualify for DBE status, even if those firms aren’t officially certified as DBEs.

Dawn Gabay, AATA’s deputy CEO, told board members that AATA staff was working to increase DBE participation, in part by possibly partnering with the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.

Kerson asked for regular reports to the board about progress toward the DBE goals.

Sue McCormick wondered what the consequences would be if AATA didn’t meet these goals. If AATA can show a good faith effort toward reaching the goals, Robertson said, then there are no consequences if the goals aren’t achieved. However, if the organization can’t demonstrate that they’ve tried to attain the goals, then AATA’s federal funding would be jeopardized, he said.

Outcome: Board members unanimously approved the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise policy.

Present: Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson

Absent: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Anya Dale

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Aug. 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Act 196 of 1986 is a state statute that provides for creation of transit authorities that encompass wider geographic areas than just cities. It’s the legislation on which a countywide authority for Washtenaw County would likely be based. Under one proposal that has been presented by the AATA to various public bodies, a fully incorporated Act 196 board would have 15 members countywide, with seven of them coming from Ann Arbor.

The rationale for appointing only three members of the current AATA board to the U196 board is to avoid the possibility that the actions of four or more members of the AATA board (a quorum of its members) as a part of the U196 would be understood as the action of the AATA board.

The same resolution authorized the AATA’s CEO to use AATA resources to support an unincorporated Act 196 board. The language of the resolution differed in a subtle but significant way from a draft resolution considered but not voted on by the AATA board at a meeting held on June 3 in a retreat-style format at Weber’s Inn. The draft language from that meeting read “… the AATA Chief Executive Officer shall use the resources of the Authority as needed and as appropriate …” The version of the resolution approved by the board at its July 19 meeting read “… the AATA Chief Executive Officer shall use the resources of the Authority as budgeted by the AATA Board.”

Recent Chronicle coverage: “AATA Finalizes Transit Plan for Washtenaw”

This brief was filed shortly after the July 19 AATA board meeting, which took place at the AATA headquarters at 2700 South Industrial Highway. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, presents a possible board configuration for a countywide transit authority at the board's June 3 meeting at Weber's Inn. (Photos by the writer.)

On both occasions, a significant focus was the AATA’s countywide transit master plan. At the June 16 meeting, the board approved the final version of the first two volumes of the plan, which had previously been released in draft form. The two volumes cover a vision and an implementation strategy. A third volume, on funding options, is not yet complete.

The plan is the culmination of over a year of work by AATA staff and a consulting firm to perform a technical analysis and gather public input. The goal was to create a document to guide transit planning in the county over the next 30 years. The timing of the next step – beginning to translate a neatly formatted document into reality – will depend in part on a third volume of the plan, which has not yet been finalized. The third volume will describe options for how to fund expanded transit service in the county. Countywide transit funding will ultimately be tied to the governance structure of some entity to administer transit throughout Washtenaw County.

And governance is a topic that’s ultimately reflected in the actual wording of the resolution that the board adopted at its June 16 meeting on the transit master plan. The resolution authorizes transmittal of the documents not just to the public, but also to an unincorporated board, described as an “ad hoc committee” that will work to incorporate a formal transit authority under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. [AATA is currently incorporated under Act 55 of 1963.]

For the last few months, CEO Michael Ford’s regular monthly reports to the AATA board about his activities have included his efforts to meet with individuals and representatives of government units throughout the county to discuss participation in the governance of a countywide transportation authority. June continued that trend. So wrapped into this combined report of the AATA board’s last two meetings is a description of the June 2 visit that Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein made to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

At its June 3 retreat, the board also voted to shift some funding to the AATA staff’s work associated with the countywide transit master plan.

At its June 16 meeting, the board handled some business not specifically related to the transit master plan. The board adopted two policies that it has previously discussed: one on the rotation of auditors, and the other on a living wage for AATA vendors. They also received updates on the expansion of service to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health Center and to the Detroit Metro airport.

Progress on those two fronts led board member David Nacht to suggest that the kind of movement and progress the AATA was demonstrating, even without additional money that could come from a countywide funding source, showed that the agency’s future plans deserved support from the community.

Transit Master Plan (TMP)

At its June 3 meeting, the AATA board was asked to vote on a resolution endorsing Volumes 1 and 2 of its countywide transit master plan (TMP) as revised and amended. The plans had been previously released to the public at the board’s April 21, 2011 meeting.

A “whereas” clause in the board’s resolution provided some additional description of a transitional governance structure, which could lead to an eventual countywide authority established under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. The transitional structure would be “an interim and  ’unincorporated’ Act 196 Authority Board (‘U196 Board’) which will act as an ad hoc committee to establish an organizational framework and funding base for an expanded transit system, and to work toward formally creating and incorporating a new Act 196 Authority.”

According to the resolution before the board, both volumes of the TMP are to be transmitted to the U196 board “for further analysis, refinement, and definition.” [.pdf of "Volume I: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume II: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

Michael Benham, project coordinator for the AATA’s transit master plan, told The Chronicle before the meeting that not much, besides revised formatting, had changed between the version of the plan disseminated to the public two months ago and the final draft. But he pointed to one substantive alteration that was made to one of the appendices, which describes a set of short- and medium-term enhancements the AATA hopes to make to the existing bus system. Those enhancements essentially involve the routing and timing of buses, as opposed to the construction of massive new infrastructure like rails or extra roadway lanes just for buses.

Between the time of the  draft and the final version of that appendix, the strategy for serving the Washtenaw Community College campus and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital has been beefed up. The initial draft looked like this:

Draft of planned bus network service enhancements between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, including the Washtenaw Community College and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. Route 3 is depicted in red. (Image links to larger file)

Between the draft and the final version, the same section of the map was revised to look like this:

Final version of map in appendix of the AATA transit master plan. Route 3 is depicted in green. Route 7 and Route 48 (an Eastern Michigan University shuttle) shoulder part of the ridership volume in the Washtenaw Community College and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital area. (Image links to larger file)

Improvements in service that can be achieved in the shorter term – through route reconfiguration, increased frequency and extended hours of existing operations – are a theme that the AATA has tried to highlight through the transit master planning process. The idea is that existing service can be improved and additional services can be provided, before the establishment of a countywide authority.

During the June 16 meeting, the board heard from CEO Michael Ford, as part of his regular report, that the AATA would be extending its paratransit service to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health and Geriatrics Center starting July 1, 2011. Ford also told the board that the target date for beginning some kind of bus service to the airport – likely by partnering with another provider like Michigan Flyer – is Oct. 15, 2011. The AATA is sticking with that target, even though the AATA’s grant application for federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to support the airport service has been rejected.

In addition, the geographic boundaries for the Night Ride service have been extended out to Golfside Road.

News about service to the airport, the East Ann Arbor clinic and the Night Ride service led board member David Nacht to conclude that, “We’re making progress.” He ventured that the AATA was getting itself into a position where it could say to voters throughout the county, who may be asked to support a countywide authority with their tax dollars: Look what we’ve done without any additional funding – look at how we’re turning ourselves into a regional organization. We deserve some funding.

A comment from board chair Jesse Bernstein on the resolution that authorized dissemination of the final version of the TMP acknowledged that the next phase will be “very delicate.” He called the process so far “encouraging” in terms of communication with the community. The AATA will need to continue the values of open communication and discussion, he said.

Earlier in the meeting, Bernstein had responded to a criticism made during public commentary at a previous board meeting – that the AATA board did its work through committees, and did not do its work in the public eye – by laying out the structure of the board’s committees and how they work. The board has three committees: (1) performance monitoring and external relations (PMER); (2) planning and development (PDC); and (3) governance. The PMER committee is currently chaired by Charles Griffith; PDC is chaired by Rich Robben; the governance committee consists of the two committee chairs, plus Jesse Bernstein as chair of the board. Minutes of the PMER and the PDC are included in the board’s meeting packets, which are available to the public for download from the AATA website. The meetings themselves are also open to the public.

The unincorporated board of the new transit authority – called a “committee” and labeled “U196″ in the resolution – will be discussing how to incorporate the board and move forward, Bernstein said. The U196 will be making final recommendations, dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Bernstein said it is an exciting time to be on the board. He thanked the staff and those who have participated in the process so far and who will continue to participate.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve dissemination of the first two volumes of the transit master plan and to convey it to the U196 board.

At the June 16 meeting, both people who commented during public time at the conclusion of the meeting were supportive of the board’s action on the TMP. Thomas Partridge saluted the board’s work on the plan, but encouraged board members to start using creative strategies for enlisting public support to help make bus stops more accessible.

Carolyn Grawi, of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, echoed Partridge’s praise and also his suggestion about bus stop accessibility. She suggested that perhaps a visit to the Ann Arbor city council might be in order to address the intersection at Research Park Drive and Ellsworth, where Grawi has long advocated for a traffic signal. It would allow the AATA to run service in both directions in and out of Research Park Drive.

Countywide Governance

The resolution approved by the board at its June 16 meeting – which authorized dissemination of the transit master plan to the public and to the U196 board – was also considered by the board at its June 3 retreat. It was not approved at that meeting, mostly due to uncertainty about what that U196 board would actually be. To the eventually approved resolution, the following whereas clauses were added, to provide some general idea about the status of the U196 board:

WHEREAS, discussions have been held with locally elected officials within Washtenaw County for the purpose of establishing an organizational framework and funding base for such expanded transportation services, and

WHEREAS, those discussions are expected to result in the creation of an interim and   “unincorporated” Act 196 Authority Board (“u196 Board”) which will act as an ad hoc committee to establish an organizational framework and funding base for an expanded transit system, and to work toward formally creating and incorporating a new Act 196 Authority, therefore …

In broad strokes, Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986 enables the establishment of public transit authorities that include multiple jurisdictions in a single geographic area – cities, townships, villages – but has a provision for political subdivisions to opt out of inclusion in the transit authority.

Countywide Governance: Two Acts – Act 55 and Act 196

The AATA now operates under Act 55 of 1963. Current discussion has focused on the possibility of forming a countywide funding base through creating a public transit authority under Act 196 of 1986. [Previous Chronicle coverage lays out in detail some of the other technical differences between Michigan’s Act 55 (1963) and Act 196 (1986): "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit."]

One advantage to Act 196 (if any type of “fixed-guideway” system is envisioned) is that it allows for voters to approve the levy of a millage lasting up to 25 years for transit service that includes a fixed guideway. Vehicles that run on rails – street cars and commuter trains – are obvious examples, but bus rapid transit (BRT) is also a fixed guideway system. With a BRT operation, special reserved lanes and queue-jumping infrastructure at intersections allow buses to take priority over other traffic on the roadway, so that they have a fixed guideway within the roadway.

Another advantage of Act 196 is that it offers more administrative flexibility for the formation of a public transit authority. Act 55 enables cities to establish a transit authority. While it’s possible to subsume additional multiple jurisdictions in an existing Act 55 public transit authority, there is little flexibility for opting out.

For Act 196, a county counts as a political subdivision that can establish a public transit authority under the act. And that’s what the AATA would like Washtenaw County to do, if the county board of commissioners is willing to take that step. But there are other options for forming an Act 196 authority, which include the formation by an existing Act 55 authority, or by multiple political subdivisions who choose to band together under an intergovernmental agreement.

On any scenario for formation of an Act 196 public transit authority, the flexibility for inclusion or exclusion in that authority is one possible advantage of using Act 196 for expanded countywide service in Washtenaw County. An Act 196 authority allows for political subdivisions of the county that do not wish to participate in a public transit authority to opt out. And those political subdivisions can opt out without eliminating the opportunity for other political subdivisions to band together to provide public transit for their residents.

Countywide Governance: Third Act – Act 7

The initial indication is that Salem Township is not interested in participating in a public transit authority for Washtenaw County. In Michael Ford’s monthly written report to the board for June 2011, he notes:

In a disappointing development, Salem Township voted not to participate in the Northeast Group for the time being. However, we will not be deterred. We will revisit Salem when Northfield Township votes in July and continue to update them before the U196 board starts meeting.

The other members of the “Northeast Group” to which Ford’s memo refers include Northfield Township, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township.

On the scenario the AATA has sketched for eventual Act 196 authority board membership, the Northeast Group would have one of 15 seats on the Act 196 authority board. Of the four political subdivisions in the Northeast Group, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township have already struck an agreement made under Act 7 of 1967 – which establishes how interlocal governmental agreements are made. That agreement may, as Ford’s report indicates, be joined by Northfield Township in July.

Countywide Governance: Interim Unincorporated Board – U196

The Northeast Group is part of a possible governance structure for an Act 196 authority that the AATA has sketched out for the county. It blocks out the county into nine geographic sections corresponding to a total of 15 board seats. Seats would be assigned partly based on population, and partly on the funding used.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

The sketch envisions a scenario where Ann Arbor’s existing 2 mill tax would remain in place, in addition to whatever countywide millage might be enacted, and so assigns Ann Arbor seven board seats. Based purely on population in the county, Ann Arbor would receive one-third of the board seats – that is, only five.

Concerns about the proportionality of representation as well as the proportionality of benefit have been raised not just by those outside of Ann Arbor, but by Ann Arbor residents looking at a future countywide system from a broader point of view.

At the June 3 AATA board retreat, during public commentary Vivienne Armentrout told the AATA board she felt that if she were in an out-county area, she’d wonder about proportionality of funding compared to benefits. She asked: “Are we talking about massive investment in commuter rail?” Without having funding options on the table, it’s not clear what you’re asking people to buy into, she told them. [Armentrout is a former member of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.]

In the rest of the county, the reaction to AATA’s possible Act 196 board representation has also met with some skepticism and resistance. On a second visit to the Washtenaw County board by representatives of the AATA, the different perspectives – among commissioners representing Ann Arbor districts in the county and those representing other areas – were readily apparent.

Countywide Governance: Visit to Washtenaw County Board (June 2)

In April, staff from the AATA and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) had made a presentation at a working session of the county board of commissioners, giving details of tentative plans for the countywide transit system. Some commissioners raised concerns at the time, particularly related to a possible governance structure, which designated seven seats to Ann Arbor on a 15-member transit authority board. From The Chronicle’s report:

Commissioner Kristin Judge, whose district covers Pittsfield Township, protested the way board seats were assigned, saying it gave an unfair advantage to Ann Arbor. Commissioner Wes Prater, who represents southeast portions of the county, said he was “flabbergasted” that the governance plan had been developed so fully without consulting the county board, which under the current proposal would be asked to ratify the new transit authority’s board members. However, some individual commissioners were previously aware of the proposal, including board chair Conan Smith and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the board’s working session. Both Smith and Rabhi represent Ann Arbor districts.

The topic was taken up again at a June 2 county board working session, which included a presentation to county commissioners by AATA CEO Michael Ford. Ford and Jesse Bernstein, chair of the AATA board, also fielded questions about the proposal, covering a range of topics – from the number of seats on a governing board to whether Ann Arbor residents would continue to pay their current transit millage.

After Ford’s presentation, Dan Smith kicked off the discussion by noting that at their retreat earlier this year, commissioners had talked in general about the county government taking a leadership role in coordinating countywide initiatives. He clarified that at this point, the governance structure is just a proposal, and might be changed in the future. Ford confirmed that this is the case, saying it would ultimately be up to local governments as to how they form a transit authority’s governance. AATA is just trying to facilitate the discussion, he said.

Rob Turner wondered what the county’s role would be. Is it necessary for the county to incorporate the authority, as the proposal calls for? No, Ford said – but that would be the easiest way to handle it, rather than having multiple units of government file for incorporation separately.

Turner asked what additional role the county would play. That’s up to commissioners and the county administration, Ford said. If the county wants to take on additional responsibility, it’s possible to explore that, he added – possibly some kind of liaison role would be an option.

Turner then asked how the proposed governance would be affected if a smaller group of communities wants to form an Act 7 partnership. For example, right now the proposal calls for an Act 7 formed from jurisdictions on the entire west side of the county – including eight townships, Chelsea and Manchester. What if only a portion of those entities wanted to form an Act 7? Turner asked. How would that affect the transit authority’s governance structure?

Ford said they hadn’t faced that issue yet. All of the local governments had indicated agreement with the proposed plan and its geographic breakdown, he said. If that changes, he added, adjustments would be made. [Later in the month, Salem Township's board voted not to participate, though AATA still hopes they'll eventually join the authority.]

Finally, Turner clarified that if a local entity doesn’t opt out within a 30-day period after the vote to incorporate as an Act 196 authority, they’d be joining for five years. That’s true, Ford said – it’s specified in Act 196.

Wes Prater asked why AATA couldn’t incorporate under Act 196, rather than the county. That would be an option, Ford said. Prater expressed concern that the county would seem to be accepting liability and responsibility for the transit authority, but wouldn’t have any power over it – as proposed, no county representative would have a seat on the authority’s board, for example. It didn’t seem like the transit authority would answer to any elected body, Prater said.

Prater also objected – as he has in the past – to the way that seats on the transit authority board would be assigned. It’s not a one-person, one-vote structure, based on population, he noted. Rather, Ann Arbor would get seven of the 15 seats, even though the city’s population represents a third of the county. The remaining eight board members would be representing two-thirds of the county’s population. ”That doesn’t add up to the one person, one vote in my mind,” Prater said.

Ford noted that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would bring assets (buses, bus stops, and buildings, for example) to the new entity – and that both cities already have dedicated transit millages. He said AATA’s attorney had reviewed the proposal, and that they’re confident that the way they’re proceeding is sound.

Prater wanted the county to have its attorney check the proposal as well. If it approved the Act 196 incorporation, the county board would be authorizing an entity that in turn could put a tax levy on the ballot, he said. The governance proposal really bothers him, Prater said.

Bernstein said Prater had raised some core questions that will have to be answered. The board of the unincorporated Act 196 entity will be the people who decide how the transit authority will be governed, he added – it isn’t set in stone. The issue of how many representatives from Ann Arbor serve on the unincorporated board is wide open, he said.

The AATA is suggesting this as a point to start the discussion, Bernstein told commissioners, but there’s plenty of room for modifications and adjustments. They’re not ready to propose something definitive.

Prater again cited concerns over creating a transit authority that doesn’t report to any government entity. He said he’s very cautious about supporting an authority that might put a countywide tax on the ballot. Prater expressed support for the model used in Grand Rapids, in which a smaller number of jurisdictions form the transit authority. He guessed that most areas in Washtenaw County, outside of the urban areas, don’t have the population to support a countywide transit system.

Bernstein reported that in talking with people in the county’s rural townships, they are concerned over the ability of residents to age in place – that is, to continue to live in their homes, even if they can no longer drive. Elected officials in those areas, he said, want transit services for residents to get to their medical care, for example.

The other issue is land use, Bernstein said. Townships don’t want dense developments in their communities – they’d rather see transit corridors, he said, so that their tax base can grow while they preserve farmland and open space at the same time.

Bernstein said it’s true that there’s not yet a funding plan, though organizers assume it will be a millage of some sort. There’s still a long way to go, he said.

Prater noted that five townships and two cities account for about 75% of the population in this county – those are areas where he supports public transportation. [He was referring to the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Scio, Superior, Pittsfield and Augusta.] Prater said he’s not convinced that the approach being pursued is the right one, adding that he’s very critical of it. If the governance isn’t fair, the initiative is already in trouble, he said.

Leah Gunn clarified that each jurisdiction involved in the transit authority would vote separately on a transit tax. She noted that Ann Arbor residents have been paying 2 mills for transit for many years – it was voted in as a permanent millage in the 1970s, and funds the AATA. Will that millage be retained, even if there’s an additional millage?

That’s one of the suggestions, Bernstein said, adding that he’s open to whatever makes sense. Some have said that every jurisdiction should pay the same amount. All of these things are decisions that need to be made. ”I have no idea what that [funding mechanism] is going to look like,” he said.

Gunn said she feels strongly that Ann Arbor should keep its 2-mill transit tax. She elicited from Ford that Ann Arbor has invested nearly $180 million in its transit system over the years. In addition, they’ve leveraged those dollars for millions more in federal funding, she noted. Ann Arbor has been very generous, she said – without that investment, AATA wouldn’t be able to provide transit services to other communities, like Ypsilanti.

Yousef Rabhi clarified that whatever future millage might be voted on would be on the ballot only in jurisdictions that wanted to be part of the new transit authority – it wouldn’t necessarily be countywide. He also pointed out that based on having one-third of the county’s population, Ann Arbor would be entitled to five seats in a 15-member transit authority board. But if the city also contributed an additional 2 mills in funding, that could justify an additional two seats on the board, he said.

Rabhi said he’d like to keep the 2-mill transit tax, noting that he uses the AATA bus system frequently. With a larger system, it’s an opportunity for more routes, more services – more of a good thing, he said.

Ronnie Peterson weighed in, telling Ford and Bernstein that a countywide system has been a long time coming. He had urged AATA’s previous two CEOs to take on this project, but they hadn’t, he said. He wished it had been undertaken when the economy was better. “Keep your foot to the pedal,” he told them.

Peterson urged Ford to bring communities to the table that already buy transit services from AATA, like Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – communities which Peterson represents on the county board. That should happen even before a formal entity is created, he said.

Bernstein concluded the discussion by noting that the next major step will be to pull together representatives into an unincorporated entity, and to develop articles of incorporation for an Act 196. Meanwhile, AATA will continue to operate its current system, he said, and they’ll work to get answers to the questions that commissioners have raised. Where they wind up must be inclusive of everyone who wants to participate, Bernstein added – they won’t return to the county board until everything is in order.

Countywide Governance: Funding, TMP Volume 3, U196

One next step is the actual creation of the U196 board, now described as an “ad hoc committee.” The membership on the U196 board is not proposed by the AATA to be the same as the eventual Act 196 authority board. In fact, at the June 3 board meeting was a resolution that would have authorized the chair of the AATA board, Jesse Bernstein, to appoint three members of the current AATA board to serve on the U196, not all seven board members.

The board did not vote on the resolution, but did discuss it long enough to establish the rationale behind not appointing more than three: Action by the U196 board should not be construable as actions of the AATA board. [Four members would constitute a quorum of AATA board members.] Bernstein was keen to emphasize that the U196 board would be open, welcoming and transparent to all.

Another next step for the AATA is to complete Volume 3 of the transit master plan, which would focus on funding options. Existing funding options include fares, advertising (on vehicles), state and federal grants, and property taxes if approved by voters. Possible future funding options identified by the AATA include local vehicle taxes, gas taxes or sales taxes. Those would require state-level legislative action.

A resolution that was before the board, but was not voted on, at the June 3 meeting was one that would release “Volume 3 – Funding Options Report” to a “panel of financial and public funding experts, to review, refine and adjust the document” before it is forwarded to the U196 board.

To take the next steps will also require more funding for planning – though not on the same scale as for the future transit system. Before the board at its June 3 meeting was a resolution that decreased the budget for AATA administrative salaries and benefits by a total of $200,000 and made a corresponding increase in line items supporting the effort of transportation master planning – for agency design fees, consulting fees, printing and production and media.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the budget change to support additional planning work.

Regular Business (June 16): Living Wage Policy

At its June 16 meeting, the board considered a living wage policy that is roughly parallel to the living wage policy expressed in the city of Ann Arbor’s city code. It applies to the wages paid by AATA contractors to their employees. The AATA living wage policy would apply to contractors who have a contract worth more than $10,000 per year and employ or contract with more than five people. It would apply to nonprofit contractors only if they employ or contract with 20 or more people.

The minimum wage to be paid to their employees by AATA contractors would be at the same level stipulated by the city of Ann Arbor. In May 2011, the city ordinance on the city’s living wage – keyed to poverty guidelines – required that the wage be nudged upward. The new wage is set at $11.83/hour for those employers providing health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not providing health insurance. That’s an increase from previous levels, which have remained flat at $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t offer health insurance.

The AATA board had initiated the process of setting a living wage policy at its Dec. 16, 2010 meeting, when it passed a resolution directing staff to explore that policy. The context for that resolution was a janitorial contract for the Blake Transit Center. Board member Rich Robben had expressed concern that a vendor might be achieving an extraordinarily low bid by paying its workers substandard wages.

During the brief deliberations by the board, David Nacht characterized the policy as reflective of community values, but still sensitive to very small employers. It shows the AATA doesn’t believe in slave labor or undervalued labor, he said.

Sue McCormick clarified what in cases where the AATA has current contracts in place, they’ll continue as they are. But she gave the example of the auditor, where there’s an annual contract renewable each of five years. On renewal each year, the living wage policy would apply.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the living wage policy.

Regular Business (June 16): Auditor Rotation Policy

Also at its June 16 meeting, the board considered a new auditor rotation policy. The policy would entail that the AATA not use the same auditor for longer than two four-year terms – a total of eight years.

Sue McCormick, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, was the board member who originally suggested looking into the issue of implementing an auditor rotation policy. She had raised the issue at the board’s Sept. 16, 2010 meeting, when board members approved a contract with Rehman as its auditor, but only for one year.

Among the risks cited by the AATA in adopting the rotation policy were the potential for needing to hire an auditor with less experience, who would produce a lower quality of work, and the potential that competitive bidding would be restrained. Among the benefits cited by the AATA in adopting the rotation policy were independence, a fresh approach, and lower cost.

At the board’s May 19 meeting, Charles Griffith, chair of the board’s performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee, had indicated to his colleagues that the policy would need to come before the board at its June meeting so that there would be time to issue a request for proposals in time for next year’s audit.

In reporting out from PMER at the June 16 meeting, Griffith said the idea of limiting an auditor to eight years of service had received McCormick’s blessing.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the auditor rotation policy.

Next Board Meeting: Hoists

Although the board does not have a July meeting scheduled, CEO Michael Ford indicated that he would likely ask them to meet that month, in order to approve some capital improvements to the AATA maintenance facility – bus hoists, used to lift buses so that mechanics can work underneath them. A possible date floated at the June 16 meeting was Monday, July 18.

Present (June 3, 2011) : Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Present (June 16, 2011) : Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale. Absent: Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting (tentative): Monday, July 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

On Thursday, staff of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) presented a possible transit authority board structure that would administer a countywide system. The proposed board would include 15 members, seven of them from Ann Arbor. [.pdf of proposed board seats] The assumption underpinning such a structure is that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would keep their current transportation millages, in addition to whatever countywide transit millage might be approved by county voters to fund an expanded transportation system. Before any countywide transportation millage would be put on the ballot, a countywide governance structure would first need to be established. It’s the countywide transportation authority board – likely to be incorporated under the state’s Act 196 – that would then place a countywide millage on the ballot.

Commissioner Wes Prater expressed serious reservations about the governance plan, and was “flabbergasted” that it had been developed to such an extent without input from the county board. One possible approach to creating a countywide transit authority would require the county board to ratify membership of a transit authority board, though the county would not be responsible for funding it or for putting a transit millage on the ballot. Commissioner Kristin Judge was concerned about putting too much of a financial burden on residents.

Terri Blackmore, WATS executive director, stressed that the plans were still in the early development stage and they were seeking feedback from elected officials in communities across the county. Another work session for county commissioners is scheduled on the topic on June 2.

This brief was filed soon after adjournment from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

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]

Jeff Ammons, a Grand Rapids area attorney who's been consulting for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, explains legal options for establishing an entity that could expand the geographic reach of AATA service. Millage options use the metaphor of "donut" (upper left) and "layer cake" (middle right). (Photo by the writer.)

The meeting of the full board, with their five guests, came on the heels of a planning and development committee meeting. At that committee meeting Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, gave highlights from a recently completed survey of Washtenaw County voters on their attitudes towards a possible countywide transportation tax.

Those who said they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes on a 1 mill countywide millage eked out a 51% majority countywide.

However, Bob Foy, general manager of Flint’s Mass Transit Authority, repeatedly reminded the full board at their meeting: To get a millage passed, you need a product you can sell. In Flint, which is a countywide authority, Foy reported that the last millage was approved with 68% of the vote.

What the expanded transportation product might look like for Washtenaw County is not yet clear. At the planning and development meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that AATA would be bringing in a consultant to address that issue.

The message sent at the board meeting by the two consulting attorneys – Jerry Lax and Jeff Ammons – was that there’s a difference between (i) deciding on the legal authority to be formed, and (ii) deciding on the desired service that AATA wanted to offer. When the board knew what countywide service it wanted to provide and how it wanted to fund that service, they said, at that point it would make sense to decide on the legal mechanism for establishing an expanded authority.

That authority could be established legally under either of the state’s enabling acts: Act 55 or Act 196.

Conversation about possible expansion to countywide service has been a part of AATA board discussions for at least a year. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Plans for Countywide System" and "AATA Adopts Vision: Countywide Service"]

Act 55 versus Act 196

Jerry Lax, a former Ann Arbor city attorney and the current Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority legal counsel, and Jeff Ammons, an attorney out of Grand Rapids, laid out some of the technical differences between Michigan’s Act 55 (1963) and Act 196 (1986).

Length of Millage

One of those differences relates to the allowed duration of the millages. For an authority that provides regular bus service, both acts allow for a levy of a maximum of 5 mills, for a maximum of 5 years. Where Act 196 is more flexible is for transit service that includes a “fixed guideway.”

Vehicles that run on rails – street cars and commuter trains – are obvious examples, but bus rapid transit (BRT) is also a “fixed guideway” system. With a BRT operation, special reserved lanes and queue-jumping infrastructure at intersections allow buses to take priority over other traffic on the roadway, so that they have a “fixed guideway” within the roadway.

Act 196 allows a millage to be approved by voters for up to 25 years if it includes a fixed guideway project:

Taxes may be levied at a rate and for a period of not more than 25 years as determined by the public authority in the resolution calling the election and as set forth in the proposition submitted to the electors if the public authority seeking the levy is seeking the levy for public transit services that include a fixed guideway project authorized under 49 USC 5309.

[What is not entirely clear is how the current transportation millage levied by the city of Ann Arbor is consistent with the AATA Act 55 organization. Ann Arbor's millage has no end date, but Act 55 imposes a limit of 5 years.]

Political Subdivisions, Service Outside Area

Other differences relate to the political entities mentioned in the acts. Act 55, passed in 1963, was conceived as a way for cities to form transportation authorities:

From Act 55: Sec. 2. (1) The legislative body of any city having a population of not more than 300,000 may incorporate a public authority for the purpose of acquiring, owning, operating, or causing to be operated, a mass transportation system.

Act 196, passed in 1986, recognized that it’s not just cities that might want to form a transportation authority [emphasis added]:

From Act 196: Political subdivision means a county, city, village, or township.

Further, Act 196 provides the explicit provision for political subdivisions to band together to form an authority, and provides the added flexibility that parts of those political subdivisions, except for counties, may be designated as belonging to the area of the transportation authority:

A city, village, or township forming a public authority by itself or in combination with 1 or more other political subdivisions may provide that only a portion of the city, village, or township shall become part of the public authority. The portion of the city, village, or township to become part of the public authority shall be bounded by precinct lines drawn for election purposes.

Act 196 also lays out explicitly how transportation service to areas outside the boundaries of the authority can be provided – there’s no geographic limit to where service can be provided. Under Act 55, it’s not impossible to achieve service outside the area of the authority – the AATA does this through purchase of service agreements (POSAs).

Opting Out of the Authority

In describing how Flint’s MTA had achieved a countywide authority, Bob Foy said they went to the county board and asked them to join the existing Act 55 authority. There was a champion for the cause on the board who enjoyed the respect of other board members, and was able to achieve a unanimous vote to join the authority, making it a countywide entity.

One advantage to that approach, Foy said, was that once the county is on board, “you have everybody.” That is, a township within the county could not, under Act 55, opt out of membership in the transportation authority once the county was a member.

Foy stressed that this was not the same as getting a millage passed countywide or providing service countywide. It just meant that you had the opportunity to go to all the voters of the county and ask them to pass a millage to support the service you wanted to provide.

In contrast to Act 55, a recent amendment to Act 196 gives any political subdivisions that get included in an Act 196 transportation authority the opportunity to opt out:

(7) An authority that forms under this act on or after May 1, 2006 shall notify all political subdivisions or portions of any city, village, or township that are included in the authority that the political subdivision or portion of the political subdivision is included in the authority. The authority shall include in this notification notice of the right to withdraw from the authority under this section. The political subdivision or portion of the political subdivision that is notified has 30 days after receiving the notification to withdraw from the authority pursuant to subsection (5).

Taking the AATA and the city of Ypsilanti as an example, if the Washtenaw County board of commissioners were to vote to join the AATA under its existing Act 55 authority, the city of Ypsilanti (among others) would be included in that Act 55 authority. Any millage levied – in the city of Ypsilanti and across the county – would need to be approved by county voters. So Ypsilanti would have no choice about being in the authority, but voters would have a choice at the polls about whether to approve the associated millage. It’s possible to wind up with a countywide authority, but no funding source.

On the other hand, if the AATA first formed an Act 196 authority, and then the Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted to join the AATA under that new Act 196 authority, then the city of Ypsilanti (among others) would have to be property notified that it had been included, and would have 30 days to withdraw if it so chose. Withdrawing would mean that Ypsilanti voters would not be included in any ballot question on a millage related to that authority – because they wouldn’t be living within the area of the authority.

Technical Paths to Countywide Service

Attorneys Jerry Lax and Jeff Ammons laid out at least three different funding options for expanding AATA service.

Piecemeal Service Contracts

On this scenario, the geographic area of the legal authority would not change – it would remain the city of Ann Arbor. To add service to more areas of the county, the AATA would add contracts with individual municipalities, much as it does now. Into the mix was also thrown the possibility of contracting with Washtenaw County for service coverage in areas that did not otherwise have a contract with the AATA.

This approach illustrates that the service coverage area need not necessarily be the same as the geographic area defining a transit authority.

A contract-by-contract model could be pursued under Act 55, without changing the AATA to an Act 196 authority. However, the recommendation from the two attorneys was to convert AATA to an Act 196 authority. Conversion to an Act 196 authority provides the advantage that transit topics are laid out in more detail to provide explicit guidance, there’s not a geographic limit on service, and there’s a possibility of a millage lasting up to 25 years if it’s used to pay for some kind of rail or bus rapid transit system.

Those advantages would put the AATA in a better position to lead future countywide transit efforts.

The County Forms an Act 196 Authority  (Layer Cake Millage)

A second option presented to the board for funding expanded transit service was for two transit authorities to exist simultaneously. The second authority would be established by the county under Act 196. The resulting geographic area from which this Act 196 authority would potentially draw a millage would be the entire county – minus any municipalities that chose to withdraw within 30 days of being notified that they’d been included in an Act 196 transit authority.

Voters in the geographic area of the new Act 196 authority – the county minus possibly some subset of the county – would then have to approve any millage that might be levied.

Assuming the city of Ann Arbor did not exercise its right to withdraw from the Act 196 authority formed by the county, and assuming that voters in the county’s Act 196 area approved a millage, then Ann Arbor voters would pay two millages – one mandated in the city charter, and the other to the new Act 196 authority.

This is what Jeff Ammons called a “layer cake” approach – a countywide millage would be layered on top of the Ann Arbor city millage.

With two transit authorities, a natural question is: Which transit authority actually owns the buses and operates the service? On the scenario sketched out at the board meeting, the county’s new Act 196 authority would exist primarily as a funding mechanism. In exchange for agreed-upon levels of service, the county’s Act 196 authority would turn over its millage money to the AATA, which would continue to operate the service.

Bill Schomisch, who’s head of Kalamazoo Metro Transit and who attended the special AATA board meeting to share the Kalamazoo experience, described how Kalamazoo is a “layer cake” model, with the other transit authority existing as a funding mechanism for the KMT. Schomisch also told a cautionary tale about what happens if the millage fails to be renewed – they’d finally succeeded in getting a millage passed in May of 2009, but they had to operate for one year on reserves.

The County Forms an Act 196 Authority (Donut Millage)

This scenario begins the same way as the “layer cake” approach – the county would form an Act 196 authority. But on this path, the city of Ann Arbor would exercise its statutory option to withdraw from the authority within 30 days. With respect to a potential millage source, that would leave the area around Ann Arbor as the “donut” to the “hole” left by Ann Arbor.

The existing AATA would then provide transit service in areas outside of the “hole” by contracting with the Act 196 authority.

Peter Varga, CEO of The Rapid, the Grand Rapids’ transit system, which includes six cities as part of an Act 196 authority, described the funding for their system in this way: the “hole” has contracts with the “donut.” [Varga joined the meeting by phone.]

Comparing the “layer cake” to the “donut,” one difference is that for a given amount of revenue needed from the new Act 196 authority, the millage rate would need to be higher on the “donut” approach, because Ann Arbor’s property tax base would be left out of the equation.

Public Comment, Politics and a Morsel of Analysis

During time for audience comment, Nick Sapkiewicz of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) asked a question of the guests that spoke to some of the diplomatic and political efforts that would be necessary for countywide expansion: How do you determine representation on new transit authority boards?

Foy reported that for Flint’s MTA, the county’s board of commissioners appointed five positions, the city appointed five positions and one was appointed by the “education community.” Varga described how the city of Grand Rapids appointed five board members, with the other six cities in the authority appointing two each. Varga said that at one point, three of the six mayors served on the board.

At the conclusion of the AATA special board meeting, questions and comments were entertained from the audience. (Photo by the writer.)

From the audience also came a question about balancing the service needs of different communities when it came to funding through contracts: How do you determine what level of service to offer, compared to a community’s ability to pay? The implicit background to the question was the ongoing challenge the city of Ypsilanti has faced in paying the full amount of the service contract it has with the AATA.  Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber and councilmember Peter Murdock attended the special meeting on Tuesday, with Schreiber offering his encouragement to the board to go down a path to countywide funding and service. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Buses for Ypsi and a Budget for AATA"]

From Grand Rapids’ Varga came the reply that even low density areas should get good service. And from Foy came the explanation that what they looked at in evaluating service levels was not miles driven or number of routes, but rather the question of whether they were meeting the needs of their riders.

Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, elicited from Schomisch the fact that advocates for disability (Friends of Transit) had helped pass the millage in Kalamazoo.

Jim Mogensen cautioned that while some of the advice was along the lines of there being several different legal mechanisms for doing things, the lesson from the guests and the AATA’s own experience was: “History matters. When it happens and why it happens matters.” He remarked that every system seemed to be cobbled together.  The cobbling together in the AATA’s case, he said, involved purchase-of-service contracts that seemed like a mechanism to lay claim to a local match for federal funding.

Mogensen often comments at AATA board meetings on the theme of contrasting interests: commuters versus residents. Transit service designed primarily to serve basic transportation needs of residents who use the system to get around could look much different from a system designed primarily to get people to their jobs.

Whether an expanded system looks more like a commuter system or more like a basic transportation system could factor into whether there’s support for membership by municipalities in a countywide Act 196 authority. And it could factor into the level of support for a millage in different areas of the county.

A system that featured connections between urban areas in the county would likely appeal to commuters, while a service that included door-to-door service for outlying county areas might look attractive to out-county dwellers.

As described by Flint MTA’s Foy, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. The MTA provides something Foy called “through-the-door” service – a driver of a van will come into a rider’s dwelling to provide assistance with putting on coats and galoshes for those who would like it. The MTA also provides commuter service to the Delphi plant in Troy.

Like the Flint MTA, the AATA currently offers paratransit services through its A-Ride program, and is currently piloting commuter express buses between Chelsea and Ann Arbor, and Clinton and Ann Arbor. Ridership on those commuter bus pilots has not met expectations.

Chris White, AATA's service development manager, highlights survey results for the planning and development committee. To White's right is AATA controller, Phil Webb. (Photo by the writer.)

At the planning and development committee meeting that immediately preceded the full board meeting, board member Sue McCormick focused on the geographic distribution of millage support measured by the survey that Chris White had reported out.

Groups of 235 respondents had been selected in four different mutually exclusive areas: Ann Arbor, non-Ann Arbor urbanized areas, western townships, and eastern townships.  The support for a possible countywide millage was strongest in Ann Arbor, followed by other urbanized areas, then western townships and eastern townships.

If western and eastern townships opted out of an Act 196 organization formed by the county, then the survey results indicate that chances of passing a transportation millage would increase. That would need to be balanced against the diminished millage revenue that their inclusion would otherwise bring.

What the survey revealed most clearly, said White, was that the state of the overall economy would be the major factor affecting possible millage support. When people feel like the future is uncertain, they’re less likely to support an additional millage, no matter what it’s for.

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

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