Amtrak train pulling away (despite appearances) from the Ann Arbor station on Jan. 25, 2012. Later that same day, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses converging on downtown Ann Arbor's Blake Transit Center. (Photos by the writer.)

The Chronicle is taking the pause between council meetings as an opportunity to offer readers a look at Ann Arbor’s current bus system ridership numbers over the last several years.

Part of a 30-year transit vision developed by the AATA includes the relocation of the Amtrak station – from Depot Street to a spot in the city’s Fuller Park. The proposed city/University of Michigan collaboration on the Fuller Road Station includes a large parking structure for the UM medical complex as its first phase. So we’re also taking a look at current ridership data on the Amtrak line through Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor’s regular fixed route bus system provided 5.95 million rides for fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, 2011. That’s slightly better than the previous year, but was slightly off the record high year of 6.02 million rides delivered in FY 2009. The first three months of the 2012 fiscal year – October, November and December 2011 – show slight increases over the monthly numbers for FY 2011.

Of those 5.95 million rides provided by AATA in FY 2011, 2.43 million of them (41%) were provided through the University of Michigan MRide program – which allows faculty, students and staff of the university to board AATA buses without paying a fare. The cost for the service is paid by UM to the AATA. It was a record-setting year for the MRide program.

Also making up a portion of those 5.95 million rides were trips taken by holders of the getDowntown go!pass program, which allows downtown Ann Arbor employers to provide free bus passes for their employees for a nominal cost – the cost of the rides is funded through a grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

In FY 2011, 634,000 rides were provided under the go!pass program – a 23% increase over FY 2010, adding to the trend of monotonically increasing numbers of go!pass rides over the last decade. The first three months of FY 2012 don’t show the same kind of double-digit increases for go!pass use as FY 2011 – they’re tracking roughly the same as last year.

The number of riders getting on and off the Amtrak trains that passed through Ann Arbor during the 2011 calendar year was 141,522. That figure tracked close to the same level of activity the station has seen since 2006 – from 140,000 to 145,000 riders. Through May 2011, Amtrak was on pace to eclipse the record number of riders in 2010 (145,040). But starting in July 2011, ridership was lower in every month (compared to 2010) through the end of the year.

Charts and graphs by The Chronicle – as well as more detailed breakdowns – are provided after the break.

Overall Ridership on AATA Buses

AATA operates on a fiscal year that runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The data provided by the AATA to The Chronicle is organized based on that time period.

Figure 1. Total AATA Fixed Route Ridership by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 2. Ridership on AATA Fixed Route by Month 2004-2011 (Image links to larger file)

Fiscal year 2006 was the first year that AATA ridership crossed the 5 million-ride threshold on its regular fixed route service. By 2008, ridership was just under 6 million and actually nudged past 6 million in 2009. Ridership has remained relatively level over the four years from 2008 to 2011. In 2010, there was a dip of about a quarter million rides, but in FY 2011, the most recent full fiscal year, the number was again just shy of 6 million at 5,954,569. [See Figure 1.]

Figure 2 includes the ridership trend through the first three months of FY 2012 – October through December of 2011. Comparing the dark red line (FY 2012) with the heavy black line (FY 2011) shows an increase in each month of about 30,000 rides.

UM Ridership on AATA Buses

About 40% of rides on the AATA regular bus system are taken by University of Michigan students, faculty and staff under the MRide program. The program is commonly described as one that allows UM affiliates to “ride for free,” which is a chafing point for AATA public relations staff. The program does allow UM affiliates to board AATA buses without paying a fare. But the cost of the rides is intended to be compensated through payments UM makes to the AATA under the MRide contract.

The first MRide agreement was for a five-year period from Aug. 1, 2004 to July 31, 2009. When negotiations between UM and the AATA did not produce a new five-year agreement by July 31, 2009, the two organizations agreed to a one‐year extension of the original agreement for the period from Aug. 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010. Under that arrangement, UM paid AATA a total $1,987,642 to cover the cost of UM affiliate rides.

Then at its Sept. 16, 2011 meeting, the AATA board ratified a new five-year deal from 2010-2015. One difference between the previous agreement and the one that the board considered and approved at the Sept. 16 meeting is that the new arrangement makes explicit a per-boarding amount to be paid by UM. In the previous arrangement, UM agreed to pay a lump sum for the boardings, with additional money contributed through a federal grant for which UM is eligible.

While the federal grant is still a component of the new MRide arrangement, the boarding payment is now explicitly tied to the number of rides taken by UM riders. The current agreement is for UM to pay AATA $1 per ride. The regular fare for AATA buses is $1.50. The MRide rate is based on the cost per ride paid by holders of a 30-day pass, which costs $58. The previous arrangement had worked out to around $0.80 per ride, though it was not defined that way in the contract.

Although early in the MRide negotiations there was some consideration given to UM charging a partial cost of rides directly to its riders through the new swipeable fare box technology recently installed in AATA buses, that possibility was quickly taken off the table.

The count of UM riders is achieved by UM riders swiping their MCards through the AATA fareboxes. However, the usage data is provided to UM, and AATA does not have access to statistics on who is riding the buses – faculty, staff, or students. That information can be analyzed by UM, however.

Figure 3. UM Ridership on AATA Buses by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 4. UM Ridership on AATA Buses by Month (Image links to larger file)

By 2008, ridership in the MRide program had more or less stabilized at around 2.3 million rides per year. In the most recent year – FY 2011 – the program had 2.4 million rides [see Figure 3]. The monthly trend for the first three months of FY 2012 shows an increase in MRide program ridership in each month, compared to FY 2011 [see Figure 4]. In December 2011, that increase was only about 10,000 rides, compared to almost 20,000 more rides in January and February. December is a typical trough for MRide ridership numbers, which show seasonal variation tied to the academic calendar.

go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses

Another bus pass program accounts for about 10% of AATA regular bus ridership – getDowntown’s go!pass program. Under the program, downtown Ann Arbor employers can purchase bus passes for their employees at $10 apiece. Participating employers must purchase passes for all their employees. The passes are good for unlimited rides on AATA buses.

The cost of the rides has historically been carried by payments from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority out of its parking fund. At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA board authorized a three-year grant to fund the go!pass program – $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013.

In the past, the AATA has adjusted the charge to match actual ridership – which means that the amount of the DDA grants would likely need to increase as well, if that policy continued. However, a financial crunch at the DDA led the AATA to modify the amount it charges for rides taken under the go!pass program. At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the AATA board voted to set the charges at the same amount for which the DDA had provided grants.

Figure 5. go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 6. go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses by Month (Image links to larger file)

Figure 5 shows that the number of rides taken with the go!pass has increased steadily since 2004. That’s partly due to the steadily increasing number of go!passes in circulation. From FY 2010 to FY 2011, the number of passes sold jumped about 10% – from 6,537 to 7,226.

Ridership was up 23% in FY 2011 compared to FY 2010. It’s conceivable that some of the increase could be attributable to a change in the way go!pass ridership data is collected. It’s now collected with swipeable cards that pass holders run through the fare box, instead of depending on a driver’s manual button press. That change started on Nov. 1, 2010.

On the theory that fewer undercounting errors might be associated with a swipeable card system, some increase in the number of rides might be expected due purely to the change in data collection. However, in FY 2008, the program also had a ridership increase that outpaced the increase in passes sold – a 20% increase in ridership with a 5% increase in go!pass circulation. There was no change in data collection method at that time. In addition, there does not seem to be a similar bump in MRide ridership associated with the same change in data collection method, implemented in 2009.

Through the first three months of FY 2012, ridership on the go!pass program is tracking fairly close to FY 2011 [see Figure 6].

Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership

Ann Arbor is one of the stations on Amtrak’s Wolverine Line, which runs from Pontiac through Detroit to Chicago. Amtrak ridership data is provided online by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Service is three times a day in each direction, for a total of six train stops a day. The schedule, westbound and eastbound is: 7:48 a.m. WB, 12:29 p.m. WB, 1:04 p.m. EB, 5:45 p.m. EB, 7:17 p.m. WB, 11:32 p.m. EB.

Figure 7. Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 8. Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership by Month (Image links to larger file)

In the early part of the 2000s, ridership through the Ann Arbor station climbed steadily to reach 140,000 riders in 2006. [That counts passengers either getting on or getting off the train in Ann Arbor.] Since then, ridership has remained in the range of 140,000-145,000 except for 2009, when there was a clear dip – to about 126,000. That off year could be explained by the economic downturn in the fall of 2008, and by the the fact that average Ann Arbor area gas prices fell from over $4 per gallon in July 2008 to under $2 per gallon by January 2009 [see Figure 7].

Ann Arbor’s Amtrak ridership started off 2011 on a record-setting pace through April, which continued a bit less dramatically through May and June. By July, however, ridership numbers fell below the 2011 figures for every month through the end of 2011. That could be explained in part by decreases in the quality of on-time performance associated with speed restrictions placed on the track by its owner Norfolk-Southern in June 2011. The speed restrictions stem from the need to upgrade the track. Rather than undertake the track work necessary to allow for regular speeds, Norfolk-Southern elected to impose the speed limits. [As an example, the 5:45 p.m. scheduled arrival on Jan. 24, 2012 was 68 minutes late.] And in May 2011, the Detroit News published a column extolling the virtues of the car trip between Detroit and Chicago.

In October 2011, MDOT struck a deal with Norfolk-Southern to purchase the 135 miles of track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. Track improvements, funded by federal stimulus money, are expected to allow the speed restrictions to be lifted.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

At the Washtenaw County board of commissioners Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman talks with Mary Jo Callan, director of the joint Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development. Kunselman was on hand to air concerns about the proposed countywide transit authority. (Photos by the writer.)

However, the issue emerged at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting when two people – including city councilmember Stephen Kunselman – spoke during public commentary to share their views with county commissioners. Among Kunselman’s points was a concern that Ann Arbor might end up shouldering the burden for countywide transit, if most other communities opt out.

A few commissioners responded to the public commentary. Alicia Ping – who represents a district covering Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw – indicated that many people in her district were not inclined to participate in a countywide transit authority. Wes Prater expressed concerns about the process so far, calling it convoluted and confusing.

The main action at the board’s Jan. 18 meeting also reflected ties between the county and Ann Arbor – a presentation and vote on the consolidation of county and Ann Arbor 911 dispatch services. The proposal, which was unanimously approved, called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city will pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees. The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton told commissioners that he believes the dispatch model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. This partnership between Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to one of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees – a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting. Negotiations continue with four remaining bargaining units that have not yet reached an agreement on a new contract.

The board also approved a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a development in Ann Arbor at the corner of Washtenaw and Platt, and formally accepted a $3 million grant to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. Arbor Hills Crossing will be located along that corridor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel updated the board on turning over the Washtenaw Head Start program to federal officials, a move that commissioners had approved last year as part of the budget process. The county will end its 46-year affiliation with Head Start on July 31. McDaniel reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District is interested in applying to take over the program locally, and that federal officials plan to issue a request for proposals (RFP) during the first quarter of this year.

Not mentioned during McDaniel’s update was the status of an investigation begun last year into actions of the program’s two top officials, director Patricia Horne McGee and Lovida Roach, the program’s second-in-command. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said the allegations that prompted the investigation were “founded.” Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. Horne McGee retired at the end of 2011. Roach will remain on leave until the county relinquishes control of Head Start, and at that point she will also retire, Heidt said.

The meeting also included a transition of sorts. Commissioner Leah Gunn has typically taken on the parliamentary action of moving the agenda at each of the board’s meetings, which entails reading off the agenda items. Gunn, who is not running for re-election this year, announced that Wednesday’s meeting was her “farewell agenda” – she would be relinquishing that task for the remainder of her tenure on the board. [Her term runs through the end of 2012.] After she completed the task this final time, Yousef Rabhi teased her, saying Gunn “moved the agenda very well.”

Countywide Transit

There was no agenda item regarding the effort that’s underway to form a countywide transit authority, but the topic came up during public commentary, prompting some commissioners to respond.

A four-party agreement is being considered by Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963. For a discussion of the key differences between the two pieces of legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit.”

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The county board has not taken any action on the proposed countywide plan. However, commissioners have been briefed by AATA staff about the proposal, most recently at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation on the overall plan and the county’s role.

Countywide Transit: Public Commentary

Stephen Kunselman introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor who serves on the Ann Arbor city council. He quickly read headlines and excerpts from news articles about public transit initiatives in other communities, including Grand Rapids and Detroit. He told commissioners that any community in Washtenaw County that opts in to the Act 196 authority would have its millage revenues dictated by the whims of Ann Arbor. [The proposed governance structure includes a 15-member board, with 7 of those board members appointed from Ann Arbor.]

Kunselman also said he’s not interested in Ann Arbor “going it alone.” He plans to propose an amendment to the four-party agreement that would stipulate if Ann Arbor is the only community that opts in, then the agreement would be null and void. His final point was that true regional transportation should go beyond the borders of Washtenaw County, but that it shouldn’t be carried on the backs of Ann Arbor residents.

[Kunselman has raised similar concerns at Ann Arbor city council meetings. At its Jan. 9 meeting, the council debated the proposed four-party agreement and ultimately voted to delay voting on the accord until its Jan. 23 meeting. The council also set a public hearing on the issue for that date.]

LuAnne Bullington also spoke on the topic of the countywide transit plan. Saying she’s an Ann Arbor resident who has used public transportation for decades and has attended numerous meetings on the issue, Bullington said she knows a lot about public transportation. She asked why the board wanted to set up an Act 196 authority, when AATA is already set up to provide public transportation to other parts of the county?

Out-county communities have said they don’t want it, Bullington contended. So why is this board pushing for it? [Throughout her commentary, she repeatedly addressed commissioners and called the countywide transit proposal "your plan."] Why does the board want Ann Arbor taxpayers to pay for it – why doesn’t the county pay? Why should AATA turn over its money to an organization that doesn’t exist yet? she asked. Bullington called the countywide transit proposal a “pig in a poke.”

Countywide Transit: Commissioner Response

A few commissioners responded to the commentary on countywide transit. Wes Prater – who represents District 4, covering the southeast portion of the county – said the county board has never taken any position of any sort regarding a countywide transit authority. Individual commissioners might have made statements for or against it, he said, but there has never been any action taken by the board. It seems to be driven by the mayor and city council of Ann Arbor, he said. A lot of money has been spent on consultants to develop the plan, he said. But Prater said he doesn’t believe a countywide authority will work. Four townships have already opted out, he noted, and he estimated that more than half of the county’s townships will eventually choose not to participate.

Alicia Ping – the commissioner representing District 3, which includes the city of Saline and townships in southwest Washtenaw County – reported that in her district, one mayor and one township supervisor have expressed interest in the countywide transit authority. But no one else in her district wants it, she said. Ping expressed skepticism that the authority could be considered countywide, if most communities in the county don’t join it.

Later in the meeting, Prater brought up the topic again. He said it was strange that during the discussions by AATA staff of a countywide system, no one mentioned the University of Michigan bus system. It seems like there’s a missed opportunity for collaboration there, he said. There are duplications in administration and tasks between the two systems, he said, and about 30,000 students supplementing the population of Ann Arbor.

[Even though UM also runs its own buses to provide service between its campuses, some collaboration already exists between the AATA and the university. AATA's M-Ride program, for example, allows UM students, faculty, and staff to ride AATA buses without paying a fare when they board. The program makes up about 40% of the AATA's fixed-route ridership. UM is also a part of a partnership to explore a high-capacity connector from Plymouth Road near US-23 down through downtown Ann Arbor along State Street to I-94. The middle part of that route would connect the UM north campus and central campus.]

Prater described the process of forming an Act 196 as convoluted. “When I get it figured out a little bit more, I’m going to be asking some more questions,” he said. It doesn’t seem like the out-county population is dense enough to support public transportation, Prater said, which leads him to believe that AATA and other supporters of the plan are just looking for additional tax revenues. He also noted that Gov. Rick Snyder has a plan for regional transit that would add yet another wrinkle. “It’s quite confusing,” he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said that having additional discussions about transit wouldn’t be a bad thing. He noted that an item originally on the Jan. 19 working session agenda – a discussion led by board chair Conan Smith about proposed state legislation for regional transit – would be postponed. Smith indicated that the state legislation has not moved forward yet. [See also Chronicle coverage: "AATA in Transition, Briefed on State's Plans"]

Countywide Transit: Working Session Follow-up

The following evening, at the board’s Jan. 19 working session, LuAnne Bullington returned to address the commissioners again during public commentary. She referred to the countywide transit plan as the mayor’s regional transit program – presumably a reference to Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje. She said she’d brought more documents related to the plan to give to commissioners, since it seemed to her that they weren’t informed.

Bullington questioned why there was movement forward on WALLY, a possible commuter rail service on a 26-mile route between Ann Arbor and Howell, in Livingston County.

[At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the AATA board passed a resolution that expressed general support for the idea of continuing to work with surrounding communities to move forward with the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. The resolution's one “resolved” clause required that the $50,000 allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board. At the AATA board's Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, CEO Michael Ford indicated that the WALLY project itself could not happen without some capital funding that had failed to materialize in the form of TIGER III grants. The AATA expects to see a plan for what to do about WALLY in February or March.]

Bullington said she’d been told that WALLY is dead. Yet the AATA has sent out a request for proposals (RFP) for a WALLY station that’s due Feb. 2, she said. [.pdf of RFP specifications for a WALLY railroad station feasibility study and engineering support for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.]

Bullington also wondered why the mayor is asking the county board to create a new transit authority, when the governor is talking about creating a bus rapid transit system for the four-county metro Detroit area, including Washtenaw County. And if the county is being asked to create the authority, why are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti being asked to approve a framework for it? she asked. She said that Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman had asked AATA CEO Michael Ford how much Ann Arbor taxpayers would pay for a countywide system, but contended he didn’t get an answer.

Why should there be a vote on a framework when it’s not clear what’s being voted on? she asked. She said the mayor used to sell real estate. Would anyone want to buy a $9 million house without seeing it? The cities are being set up for a bait and switch, Bullington contended. There shouldn’t be a rush about it, especially since the governor is expected to announce his transit plan in February, she concluded.

Responding to Bullington’s commentary, board chair Conan Smith said it would be worthwhile to schedule a working session about the intent of the four-party agreement. There have been some amendments proposed by other governing entities, he noted. Smith said he felt that the board should be asserting that the process isn’t being handled in the right way. If four different bodies can amend the agreement piecemeal, the process could take forever, he said. It would be better to have a negotiating committee work on the agreement, then take it back to the four governing bodies for an up or down vote.

Barbara Bergman expressed reluctance to get involved in negotiating an agreement, saying it’s not the county’s role to broker a deal.

Wes Prater said he felt like there are things going on that he doesn’t know about, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to explain how the county was involved. If the county is the enabling public entity, why aren’t county staff and commissioners involved in writing the articles of incorporation or the four-party agreement? he asked. Although individual commissioners have taken a stance, the county as an entity hasn’t taken part in developing this transit plan, he said. Prater wondered why the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, was working on it – at whose request was he doing that?

As he’d done the previous evening, Prater described the process as convoluted, and he wondered why it was so difficult and confusing when there were easier ways to proceed. “It looks to me like there’s some kind of scamming going on,” he concluded.

McDaniel responded by saying that any work the corporation counsel is doing is to review documents on behalf of the board.

Noting that he has attended information sessions held by AATA, Dan Smith said his understanding is that the county’s role is extremely limited, and that the board could decide to play no role whatsoever. By participating, the county would streamline the process, he said. It’s possible for the townships and cities to create a transit authority without the county’s involvement, he said, but it would entail more red tape. If the county’s role were more extensive, Smith said he’d have some concerns. As it is, they’ll just be filing paperwork “and that’s it,” he said.

911 Dispatch Consolidation

The board was asked to give approval to move forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor. The proposal called for entering into a contract with the city from Feb. 1, 2012 to Jan. 30, 2017. The city would pay $759,089 annually for dispatch services. In addition, the county expects to receive an increase of $677,893 annually from 911 fees.

The Ann Arbor city council had already approved the agreement at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers and 12-15 part-time dispatchers. The county’s action on Wednesday called for creating 15 full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?”

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Presentation

Sheriff Jerry Clayton began his presentation by saying this consolidation is an example of good public policy. It improves services and creates efficiencies, and while both dispatch units were “magnificent,” he said, they’ll be enhanced by coming together.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton addresses the county board of commissioners. In the background is Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff's office.

It’s not a new idea, Clayton told the board – the possibility of consolidated dispatch has been kicked around for more than two decades. If communities want their own dispatch operations, that’s their right, he said. But it makes sense to streamline operations and save money.

Since 1990, the county has operated its own dispatch, and provided dispatch services under contract with Northfield Township, the Michigan State Police, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, and jurisdictions in the county that contract for police services. In 2009, the county restructured its dispatch operations, changing the number of supervisors and increasing the number of dispatcher positions.

In January of 2010, the county started providing dispatch services for the city of Ypsilanti. It was a decision largely driven by Ypsilanti’s difficult financial situation, Clayton said, and is an example of how the county tries to provide a safety net for communities. The savings allowed Ypsilanti to keep another police officer on the street, he said.

In May of 2010, the county dispatch co-located to the same site as the Ann Arbor dispatch operation – in the fire station across the street from Ann Arbor city hall. It was not part of a long-term plan to consolidate, Clayton said. Rather, it made sense to have dispatchers in the same room for better communication, he said, in part because crime knows no boundaries.

In March of 2011, public safety officials with the county and city of Ann Arbor began talks about how to find additional efficiencies. It was in the context of budget challenges that the city was facing, Clayton said. Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones asked the county for a proposal, and after further talks, Jones decided it made sense to contract out for services. The proposal was taken to city council last year, and approved at the council’s Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

This was a major move for the city, Clayton said. The dispatch operation is in some ways the lifeline of the police force, he said, and it shows great trust in the county to contract out that service. The decision was not made lightly, he said, in part because it would be very difficult and expensive for the city to reverse the decision in the future.

The consolidation is anticipated to save the city $500,000 annually, enabling Ann Arbor to retain more police officers, Clayton said. It allows the county to maintain an adequate dispatch staff – the operation has been understaffed for some time, and has had to rely on overtime hours. That issue can now be addressed, he said.

This chart shows cost savings associated with dispatch partnerships with Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. (Image links to larger chart.)

Clayton gave three examples of the cost savings from contracts with Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, and from the county’s co-location with Ann Arbor.

Clayton said the dispatch contract with Ypsilanti brings in $73,000 annually to the county, plus an additional $75,228 in 911 fees. Co-locating with Ann Arbor saved $430,000 every eight years by eliminating the need for a phone switch replacement, and saved another $80,000 every 10 years by eliminating the need to replace a logging recorder. The county also saw a one-time $440,000 savings from co-location by eliminating the need to buy equipment for the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS).

The new contract with Ann Arbor will bring in $759,089 annually to the county, plus an additional $678,000 in 911 fees that were previously paid to Ann Arbor.

Separately, each community that contracts with the sheriff’s office for police services pays for dispatch services too, Clayton noted. For each police services unit (PSU) – the term used to indicate one sheriff’s deputy plus overhead – the contract includes $10,707 for dispatch services. In 2012, there are contracts for 79 PSUs countywide, which will bring in an additional $845,853 for dispatch services.

Clayton outlined the benefits of consolidating dispatch services with Ann Arbor. It would save the city $500,000 annually, allowing Ann Arbor to maintain more police officers on the street. For the sheriff’s office, consolidation will relieve staffing shortages and reduce the use of overtime, as well as bring in additional revenues.

Consolidation also addresses some challenges of co-location, he said, including the lack of a common mission, common standards, and frustration over how the work is distributed. There will now be one approach to training and quality assurance, he noted. Performance will be measured uniformly, and reported regularly. Measurements will fall into four categories: (1) operations, including call volume, speed to answer and speed to dispatch; (2) financial, including overtime hours, performance to budget, and cost per 911 call; (3) service quality, such as satisfaction of law enforcement officers and citizens who use 911; and (4) development, including the number of certifications and hours of training per employee.

Clayton said he believes the model they’re developing will be among the best practices nationally, and will be replicated by other dispatch operations in the country. A partnership of Washtenaw County’s two largest public safety entities will strengthen core police services in the county, he said.

After showing some schematics of the operation’s layout, Clayton concluded his presentation by describing the proposed number of employees for the combined dispatch. The goal is to employ 30 full-time dispatchers, 12-15 part-time dispatchers, one manager and two supervisors.

As part of approving the overall project, the board was being asked to vote on a resolution that authorized creating 15 new full-time employees, including 13 communications coordinators (dispatchers), one dispatch operations coordinator and one dispatch manager.

Clayton then fielded questions and comments from commissioners, who were uniformly supportive. This report organizes the board’s discussion thematically.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Logistics

Felicia Brabec called it a wonderful example of collaboration. She asked how the consolidation would happen logistically – what would happen to people who called in on the day of the switchover, for example?

The physical logistics won’t be a problem, Clayton replied. He said the city of Ann Arbor did a great job in designing the co-location facility, where both county and Ann Arbor dispatchers have been operating. For the caller, it will be a seamless transition.

But there are significant logistics to handle in terms of personnel, he said. The county currently employs 17 dispatchers. If the board approves the proposal, another 13 dispatchers will need to be hired. Clayton said he’s hopeful that some Ann Arbor dispatchers will join the new operation, but he knows that some are planning to retire, or are seeking jobs elsewhere.

He indicated that if half of the Ann Arbor dispatchers come over, that would go a long way toward easing the transition. The county had held a job fair the previous Saturday, Clayton said, and they had identified 15 potential candidates from that event who’ll be brought back for further interviews. [The job fair was held at the same time as an Ann Arbor City Democratic Party event, which a representative from the sheriff's office attended on his behalf to announce that Clayton will be running for re-election this year.]

Another piece of the transition is training, Clayton said. After Clayton took office in 2009, the previous training program for dispatchers was scrapped, and a new one was developed that includes three weeks of classroom training. In addition, there are over 250 core tasks that dispatchers must master and prove proficiency in, he said.

All of this must be coordinated with the city, Clayton said. He did not identify a specific date when the transition will occur, saying that it’s a floating date, as different activities of the dispatch operation are aligned.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Finances

Brabec referred to the budget that Clayton had presented, and asked why there’s almost an $800,000 difference between revenues and expenditures. [The proposed 2012 dispatch budget identifies $2,653,036 in revenues and $3,449,881 in expenditures.] Clayton said that roughly $800,000 in additional revenues will come from a line item in the police services budget – communities that contract with the sheriff’s office for patrol deputies pay for dispatch services as part of their contracts.

Yousef Rabhi described the consolidation as a phenomenal project. When he was out campaigning, he said, he told residents about the co-location of Ann Arbor and county dispatchers, and people thought it was a great move. Now, it’s taken to the next level, he said.

Mark Breckenridge, the county's director of emergency management, and dispatch operations coordinator Sarah Taylor.

Rabhi asked how the E-911 funds are distributed. Mark Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency management, explained that the state collects 911 fees from wireless providers based on the number of wireless devices that are registered for Washtenaw County. Funds from those fees are paid to the county quarterly.

There is also a 911 revenue stream from landlines. The distribution of those funds is overseen by a county emergency telephone district board. At this point, each of the three dispatch centers in the county – in the sheriff’s office, Ann Arbor, and Pittsfield Township – get funds based on a formula that factors in population, landline count and call volume.

In response to another question from Rabhi, Breckenridge said that revenues from landlines are decreasing, while wireless revenues are increasing. In two years, 911 revenues will be based only on population.

Rabhi clarified with Clayton that the contract with Ann Arbor runs for five years, and that although the annual amount that Ann Arbor will pay doesn’t change, the amount reflects anticipated cost increases over that period. He also confirmed with Clayton that the contract is expected to be renegotiated in five years, and that any cost increases will be part of a renegotiated rate. Clayton said he’s already had that conversation with the city, and that they know they should anticipate a higher rate in the next contract.

Rabhi said it’s great to see a budget neutral proposal that’s helping to streamline government operations. Clayton said he appreciated the kind words that were directed at him, but that the staff has been instrumental in developing the plan, and that it was the vision of Ann Arbor police chief Barnett Jones that made the consolidation possible.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a series of questions. He clarified with Clayton that the county is paying $12,500 annually to the city for rent at the dispatch facility. If dispatch operations eventually move to the county’s western service center on Zeeb Road, would the city then pay the county rent? Clayton said the rent that the county pays is part of the context for what the city will pay to the county after consolidation.

Sizemore asked why the dispatch operations couldn’t move to the county’s Zeeb Road facility now? [The western service center on Zeeb Road includes considerable vacant space.] Clayton replied that the sheriff’s office wants to be part of the county’s overall infrastructure plan, but it would be too much to take on a physical relocation at this time. Moving would also cost a substantial amount, he noted. Sizemore asked if Clayton is budgeting for an eventual move. The sheriff indicated that his staff is working with county administrator Verna McDaniel and Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to see how a move might fit into upcoming budgets.

Who’ll pay for equipment upgrades? Sizemore asked. The county would need to pay for upgrades for its dispatch operations regardless of whether it provides services to other entities, Clayton said. In response to another question from Sizemore, Clayton said the county has the capacity to handle dispatch operations for other communities as well.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Technology

Alicia Ping asked if there is any way to quantify the number of cell phone calls that are directed to different dispatch operations. If she places a 911 call from Pittsfield Township, do county dispatchers answer it?

Breckenridge explained that there are currently three public safety answering points (PSAPs) in Washtenaw County – that is, dispatch operations that answer 911 calls. Right now, such calls are handled by the sheriff’s office, the Ann Arbor police department, and the Pittsfield Township department of public safety. Only a limited number of PSAPs are allowed, he said, in order to eliminate confusion from overlapping cell phone service coverage.

Ping wanted to know how calls were distributed to the three PSAPs. Breckenridge said he could find out and send that information to her. Ping said her point is that the county is subsidizing certain communities that don’t pay for police services, yet rely on the county’s dispatch operations when their residents call 911.

Barbara Bergman asked whether the dispatcher could locate a caller who makes a 911 call. Yes, Breckenridge replied. If your phone has GPS, then it’s possible to spot the location directly. If the phone isn’t equipped with GPS, then it’s possible to use cell towers to triangulate the location within 50-150 yards, he said. Eventually, all cell phones will send GPS signals to make the location easy to determine.

If her constituents ask what kind of phone to buy, Bergman said, it seems she should tell them to buy a smartphone with GPS. She noted that if a triangulated location covers 150 yards, that means emergency responders might have to knock on three doors before finding the right house. Breckenridge replied that the best phone for someone to have who’s homebound is a landline. For landline calls, the dispatcher sees a display of the caller’s phone number and address.

911 Dispatch Consolidation: Commissioner Discussion – Partnerships

Leah Gunn praised the project, noting that the county and city of Ann Arbor have been trying to coordinate dispatch operations for more than 20 years. She gave credit to Clayton for making it happen, saying that the residents of Ann Arbor trust and respect him, and obviously the ANn Arbor city council does too. It’s a great collaboration, she said.

Rob Turner thanked Clayton and his staff. A year ago, Turner recalled, the board held a retreat and reached consensus that public safety was one of the top priorities for the county. The only way to make that happen is through collaboration and partnerships. Another example is the police services steering committee, Turner said, and its work on developing a new police services contract for local communities to contract for sheriff deputy patrols.

The steering committee worked to bring costs down for the contracting communities, Turner said, adding that he realized Ann Arbor shouldered some of the financial burden for that. Now, the county is in a position to help Ann Arbor lower the city’s costs, he said. Consolidation maximizes the police services that are offered to the county’s residents, he said, noting that there are many needs, especially in some areas where crime is high.

Turner told Clayton that other police forces within the county view Clayton as a friend and partner, and speak highly of him. Though there are ways to improve, Turner said he’s very impressed with the work that’s been done so far.

Wes Prater told Clayton that he’d done an amazing job in putting this consolidation together. He hoped it would make it easier for Clayton to actually take a vacation in the next 3-4 years. Clayton indicated that his wife hoped so, too.

Dan Smith pointed to some of the historical information that Clayton had mentioned – the county has been handling dispatch for Northfield Township since 1990. Smith – who represents District 2, which includes that township – said he’s never heard of any problems related to dispatch operations. When he served on the township board, Smith said, he did a ride-along with the police in a pursuit situation. The dispatchers handled it smoothly, he said, and you couldn’t tell that the dispatchers weren’t located in Northfield Township. He said he was certain that it will work out as well for Ann Arbor as it has for the township.

Outcome: The board unanimously authorized moving forward with consolidating 911 dispatch operations between the county sheriff’s office and the city of Ann Arbor.

Head Start Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an update on the process of relinquishing administration of the local Head Start program, which the county has managed for 46 years. Federal officials have been formally notified, she said, and the program will be officially relinquished back to the feds on July 31, 2012. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Options Weighed for Washtenaw Head Start," "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea" and "Washtenaw County Budget Set for 2012-2013"]

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie talks with county administrator Verna McDaniel.

McDaniel also noted that the former Head Start director, Patricia Horne McGee, had retired as of Dec. 31. Cassandra Sheriff, site director for the Ypsilanti Head Start location, is acting as interim director.

McDaniel and board chair Conan Smith met earlier this month with the local Head Start policy council. McDaniel described it as a positive meeting, with members asking pertinent questions about the transition process. The council had expressed interest in meeting with officials from the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), which is applying to the federal government to become the designated grantee of the program. So another meeting was held, McDaniel said, with WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attending.

Menzel had praised the Head Start program, and said he believes in continuity, McDaniel reported. He had said he didn’t want to be presumptuous and assume that WISD would be named the grantee. But if that happens, WISD would want to retain Head Start’s stellar staff and have as little disruption to the program as possible. McDaniel said the policy council was supportive of WISD’s application, and would likely submit letters of support to federal officials.

A request for proposals (RFP) will likely be issued by the federal-level Head Start agency in the first quarter of 2012, McDaniel said. County staff are providing information required to draft the RFP, she said.

Head Start Update: Commissioner Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked whether the county is prepared to do everything it needs to do in order to relinquish the program. McDaniel replied that the staff has made a commitment to provide all required information to the federal officials, including an inventory.

Brabec asked what the status was regarding the main Head Start building and the debt that the county held on that. Previously, county staff had reported that the county owes about $2.6 million on the bond and makes $167,000 in bond payments annually at the building, located at 1661 Leforge Road in Ypsilanti. The bond payment schedule runs through 2022.

McDaniel said that nothing is certain. It will depend on the entity that’s eventually chosen to take over the program, she said. A discussion of assets – including the Leforge building – would be part of that transition.

Yousef Rabhi asked whether the county would submit a letter of support for the WISD. McDaniel indicated that the county could submit a letter of support for the WISD, if the board wanted to do that.

Head Start Update: Administrative Investigation

During her update, McDaniel did not mention that Horne McGee and senior management assistant Lovida Roach – Horne McGee’s second-in-command – had been placed on administrative leave on Dec. 13, pending the outcome of an investigation that had started in October. [See Chronicle coverage: "Two Head Start Managers Put on Leave"]

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, said that the allegations which prompted the investigation were “founded.” Citing the fact that it was a personnel issue, Heidt said the county could not release details, but that no misuse of funds was involved. When the investigation started, Horne McGee chose to retire at year’s end, Heidt said. Roach will remain on leave, using personal time she has accrued, until the county relinquishes control of Head Start. At that point, Roach will also retire, Heidt said.

AFSCME Local 3052 Agreement

One of the last remaining contracts with a union representing Washtenaw County employees was given initial approval by the board at its Jan. 18 meeting. The tentative two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors, has been ratified by its membership. A final vote by the board is expected at its Feb. 1 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board voted unanimously to approved the AFSCME Local 3052 agreement.

Arbor Hills Brownfield Plan

The board was asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council approved the plan at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, and the county board had given initial approval on Dec. 7.

Members of the development team for Arbor Hills Crossing, from left: Arthur Siegal of Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; Anne Jamieson-Urena of AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; and Bill Carpenter of reFORM studios.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces. The brownfield plan includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period.

Because Ann Arbor is part of the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority, all brownfield plans in the city must get approval from the county board as well as from the Ann Arbor city council.

Wednesday’s meeting included a public hearing on the brownfield plan. The only speakers were three members of the development team: Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services; Arthur Siegal, an attorney with Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss; and Bill Carpenter, an architect with reFORM studios. They all spoke briefly, highlighting attributes of the project and asking for the board’s support of the brownfield plan.

There was no discussion of the project among commissioners.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing.

$3 Million HUD Community Grant

On the agenda was a resolution to approve the acceptance of a three-year, $3 million grant recently awarded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The approval included authorizing $65,000 in matching funds from the county’s housing contingency fund, and the hiring of a full-time management analyst.

HUD’s Community Challenge Planning Grant grant was awarded to support the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project, which focuses on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township. County administrator Verna McDaniel had announced news of the grant award at a Nov. 17, 2011 working session of the county board.

According to the grant application, the project focuses on “removing barriers to create a coordinated approach to expanding existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connecting them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.” It’s part of the Reimagining Washtenaw project, which has been underway for several years. The joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community and economic development, led by Mary Jo Callan, is taking the lead on the project. Callan was on hand at the Jan. 18 meeting to answer questions, but commissioners had none.

In addition to the county and four other jurisdictions, partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Arts Alliance, Community Housing Alternatives, Eastern Michigan University, Food System Economic Partnership, Growing Hope, Habitat for Humanity, SEMCOG, Ann Arbor SPARK, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, Washtenaw County Public Health, and the Ypsilanti Housing Commission.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved a resolution to accept the $3 million grant, approve matching funds and hire a full-time management analyst.

Board Appointments

Board chair Conan Smith announced nominations of commissioners to fill slots on more than two dozen advisory committees, commissions and boards. He also nominated sheriff Jerry Clayton to act as liaison to the 800 Megahertz oversight committee, which oversees the countywide millage passed in 2006 for an emergency communications system. [.pdf of 2012 appointments]

Smith noted that the board is planning to evaluate its participation in the Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County – he is the commissioner designated as a member of that group, which has been struggling with funding and engagement of its membership. [See Chronicle coverage: "Literacy Coalition Faces Uncertain Future"]

Responsibility for the police services steering committee, which has worked on the issue of sheriff deputies that serve local communities on a contract basis, will be shifted to the sheriff’s office rather than the board of commissioners, Smith said. The number of commissioners serving on that committee will be reduced from four to two – Rob Turner and Alica Ping.

Smith also proposed that the public safety and justice oversight committee, which had been formed to oversee the jail expansion, would be dissolved because that project has been completed.

Outcome: All appointments and other changes were approved unanimously, without comment.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting, there are opportunities for public commentary and for communications from commissioners and staff. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Board Retreat

Ronnie Peterson apologized for arriving late to the meeting – he said he’d been in Lansing, and had a flat tire on the trip back to Ann Arbor. He noted that board chair Conan Smith had asked staff to call commissioners and schedule a retreat for Saturday, Jan. 21. Peterson said he’d be unable to attend – he would be out of town, he said. He expressed frustration that alternative dates hadn’t been considered. Smith apologized, indicating that he had misinterpreted a conversation he’d had with Peterson about the retreat.

Peterson also said he wanted to ensure that the board’s strategic planning included public input, and that such input should be encouraged.

Peterson’s comments were the only time that the board retreat was mentioned. At the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting, board chair Conan Smith made a presentation that outlined some possible strategic goals for the coming year, and had indicated that a retreat might be in the offing. A notice announcing the meeting was posted at the end of the day on Thursday, Jan. 12, at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor, in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. However, county offices were closed on Friday and the following Monday, for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Smith did not mention the retreat during opportunities for communications at the Jan. 18 board meeting.

[The four-hour retreat was subsequently held on Saturday morning at the county's parks and recreation offices on Platt Road. Other than county commissioners, staff, the sheriff and prosecuting attorney, the only others who attended the retreat were The Chronicle and Andy LaBarre, a candidate for county commissioner.]

Comm/Comm: Honoring Paul Bunten

Commissioner Alicia Ping presented a resolution honoring Paul Bunten, who recently retired as police chief for the city of Saline. Ping, a former Saline city councilmember, now represents District 3 on the county board, which includes Saline. The resolution recognized Bunten for his 47 years of public service. Bunten was not at the meeting, but will be given a framed plaque of the resolution.

Several other commissioners expressed their thanks to Bunten. Leah Gunn noted that he had worked for many years at Ann Arbor’s police department. When former Ann Arbor police chief Dan Oates left that position, she said, Bunten stepped in for Oates as chair of the emergency communications committee, which campaigned for a millage that voters approved in 2006. The millage supported a new 800 megahertz system that enabled emergency responders from all jurisdictions to communicate with each other.

Barbara Bergman said she’d worked with Bunten on several different committees, and he was always a pleasure to work with, giving good advice and support. Wes Prater noted that he’d worked with Bunten back when Bunten was a rookie, “and then he was a lot of fun!”

Comm/Comm: Fracking

Yousef Rabhi said that he and commissioner Alicia Ping are concerned about fracking, which he said is happening in Washtenaw County and becoming more common. The term – also known as hydraulic fracturing – refers to a practice of extracting oil or gas by injecting high-pressurized fluid into rock. He said he and Ping have received emails from residents who are concerned about the practice, with questions about property rights, property values, environmental impact and the health of humans and neighborhoods. The state regulates fracking, Rabhi said, but the county needs to be aware of it and start thinking about how to handle it.

Wes Prater commented that the reason behind increased fracking stems from regulations being removed several years ago from the federal Clean Water Act. Companies are ruining the underground water supply, he said. He’s heard that it’s happening near Adrian. [Adrian is located in Lenawee County, immediately south of Washtenaw County.]

Barbara Bergman said she hadn’t realized that fracking was taking place locally and that she was “absolutely horrified.” If the board agrees that it’s a dangerous practice, then they need to make a big noise about it, she said.

Comm/Comm: Trial Court Renovations

Rob Turner gave an update on renovations at the Washtenaw County trial court in downtown Ann Arbor, at the corner of Huron and Main. The trial court includes the 22nd circuit court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program. The renovation is now on schedule, Turner said, and the third phase will likely be done by Feb. 10, with the entire project completed by mid-March. It’s on time and on budget, he said – the contingency funds aren’t even being used. He said he’s been told that chief judge Donald Shelton is “ecstatic.”

Turner reported that Jason Fee with the county facilities unit will be making a presentation to the board about this project in February. Rolland Sizemore Jr. commented that the county’s facilities workers are the reason why this project is going well, and he asked county administrator Verna McDaniel to convey his compliments to the staff.

Comm/Comm: WATS & WCHO Moves – Zeeb Road Facility

As the county board’s liaison to the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Yousef Rabhi reported that WATS has been leasing office space from the county’s western Washtenaw service center on Zeeb Road, but has been asked to leave. The Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan, will be moving into that space instead. The county has offered WATS four other options, Rabhi said, but WATS officials have decided to look elsewhere – at leasing from landlords in the private sector, or from other public entities. WATS hasn’t definitely ruled out other county facilities, Rabhi said, and he encouraged commissioners to express their support for the county’s continued relationship with WATS.

Barbara Bergman, who serves on the WCHO board, reported that only the administrative offices of WCHO will be relocating to Zeeb Road. The parts of the organization that provide services to consumers, including the community support and treatment services unit (CSTS), will remain at accessible locations, such as the county’s 555 Towner St. building in Ypsilanti.

A space plan update for all of the county’s facilities is being developed and will be presented at an upcoming board working session.

Comm/Comm: Eastern Leaders Group

Leah Gunn reported that earlier in the month she had attended a meeting of the Eastern Leaders Group. She noted that she’s been a member of the ELG steering committee since it was formed. Because Gunn is stepping down from the board of commissioners – she has decided not to run for re-election this year – commissioner Felicia Brabec will now serve on the leadership team in her place, Gunn said. At the end of the ELG meeting, Gunn reported that commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who also serves on the ELG steering committee, had given a speech praising her work, and she appreciated it. “We don’t get praised too often,” she said.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the beginning of the Jan. 18 meeting, Thomas Partridge said he wanted to send a message straight to Lansing, on behalf of the county’s most vulnerable residents. Priority should be given to human services – affordable housing, health care, and education – rather than spending money on railroad stations and bridges. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder would be giving the State of the State address that same night. He said Snyder and his allies bought the governor’s office through corrupt means, and that a recall effort is still underway. The county’s economy hasn’t recovered, Partridge said, and until it does, there must be attention paid to altruistic attitudes and finding solutions to very serious problems.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

At its Jan. 9 meeting, the city council postponed action on the four-party agreement until its next meeting on Jan. 23, and set a public hearing for that same meeting. An email sent Jan. 17 to Ann Arbor residents and business owners by AATA CEO Michael Ford encouraged them to attend the Jan. 23 public hearing and express their support for the countywide governance framework. [.pdf of Ford's Jan. 17, 2012 email]

The proposed agreement is a four-way accord between the city of Ann Arbor, the AATA, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. The agreement among the four parties would set up a framework for, and contingencies on, the transition of the AATA to a countywide transit authority, incorporated under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963. [For a discussion of the key differences between the two pieces of legislation, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The transition to a countywide funding base is intended to (1) ensure the stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which has up until now depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided. The service plan is laid out in two volumes of the transit master plan. [.pdf of "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

A two-volume document on funding options forms the third part of the transit master plan. [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options]. A financial advisory group, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, has met since late 2011 to analyze those funding options.

The role of the two cities – Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – would be to pledge their current transit millages to the new authority, contingent on identifying a countywide funding source. The two cities currently levy millages that are designated for public transit and are passed through to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of the tax – approved in November 2010 – to fund its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

As part of the four-party agreement, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor would agree that AATA’s existing assets would be assumed by the new Act 196 transit authority, and they’d also agree to assign their existing millages to the new Act 196 authority. But the asset transfer and the millage assignment would be contingent on identifying a countywide funding source for the new Act 196 authority.

[For general background on a variety of transportation issues, see recent Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux" and "AATA Preps Stage for Future Transit Choice"]

One expected move did not materialize at the council’s Jan. 9 meeting but was mentioned during deliberations as a possibility: To change the proposed balance of representation on the board of a new countywide transit authority. The idea would be to add another seat representing Ann Arbor on the board.

The proposed balance of 7 Ann Arbor seats on a 15-member board has been publicly discussed as early as April 2011. When presented to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on April 7, 2011, the 7/15 Ann Arbor representation was met with objection from some commissioners as too-heavily weighted with Ann Arbor appointees.

In conjunction with postponement of the decision on the four-party agreement, council set a public hearing on the agreement for its next meeting on Jan. 23.

If approved, the four-way agreement would assign specific conditions and responsibilities to each of the parties as part of the transition to a countywide transit authority. The role of approving, signing and filing the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority would fall to Washtenaw County. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The transition to a countywide funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which has up to now depended on purchase-of-service agreements; (2) provide a higher level of transit service inside the city of Ann Arbor; and (3) expand the area where transit service is provided. The service plan is laid out in two volumes of the transit master plan. [.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

A two-volume document on funding options forms the third part of the transit master plan. [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options]. A financial advisory group, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, has met since late 2011 to analyze those funding options.

The role of the two cities – Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – would be to pledge their current transit millages to the new authority, contingent on identifying a countywide funding source. The two cities currently levy millages that are designated for public transit and are passed through to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of the tax (approved in November 2010) to fund its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.]

As part of the four-party agreement, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor would agree that AATA’s existing assets would be assumed by the new Act 196 transit authority, and they’d also agree to assign their existing millages to the new Act 196 authority. But the asset transfer and the millage assignment would be contingent on identifying a countywide funding source for the new Act 196 authority.

A draft four-party agreement was circulated around the time of the Dec. 12 Ann Arbor city council working session on that topic. One difference between the Dec. 12 version and the Jan. 9 version is the explicit contemplation in the more recent document of a countywide funding source that would not necessarily take the form of a millage. But the result was a document that appears to contain an internal tension. In one paragraph of the Jan. 9 version, the alternative to a millage is described as funds “which do not require voter approval.” But in a different paragraph, the funding source (not necessarily a millage) is described as having “countywide voter approval.”

The modification to the agreement since Dec. 12 is driven in part by discussions at the state level that have explored the idea of creating enabling legislation for a regional transit authority that could be funded in part by vehicle registration fees. Depending on how that legislation is crafted, local units might be able to impose vehicle registration fees to fund transit without a voter referendum.

Under scenarios currently being discussed, if voters countywide – including Ann Arbor voters – are asked to support a millage, Ann Arbor’s current transit tax would also remain in place. That’s led to questions from some councilmembers about a guarantee of increased city service to ensure equitable burden and benefits of city residents and those outside the city. The timeframe specified in the draft four-party agreement means that there are three opportunities in a general election to ask voters to support countywide transit by agreeing to a new countywide tax: in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

At the Dec. 12 working session, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked that the four-party agreement stipulate that Ann Arbor’s transit tax only be transferred to the new Act 196 authority if a millage were to gain a plurality of votes within the city of Ann Arbor. And at the Jan. 9 council meeting, he was successful in persuading his colleagues to amend the document to that effect.

What would a possible path to a decision on countywide service look like? The first step has been taken with the creation of an unincorporated Act 196 board (U196), which started meeting in late 2011. Assuming that the authority’s articles of incorporation are approved by the county board of commissioners and that the four-party agreement is also approved by all parties, the U196 board will finish a report on a five-year transit improvement program sometime in 2012. At that point the U196 board would request that the county clerk file articles of incorporation for a countywide transit authority.

The articles of incorporation would establish the authority with boundaries of Washtenaw County. Certified letters, required by law, would be sent to each municipality announcing incorporation of the authority. Any municipality could opt-out, and those communities would not be taxed – or receive transit service. A millage request would then come from the Act 196 authority directly to voters. If voters rejected it, the request could be put on the ballot again, once a year until the end of 2014. But according to the four-way agreement, the incorporated Act 196 board would be dissolved if no countywide funding source were identified by then.

The Ann Arbor city council is now expected to vote on the four-party agreement at its Jan. 23 meeting after a public hearing on the issue.

[For general background on a variety of transportation issues, see recent Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux" and "AATA Preps Stage for Future Transit Choice"]

This report was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed article will follow.

Many of the people attending the Dec. 7 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners were supporters of Lourdes Salazar Bautista, an Ann Arbor resident who faces deportation. She is standing against the wall in the upper right corner of this photo. (Photos by the writer.)

Public commentary focused on two issues: (1) people lobbying against the imminent deportation of Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, and asking commissioners to intervene; (2) nonprofit leaders thanking the board for increasing the budget for coordinated funding, which supports human services agencies. The two-year budget for 2012-2013 approved by commissioners on Nov. 16 had included $128,538 in cuts each year to coordinated funding, but a vote on Dec. 7 restored that amount.

Another budget amendment approved by the board at the meeting relates to the unresolved status of mandated animal control services. County officials are still negotiating with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which has a $500,000 annual contract for that work. The contract expires Dec. 31, and contingency plans are being made for the case that an agreement can’t be reached. Commissioners approved a budget amendment that requires board approval for any contract for animal control services extending more than 60 days.

Two presentations were made during the Dec. 7 meeting. Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, briefed commissioners about efforts to create a countywide transit system. The board will be asked to approve a four-party agreement between the county, AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti that would set a framework for incorporating a countywide transit authority. Voters may eventually be asked to approve a millage for the system – if a dedicated funding sources is not secured by the end of 2014, the effort in its current form would demise.

And in a presentation aimed at priority setting for 2012 and beyond, board chair Conan Smith proposed focusing county efforts on shoring up the county’s east side, an area that’s facing a “perfect storm of despair,” he said, including high unemployment, low graduation rates and poor health. Characterizing his proposal as the start of a board discussion, Smith laid out a variety of options that the county could pursue, including a possible Headlee override or new millage to pay for services. Feedback from commissioners indicated support for developing a strategy to tackle these problems, but a reluctance to limit the focus to only the east side – primarily Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Several commissioners pointed out that poverty exists throughout the county.

Commissioners also took a range of other actions, including: (1) rejection of a proposal from the Washtenaw County road commission for a possible millage to fund road improvements; (2) a resolution of support for same-sex benefits; (3) an extension of a deadline related to compliance with the state’s 80/20 rule for health care costs; (4) approval of a brownfield plan for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant; (5) creation of a board subcommittee on energy policy; and (6) appointments to a variety of boards, commissions and committees.

More Money for Coordinated Funding

The two-year budget approved by commissioners on Nov. 16 had included $128,538 in cuts each year to coordinated human services funding. However, at that meeting several commissioners expressed the desire to find additional funding for coordinated funding. A resolution on the Dec. 7 agenda restored the amount that had been cut, returning the line item for coordinated funding to $1.015 million annually in 2012 and 2013, the same amount that was budgeted for 2011.

Coordinated funds are distributed to a range of nonprofits through a process administered by the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, partnering with the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The process gives priority for funding those nonprofits that serve six targeted areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food. [For background on coordinated funding, see Chronicle coverage: "Despite Concerns, Coordinated Funding OK'd"]

The issue had received some discussion at a Nov. 29 administrative briefing, when commissioners previewed the Dec. 7 agenda. County administrator Verna McDaniel told commissioners that when she initially presented the proposed 2012-2013 budget at the board’s Sept. 21 meeting, more than three months remained in the current fiscal year, which ends Dec. 31. She indicated that there had still been uncertainty about the county’s financial needs for the remainder of this year.

Also, she said, the county received a repayment of captured taxes from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and from a settlement with the townships of Ypsilanti and Augusta over a police services lawsuit. [The county received about $242,000 from the DDA, in a payment related to excess capture in the DDA's tax increment financing (TIF) district. That news had been announced in May 2011. The board voted in July 2011 to accept a $749,427 settlement related to the police services lawsuit. The county was paid in August.]

At the Nov. 29 administrative briefing, to explain the reason for the budget amendment assigning the additional funding, board chair Conan Smith noted that there’s increased need for basic human services, like food and housing. He also cited changes in the office of community development (OCD), which was recently awarded a $3 million grant. [The federal grant, administered by OCD, was awarded to the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community project. It's for a project focusing on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.]

Coordinated Funding: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary at the start of the Dec. 7 meeting to urge commissioners to restore money in the budget for coordinated funding, and to thank them for their support. Some of the speakers had previously lobbied for funding, before the Nov. 16 budget vote.

Paul Saginaw, co-founder and board member of Food Gatherers, with the nonprofit's board chair, Margie Hagene. Both spoke during public commentary in support of coordinated funding.

Margie Hagene, board chair for the nonprofit Food Gatherers, and board member Paul Saginaw – who co-founded Zingerman’s and Food Gatherers – both spoke in support of restoring funding. Food Gatherers is one of the nonprofits that receives money through the coordinated funding process. Saginaw thanked the board for reinvesting in human services and promoting the human potential that surrounds us, rather than discarding it.

Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, thanked commissioners for their support of coordinated funding. The foundation is one of the partners in this approach, she said, and is fully committed to it. It’s the right approach at a time of great need, she said, allowing public funds to leverage private dollars. That way, each dollar has a greater impact than it would if invested alone. Other communities are interested in emulating this model, she said. She looked forward to a continued partnership.

Pam Smith, executive director of the Child Care Network, also thanked commissioners. She described two recent volunteer experiences of she’d had, helping a mother shop for children’s clothing through the Warm the Children program, and wrapping gifts that people brought in for needy families at Saline Area Social Services. She’s seen the spectrum – from those in great need, to those who are answering that need. Commissioners have a difficult job, she said, but the community is behind them.

Dick Soble, a board member of both the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and Food Gatherers, and WHA board member Jean Carlberg each spoke in support of reallocating money to coordinated funding. Soble noted that the county helped found WHA, which now involves 26 organizations working to address issues of homelessness. Carlberg said the county has provided a model for public/private partnerships, and she hoped commissioners would continue their support.

Coordinated Funding: Commissioner Discussion

Several commissioners thanked the people who came to speak in support of coordinated funding. Yousef Rabhi said he was proud that the county could restore the funding. Rob Turner noted that the board had made human services a budget priority, and they were cementing that decision by restoring funding.

Leah Gunn said she supported the resolution to restore funding, and she thanked Alicia Ping for Ping’s suggestion to spread the funding over two years. [The original proposal had added $250,000 to the coordinated funding line item in 2012. At the Nov. 29 agenda briefing, Ping had argued that the amount was better allocated over two years. Otherwise, coordinated funding would see a significant increase in 2012, then a sharp dropoff in 2013 if the county couldn’t find money for it at that level, she said.]

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Dan Smith said he wouldn’t support the increase. He noted that the board had just approved the budget at its last meeting, and it was premature to increase funding at this point, especially since the county asked its employees to make sacrifices to balance the budget. He also pointed to the projected $14 million deficit in 2014, which will require additional cuts, saying that the county is in dire financial straits.

Outcome: On a 10-1 vote, the board approved additional money for coordinated funding in 2012-2013. Dissenting was Dan Smith (R-District 2).

After the vote, Ronnie Peterson said he wanted to clarify that contrary to some media reports, he had previously voted against cuts to coordinated funding, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and Head Start. From The Chronicle’s report of that budget vote:

The final budget vote was unanimous, though three commissioners voted no on specific line items. (Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent.) Ronnie Peterson, Felicia Brabec and Alicia Ping voted no to cuts for animal control services. Peterson and Brabec also voted no to cuts for Head Start and the coordinated funding of human services. Conan Smith voted no to the line item for the board of commissioners, referring to it only by the line item number. He later said he’d been joking. [.pdf of 2012-2013 general fund budget]

Peterson said it was amazing that they now could come up with more money for coordinated funding, but not for Head Start. [The 2012 budget includes $528,048 in funding for Head Start, but eliminates county support in 2013. The county plans to turn over the program to federal officials by 2013. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Head Start Advocates Make Emotional Plea"]

Peterson wanted to make sure the county honors its Head Start employees, and that the county administration provides appropriate documents to indicate that the decision to relinquish the program was not because of problems with its quality.

Humane Society Update

Ronnie Peterson, who has opposed cuts to the county’s funding of state-mandated animal control services provided under contract with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, asked for an update on negotiations for a new contract. HSHV’s current contract, for $500,000 annually, ends on Dec. 31. The county has budgeted a total of $430,000 annually for 2012 and 2013, which HSHV has indicated is insufficient for the work required by the county. [See Chronicle coverage: "Animal Control Mandate Unresolved" and "Washtenaw County Budget Set for 2012-2013"]

Board chair Conan Smith reported that HSHV board chair Mike Walsh had been sent a draft RFP, including a “scope of work” for animal control services that the county believes are mandated by the state. [.pdf of draft RFP] Representatives from the county and HSHV are planning to meet soon to continue negotiations, Smith said, and he hoped to move quickly to find common ground for a new contract. The negotiating team for the county includes Smith, sheriff Jerry Clayton, and county administrator Verna McDaniel. HSHV is represented by Walsh, Mark Heusel, and HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf.

Peterson pressed for information about what might happen after Jan. 1 if a new agreement isn’t reached. Smith replied by recounting that in October, the county had received a letter from Walsh indicating that HSHV likely wouldn’t be able to continue providing services at the reduced amount, but offering to handle some kind of transitional service until the county sought another provider. Smith said McDaniel has been investigating other options in case the county needs to bid out the work. There is at least one entity, possibly more, that could handle animal control services for the county starting Jan. 1, Smith said, if negotiations with HSHV break down. McDaniel added that she didn’t want to name those other entities, but the county does have options.

The county has budgeted roughly $25,000 a month for animal control services, Smith said. For contracts under $25,000, the county administrator has the discretion to authorize those agreements. Such a contract would be temporary, Smith said, while negotiations with HSHV continue. He said he didn’t view Jan. 1 as a deadline for negotiating.

Regardless of the entity that eventually enters into a long-term contract with the county, Smith said, it’s important that a detailed billing of services be provided to the county. [One criticism of the current HSHV contract is that there's no itemized billing in the monthly invoice sent to the county.] Smith said the bill should list details such as boarding fees per animal and veterinarian services, so that it’s clear what’s being paid for on behalf of the county’s taxpayers.

Some commissioners wanted to ensure that a new long-term contract with HSHV – or perhaps another provider – would be brought to the board for approval. Rob Turner noted that the funding for animal control services is part of the sheriff’s budget now, and that the sheriff has authority to enter into such contracts. The board didn’t approve food service or laundry contracts with the jail, for example, so why should this be different? This had been a concern of his when they originally voted to shift the funding from the “outside agencies” category to the sheriff’s office, Turner said. He felt it had indicated a severing of the board’s relationship with HSHV.

Peterson said he didn’t feel that shifting the funds to the sheriff’s office meant the board had relinquished control. He assumed any contract for animal control services would be coming back to the board.

Smith conceded that this was a gray area. Other funds in the sheriff’s office budget are controlled by the sheriff. Clayton and McDaniel had both indicated that they understood the board intended to remain involved in decisions about animal control services, Smith said.

To clarify the issue, Smith proposed a resolution amending the 2012 budget line item for animal control services, stating “No contract for animal control services that extends beyond 60 days shall be entered into without approval by the board of commissioners.”

Barbara Bergman indicated that she believed the sheriff should make decisions about how to handle animal control services, now that the funds are in his budget.

Outcome: The budget amendment passed on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Barbara Bergman.

Peterson also brought up the issue of the investment that the county has made in HSHV’s facility. By way of background, in mid-2007 the county board approved the issuance of $6.5 million in bonds for the construction of HSHV’s new animal shelter, plus a $1 million contribution to the HSHV construction fund from its capital reserves. That bond was to be repaid on a seven-year schedule by the county – using funds supplied by HSHV. The bonds were sold in August 2008, with the final payment due in 2015.

To issue to bonds, the county needed to have an ownership stake in the project. So currently, and through the end of the scheduled bond payments, the county owns the animal shelter, and leases the facility back to HSHV. That arrangement is possible through a ground lease agreement in which the county leases from HSHV the property on which the animal shelter is built. HSHV owns part of that land, and leases the other part from the University of Michigan in an arrangement approved by UM on July 17, 2008. The UM lease to HSHV is for $8,000 for the first 30 years of the 65-year lease, with the amount after 30 years reduced to $1 per year.

At the county board’s Dec. 7 meeting, Peterson described the situation as a liability on the county’s books, and said there’s no obligation for HSHV to make payments on the bonds. The taxpayers’ investment in that facility should be protected, he said – that’s an argument in favor of reaching an agreement with HSHV for a new contract.

Turner replied that even if the county’s contract isn’t continued with HSHV, the nonprofit wouldn’t consider leaving its new facility. He also said that losing the county’s contract won’t make or break HSHV financially.

Road Commission Proposal

On the Dec. 7 agenda was a resolution to reject a proposal from the Washtenaw County road commission that included a variety of road improvement projects, and the possibility of a countywide millage (that would not require voter approval) to pay for them.

Road Commission Proposal: Public Commentary

Christine Jones of Ann Arbor said it would be completely unfair for voters not to have a say in raising taxes for road repair. People didn’t elect the county commissioners with the understanding that commissioners would raise taxes, she said. Jones said she wanted to make sure the road tax didn’t pass and that the board heard from taxpayers about it.

Road Commission Proposal: Commissioner Discussion

By way of background, the proposal had been discussed at length by the board in October, when commissioners ultimately decided to defer action until the Dec. 7 meeting.

The board had initially discussed this issue at its Sept. 8 working session, and it was expected to be on the agenda for the Sept. 20 meeting. But it wasn’t until Sept. 23 that the road commission formally submitted its plan to the county clerk’s office outlining a set of possible road projects throughout the county, costing about $8.7 million. [.pdf of projects list and .pdf of map showing the location of the proposed projects]

A truck parked at the Zeeb Road facility of the Washtenaw County road commission.

The plan was then brought forward as an item of discussion at the board’s Oct. 5 meeting. However, no resolution related to the topic was proposed, and no member of the road commission attended that meeting. The following night, at an Oct. 6 working session, the issue was tackled yet again as the board met with Ken Schwartz, a former county commissioner who’s now one of three road commissioners, and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering. Schwartz was instrumental in identifying a 1909 state law that would allow the county board to levy a millage for road repair without voter approval.

The item was discussed at some length during a Nov. 29 administrative briefing, held to preview the Dec. 7 agenda items. That meeting was attended by all but two commissioners: Ronnie Peterson and Dan Smith. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Poised to Reject Road Millage"]

At the briefing, there was no enthusiasm for acting on the road commission’s plan. In addition to concerns about levying a millage, commissioners pointed to uncertainty related to pending state legislation that would, if passed, allow the county to take over operation of the road commission. [On Thursday, Dec. 1, the state House of Representatives passed bills that would allow county road commissions to be eliminated or restructured, and folded into operations of the county government. Currently, road commissions operate independently, with separate budgets and staff. The bills await action in the state Senate. The state senator representing Ann Arbor's District 18, Rebekah Warren, is married to county board chair Conan Smith. She attended a portion of the Dec. 7 board meeting.]

The discussion at the Nov. 29 briefing also touched on the leadership change at the road commission. Long-time managing director Steve Puuri is retiring at the end of 2011.

None of these issues were raised when the item came before the board on Dec. 7, and there was only limited discussion. Noting that there are major roads in his district that need repair, Ronnie Peterson expressed frustration that it didn’t appear the issue would be discussed by the board before the vote. He said he thought the road commissioners and staff would make a presentation, but that wasn’t the case. [Schwartz was the only representative from the road commission at the Dec. 7 meeting, but he did not formally address the board.]

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, reviewed the process that had taken place to this point, including the decision by the board on Oct. 5 to defer the item until Dec. 7, and the discussion at the board’s Oct. 6 working session.

Outcome: As part of the board’s consent agenda, commissioners voted unanimously to reject the road commission proposal.

Countywide Public Transit Update

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, gave a presentation to commissioners about efforts to create a countywide transit system. [For background on a variety of transportation issues, including the countywide plan, see recent Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"] Also attending the Dec. 7 meeting was AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein, and Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, AATA’s community outreach coordinator.

Michael Ford, right, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, talks with county commissioner Wes Prater.

Ford began by outlining three major steps being taken to create a countywide transit system: (1) developing a governance structure for regional service, (2) planning service improvements, and (3) figuring out funding at the local, state and national levels. The first step has been taken this year, he said, with the creation of the unincorporated 196 board (U196).

Act 196 of 1986 is a state enabling statute that explicitly provides for the formation of a transit authority at the county level. The AATA is formed under Act 55 of 1963.

Membership in the 11-member unincorporated board (U196) is as follows: 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) Rich Robben (AATA board).

Ford said that next steps for governance include: (1) securing a 4-party agreement with AATA, the county, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; (2) writing up the articles of incorporation; and (3) developing bylaws. On the funding side, Ford noted that a report on funding options was released in the fall, and a task force of local financial experts – chaired by former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and McKinley CEO Albert Berriz – has met three times so far. A report with both short- and long-term funding recommendations will be ready in early 2012.

A 30-year plan for service improvements has already been developed, Ford said. The U196 board has been discussing it, with the goal of developing a five-year transit improvement program that will be presented to municipalities in the county before incorporating as a countywide transit authority. The program, to be completed in 2012, will include service recommendations, a funding plan, and recommended fare structures and policy.

What’s needed from the county, Ford said, is help in developing a clear and transparent process that’s fair to citizens, uses public resources in an efficient way, and maintains local control while allowing municipalities to work together. More specifically, a four-party agreement between the county, AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti is being developed that will set a framework for incorporating a countywide transit authority. [.pdf draft of four-party agreement]

Among other things, the agreement would enable the transfer of dedicated transit millages in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor to the new authority, and establish a process for opting-out of the authority.

Ford described the process that would lead to the establishment of a new countywide authority, assuming the county approves the authority’s articles of incorporation and that the four-party agreement is also approved. In 2012, the U196 board will finish a report on a five-year transit improvement program, then request that the county clerk – Larry Kestenbaum – file articles of incorporation for a countywide transit authority.

The articles of incorporation would establish the authority with boundaries of Washtenaw County. Certified letters, required by law, would be sent to each municipality announcing incorporation of the authority. Any municipality could opt-out, and those communities would not be taxed or receive transit service. The county would not take on liabilities, Ford said, nor provide its full faith and credit to the authority. The county could appoint a liaison to attend transit authority meetings.

The county would not be expected to make any request for funding, such as a levy on taxpayers. A chart provided by Ford indicated that a funding request would be made directly to voters. If voters rejected it, the request would be put on the ballot again, once a year. If voters do not approve a millage by the end of 2014, the incorporated 196 board would be dissolved.

Ford said that if and when countywide funding is set, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti then would transfer their current dedicated transit millages to the new authority. AATA would transfer its assets, obligations and operations to the new authority, too, and the authority would begin implementing the countywide five-year transit plan.

The county board will be asked to vote on the articles of incorporation and four-party agreement in January, Ford said. He again stressed that the county would not be taking on liabilities or debt. Nor would the board be asked to request funding from voters, he said. Local governments will have the opportunity to opt-out when the authority is formed. The municipalities that participate will have input into planning countywide transportation, he said.

“I really could use your support in moving this thing forward,” Ford concluded, alluding to the catch-phrase used to promote the countywide initiative at MovingYouForward.org. He noted that AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein was in the audience, and that either of them would be happy to answer questions.

Countywide Public Transit Update: Commissioner Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. thanked Ford for coming, and praised AATA staff for their help in Sizemore’s district putting in bus stops along Holmes Road and in the Willow Run neighborhood. Ronnie Peterson thanked both Ford and Gryniewicz, saying that they’d done a tremendous job in explaining the possible expansion. It was difficult to do during these challenging economic times, Peterson said, but it’s a vision that he’s been advocating for a long time. He asked Ford what’s needed from the county board at this point.

Ford replied that the board’s approval of the four-party agreement in January would be appreciated. Any outreach and support that commissioners can do would also be welcome, he said, noting that AATA can’t do it alone.

Peterson said there’s no millage that the county board is being asked to levy, and no administrative costs that the county would incur. He clarified with Ford that although the county board would allow for the formation of this new entity to take place, the responsibility for it would rest with the local communities. Nor would the county need to bond or incur any kind of debt. In that case, Peterson said, he fully supported the initiative.

Peterson commended Ann Arbor officials for allowing AATA to move in this direction, noting that in general “I don’t commend them too much.” The project had moved more quickly than any other government initiative he could recall, and there’s no question it had his support.

Wes Prater asked when the articles of incorporation would be ready for review. In January, Ford replied. Prater then clarified with Ford that local communities could opt out of the 196 organization if they wanted to – they didn’t have to participate.

Prater noted that the five-year plan doesn’t indicate any capital improvements that will be needed. Ford said that piece of it is still being developed, and they’re looking at potential funding needed for both operations and capital. That information will be provided to the board in the future, he said.

Yousef Rabhi described this project as one of utmost importance. He doesn’t own a car, and said he would love to be able to get where he needed to go throughout the county via public transportation. He said he’s attended two of the three U196 meetings so far, but he’s not an official liaison for the county board. Anyone can go to the U196 meetings.

Leah Gunn indicated support for appointing Rabhi as a liaison. She said when she first met Ford, she knew he could pull off this initiative.

Dan Smith said he had some doubts that all of the local communities would participate, and it appears that’s the case. He said he expected more would pull out eventually. Smith added that he’s glad the financing piece is coming together, and he thanked Ford for the outreach and updates, and for soliciting public opinion on this effort.

Barbara Bergman joked that she now knows how to get a free lunch – an allusion to several lunch meetings that AATA hosted for community leaders to brief them about this project. She thanked Ford for tutoring her on the effort.

Setting the Stage for 2012

Typically the report from the board chair is a relatively brief agenda item. But at the Dec. 7 meeting, Conan Smith used the time to make a presentation outlining a framework for setting priorities in 2012. With the county’s two-year budget now approved for 2012-2013, the board has the luxury of using 2012 as a planning year, he said, putting in place policy changes that will guide the county in the future.

Smith identified two main issues facing the county: (1) institutional financial stability, and (2) a crisis facing the east side of the county.

He addressed the county’s financial stability first, noting that the county has a structural deficit with long-term implications. Though the administration has done yeoman’s work in making structural reforms, Smith said, it’s not sufficient, given other challenges at the federal, state and local levels. Among those challenges, he said, are declining property values leading to lower tax revenues, a reduction or elimination of state revenue-sharing, changes to federal programs that affect revenue, and the possible elimination of the personal property tax. On the expenditure side, the county is challenged by increasing labor costs, particularly related to health care and to retiree health care liabilities.

There’s also “complexity” regarding the cost of police services, Smith said. The county’s contribution to police services is escalating, he noted, and if other communities want to opt in and contract with the sheriff for police services, how can the county afford it?

Looking ahead, the county faces a sizeable gap between projected revenues and expenditures, he said. The projections anticipate deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015. At the community level, there are several threats, he said, including dramatic disparities in child poverty rates, high unemployment rates, declining per-capita income levels, and disparate graduation rates. Related to that last issue, Smith noted that the Chelsea school district has the county’s highest graduation rate, and he hoped the board could look to commissioner Rob Turner – who served on the Chelsea school board for nine years – for guidance.

Turning to issues facing the county’s east side, Smith said that area is facing what someone else characterized as the “perfect storm of despair.” The unemployment rate in the city of Ypsilanti is nearly 12%, compared to 8% countywide. Between 1999 and 2008, per-capita income in Ypsilanti Township fell to 19% to $24,038. Per-capita income in Ypsilanti Township and Ypsilanti, at $21,014, is below the amount that would be generated from the county’s living wage ordinance of $12.50 an hour, he noted. The situation ought to be untenable and unacceptable, he said.

Chart showing rates of free or reduced school lunches. (Links to larger image)

Other measures that reflect the disparity between the east side and the rest of the county include the percentage of students enrolled in the free or reduced school lunch program, the percentage of residents reporting they experience poor mental health days, and lower graduation rates.

Smith said that while you can find pockets of poverty, hunger and homelessness throughout the county, there’s a layering of challenges on the east side that make it especially dire, and difficult for residents to break out of the cycle of poverty. He said he was grateful that two Ypsilanti city councilmembers – Pete Murdock and Brian Robb – were attending that night’s board meeting. He noted that despite being one of the state’s best-managed cities, Ypsilanti is facing a financial crisis that could lead to bankruptcy. Ypsilanti has the highest tax rate in the county, yet because of declining property values, its property tax revenue is falling. That creates an environment in which it’s difficult to attract businesses or residents, Smith said.

It’s a cross-jurisdictional challenge, Smith argued, and the county needs to work hand-in-glove with Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township to address these problems. He maintained that east side issues are county issues. For one thing, a decline in property values affects the amount of revenues in the county budget. From 2007 to 2011, the county’s general fund has lost $3.75 million in revenues because of falling property values in Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. In addition, he noted that the board has made human services and public safety a priority – those issues are particularly a concern on the east side.

Smith then outlined options for addressing these challenges, saying that the county’s financial stability and the problems facing the east side are interconnected. Regarding the county’s financial stability, Smith looked at three options: (1) cut costs and services; (2) raise the tax rate; and (3) improve the tax base. The first option is not sustainable, he argued. It has an immediate impact, but a declining effect. It would entail workforce reductions, which would in turn mean cuts to direct services for residents. And some would argue that the county has already cut to the bone, he said.

The second option – raising the tax rate – would also have a near-term impact and declining long-term effect. It might be an effective strategy to address specific issues, he said. Potential targets might include a Headlee override, or a millage for specific county services such as housing, police services or community health. The strategy could also be used to fund outside agencies, such as the nonprofit sector – the possibility of a human services millage has been floated in the past.

2012 ballot deadlines.

Smith said that Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, has pledged to schedule a discussion on this topic in early 2012. Passing a millage or Headlee override, which would reset the millage rate to its original value, would be an uphill battle, Smith said, and something the board would need to tackle quickly. Regarding the Headlee override, the county would gain about 9/10ths of a mill, he said – equating to around $13 million to $14 million annually.

With respect to levying an additional millage, Smith said he had used 0.5 mill as an example, and had calculated how much residents across the county would pay if such a millage passed. [.pdf of chart showing millage calculations] Ann Arbor residents, for example, would pay on average $55.25 annually. On the low end, residents in the village of Manchester would pay $25.54, based on the average taxable value of property there. A half-mill would raise about $7-8 million for the county, Smith said.

The third option is to improve the county’s tax base, which is the most sustainable, but hardest and longest approach, Smith said. It would focus on improving economic opportunity and quality of life, but would require a coordinated investment from both the public and private sectors, he noted – the county couldn’t do it alone.

Smith proposed that the board explore this third option. The board needs to look strategically at whether to put a millage on the ballot, and to develop a policy framework for the county’s investments – how it spends its revenues. Those investments are already being made in the county’s hardest-hit areas, he said, but there are better, more strategic ways to do that.

A policy framework would identify the outcomes that are desired, such as improved jobs, health or public safety. A policy framework would also provide better clarity and coherence in decision-making across all county agencies, as well as for voters and community partners. Developing this kind of framework would be a long process, he said, and would require leadership from the board.

Within this context, Smith identified five goals to work toward:

• Stabilize or increase property values.
• Create opportunities for living-wage jobs.
• Provide access to lifeline resources for physical and emotional health and well-being.
• Ensure safety and security for all residents.
• Build an engaged, empowered citizenry.

Smith said he hoped to hold working sessions focused on each of these goals in early 2012. He also wanted to take the first several months of the year to talk about a possible millage, but set a longer timeline for the policy discussions. The outcome of their work would be (1) a decision on whether to put a millage on the ballot, and (2) a policy framework for dealing with issues on the county’s east side.

Regarding a possible millage proposal, Smith laid out the following timeline:

• January 2012: Hold a working session to explore the focus of a millage, rates and logistical considerations.
• February/March 2012: Craft a proposal for the board to review, approve or reject.
• March through May, August or November 2012 (depending on when a millage would be put on the ballot): Support a campaign for the millage.

For developing a policy framework, Smith proposed starting with a half-day retreat in January that would include other county elected officials. Working sessions could be held in February through May with staff and others focused on the five goals. From May through August a policy framework would be drafted, reviewed, amended and adopted, he said, followed by implementation starting in September.

Smith concluded his presentation by saying he looked forward to discussing these issues as the board moves into a very challenging 2012.

Setting the State for 2012: Commissioner Discussion

The board spent about 45 minutes discussing Smith’s proposal. Yousef Rabhi began by describing the goals as phenomenal. It was great to have those goals for the east side, he added, but everyone in the county should have access to living-wage jobs, or a home that’s not at risk of foreclosure. The need is everywhere, he said, though the rates of poverty are higher on the east side. He noted that the county is already spending about 70% of its resources on the east side. It’s good to have a discussion about how to make those resources more effective, but Rabhi also wanted to have that same discussion include other parts of the county.

Barbara Bergman told Smith that if other commissioners had been involved in developing his proposal, it would have included all of the county, not just the east side. [Bergman represents District 8, which covers the northeast portion of Ann Arbor. Smith's District 10 also is in Ann Arbor, on the west side.] It would be difficult to pass a millage unless the revenues it generated would be spent countywide, she said. There is poverty all over the county, she added, and unless that’s considered, she wouldn’t support this approach.

Bergman said she’s long been a supporter of Ypsilanti, but this plan doesn’t take into consideration other parts of the county and it would be difficult to ask her constituents to support a millage for it. She said she hoped he would take this into consideration “as you plan agendas with us, Mr. Smith.”

Felicia Brabec asked Smith what the process would be, now that he has presented his proposal. Smith characterized it as similar to the budget process this year, when he presented some issues and a framework for board discussion. He noted that he didn’t present solutions, only options. Part of his role as chair is to make sure the board’s agendas are driving forward their priorities. He said he has background and experience in fostering these kinds of conversations, and if the outcome doesn’t go his way, “that’s not new.” Responding to Bergman’s comments, Smith said the board will make decisions on how to proceed – his job is just to kick off the conversation.

Brabec said her thought is that these goals would fit a lot of communities, but she was struck by how difficult it would be to identify objectives for these goals. That alone could take a year or two, she said.

Smith said if it were up to him, they’d talk about it for five years – he and Tony VanDerworp, one of the county’s managers who’s responsible for energy and economic development programs, would be “drunk on process,” Smith joked. But there are ways to tackle these goals more quickly. For one, the board can rely on staff leadership – many county workers have been dealing with these challenges for decades, he noted. The other thing is simply to attune people to the outcomes that the board is seeking, and focus efforts across county government – including the sheriff, treasurer and other elected leaders – on getting greater impact from their investments. How can they all work together better, for a greater impact?

Wes Prater said he was impressed by Smith’s “white paper,” adding that it will make commissioners think about these issues. He noted that they can use census data to drill down and determine specific areas of poverty to target the county’s resources, but agreed with others who said the effort needs to look countywide. There are tough decisions to be made, he said, “but I guess that’s our job.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he agreed with Prater. There are duplication of services that he’d like to address, especially related to services for youth. Sizemore said he was organizing a countywide summit for youth, and he planned to work hard on these goals.

Saying he’d been concerned about the challenges coming up in the 2014-2015 budget, Rob Turner praised Smith for focusing the board on these issues. These are great ideas, but the biggest thing that will help improve the county financially is to make people more productive, he said. Turner also expressed concern about focusing mainly on the east side – everyone needs to buy into it, he said. [Turner represents District 1, covering the west and northwest part of the county.]

Turner told commissioners that his niece is a teacher in the Willow Run school district on the county’s east side, and that kids there aren’t prepared for school because of their socioeconomic situation – it puts them at a terrible disadvantage. The financial viability of an area depends on the education of its residents, he said. It’s an interconnected issue that needs to be addressed.

Related to a millage proposal, Turner said he’d been involved in two proposals recently: a countywide school enhancement millage, and a special education millage renewal. The enhancement millage failed because “Ann Arbor voters stayed home,” Turner said, and it wasn’t supported in the out-county areas. Ann Arbor voters again stayed home for the special education millage – some precincts recorded less than 2% turnout – but turnout was greater in other parts of the county, and it passed. Ann Arbor residents must be passionate about any effort that the county puts forward, in order for it to succeed, Turner said. He looked forward to continuing this discussion, and to the board’s retreat in January. The year 2014 will be here before they know it, he said.

Ronnie Peterson praised Smith’s presentation, then said the millage proposal should be separate from the policy framework discussion. That’s correct, Smith replied. Any millage would be countywide and support countywide issues. The other discussion would help the county focus its current investments on the east side more strategically.

Peterson – who represents District 6, which covers much of Ypsilanti – argued that the rest of the county would benefit from helping the east side. “You can’t be half sick,” he said, and Ypsilanti needs healing. He described Smith’s proposal as one of the best initiatives he’d ever seen in county government, and said the needs are great for education, poverty and public safety.

Peterson took issue with the implication that it was somehow unfair for the east side to be getting 70% of the county’s resources. Much of that is federal funding that’s based on data regarding income and other measures, he noted – and he’d be willing to share his district’s poverty, if others wanted those federal resources. He told other commissioners not to compare the few census tracts of poverty in their districts with the situation on the county’s east side. “We will all rise together,” he said.

Rabhi clarified that he hadn’t meant the county should reduce that 70% in spending on the east side, but rather that they should ensure it’s spent more wisely.

80/20 Rule

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a resolution stating that the county will comply with Section 4 of the state’s Public Act 152 of 2011, also known as the “80/20″ rule regarding health care costs. Initial approval was given at the board’s Nov. 16 meeting.

On Jan. 1, 2012, public employers like Washtenaw County will be prohibited from paying more than $5,500 for health benefits annually for a single employee, $11,000 for an employee plus spouse, or $15,000 for family coverage. However, the law allows a public employer, by a majority vote of its governing body, to choose another option: to pay not more than 80% of the total annual costs of all the medical benefits plans it contributes to or offers its employees and elected public officials.

When the board initially passed this resolution on Nov. 16, it stated that collective bargaining agreements entered into by the county on or after Sept. 15, 2011 must comply with the 80/20 rule. Five of the county’s 17 bargaining units, representing about 95 employees, do not yet have agreements with the county for 2012-2013. Those employees would be subject to the 80/20 rule, which will place more responsibility on employees for the cost of health care.

The units that haven’t accepted concessions are those representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office, and AFSCME Local 3052 representing general supervisors.

However, on Dec. 7 an amendment was proposed to change the Sept. 15 date, which the board had initially approved, to Jan. 1, 2012.

Alicia Ping spoke out against the date change. She said that 90% of the employee had come to the table in good faith to meet the Sept. 15 deadline, and it sends the wrong message to them if the board now extends that date. Dan Smith said he’d be voting against the amendment for similar reasons. He noted that the board had held a special meeting in September for the sole purpose of approving labor agreements before the Sept. 15 deadline.

Ronnie Peterson asked why the date change to Jan. 1 is needed. County administrator Verna McDaniel said the change simply gives the administration more flexibility in trying to reach agreements with the unions before the end of this year.

Wes Prater and Yousef Rabhi indicated support, though Rabhi also expressed concern this wasn’t treating the different bargaining units equally. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, came to the podium and said that the change has no impact on the other bargaining units. For the remaining five units, members will either be subject to the 80/20 rule or the hard cap, she said – in either case, they’ll be paying more for their benefits than the other bargaining units.

Outcome: On a 9-2 vote, commissioners approved the date change related to the 80/20 rule deadline for bargaining units. Dissenting were Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

During public commentary at the end of Wednesday’s meeting, county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie spoke to the board, saying that it wasn’t appropriate for some commissioners to imply that the five remaining bargaining units are negotiating in bad faith. He said there is nothing wrong with the way that they’re negotiating, and noted that two years ago, the prosecuting attorneys had been the first of the county’s bargaining units to agree to pay for a portion of their medical insurance. [As an elected official, Mackie is not represented by any of the bargaining units.]

2011 Apportionment Report

In a process mandated by the state, commissioners were asked to accept the county’s 2011 apportionment report, which gives details of the 2011 taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. December tax bills have already been mailed out to property owners, based on these calculations.

Every April, the county’s equalization department produces an annual report describing Washtenaw County’s total equalized (assessed) value of property. The report – part of the state-mandated equalization process – gives an indication of how much revenue the county will receive from property taxes in the coming year. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw County's Taxable Value Falls"]

In November, the equalization and property description department presents an apportionment report, which gives details of the taxable valuations for property in the county, by municipality. The report also includes the amount of millages levied and the dollar amounts collected in taxes. [.pdf file of 2011 apportionment report] Like the equalization report, the board is required by state law to vote on adopting the apportionment report.

This year, all the taxing entities in Washtenaw County will be levying in total about $622 million in property taxes – a drop from $639 million in 2010. The county alone will levy about $81 million this year, compared to $83 million in 2010.

Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, spoke briefly to commissioners, saying that the equalization process is underway in preparation for the annual report in April. He noted that the next equalization report will be calculated based on a CPI of 2.7%, compared to 1.7% for the previous report. [The consumer price index (CPI) is an indicator of inflation.) He said it appears that the market is stabilizing, and that taxable value won’t be declining as much as it did last year.

Conan Smith expressed some surprise and gently teased Patel, noting that this was the first time that he could recall Patel ever hinting at the outcome of an equalization report in advance of its completion. Smith also thanked Patel for his professionalism and guidance over the past few decades for the county during these difficult economic times. Though Smith's remarks implied that Patel would be retiring, after the meeting Patel told The Chronicle that he hadn't announced that decision yet.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to accept the apportionment report.

Support for Same-Sex Benefits

A resolution brought forward by Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi urged state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.”  [.pdf of resolution] The state legislation removes the ability to extend benefits to same-sex partners. As of the Dec. 7 meeting, it had been passed by both the House and Senate. It now awaits Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature before becoming law. A Dec. 9 article in the Detroit Free Press quoted Snyder’s spokeswoman, who indicated that the governor intends to sign the bill pending a final review.

Currently, Washtenaw County offers its employees the option of benefits in an “other eligible adult” category, which includes benefits to same-sex partners as well as opposite-sex partners. There are nine people enrolled in this category of benefits, according to Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director.

Support for Same-Sex Benefits: Public Commentary

Sandi Smith said she was there as a private citizen, even though she serves on the Ann Arbor city council. The council had voted unanimously at its Dec. 5 meeting to support equality, she said, and she hoped the county commissioners would do the same. She noted that the legislation had been passed in the Senate earlier that day, and would go to the governor for his signature imminently. It’s a question of equality, she said. People should be compensated equally, Smith said, and Michigan can’t afford to be viewed as an unfriendly place to be.

Andy LaBarre introduced himself as vice president of of government relations at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce. In November, the chamber had announced its opposition to the legislation, he said, because of its detrimental effect on the business community. [.pdf of chamber statement on HB 4770 and HB4771] LaBarre said he was there to applaud the board for its resolution.

After LaBarre’s commentary, Rabhi pointed out that in addition to his work at the chamber, LaBarre is a candidate for the county board. [LaBarre, a Democrat and former aide to Congressman John Dingell, has announced his intent to run in 2012 for the newly redistricted seat in Ann Arbor's District 7.] Wes Prater kidded Rabhi about how much LaBarre had paid him to mention that.

Support for Same-Sex Benefits: Commissioner Discussion

In an email to The Chronicle prior to the Dec. 7 meeting, Rabhi described the situation as an issue of fairness and equality – the county should be able to treat all of its employees, regardless of sexual orientation, with the same level of care. He also argued that eliminating the county’s ability to extend benefits would hamper its hiring ability. That’s of particular concern because the county is expected to fill about 100 positions in the coming year, in the wake of a high number of retirements at the end of 2011.

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Rob Turner asked to pull the resolution out of the consent agenda so that it could be considered separately. He said he had appreciated that during his year on the board, commissioners haven’t proposed resolutions on state issues. These kinds of votes don’t promote cohesiveness, he said – they are divisive. Because the resolution sets a bad precedent that the board might later regret, he asked that it be withdrawn so that there aren’t hard feelings among commissioners. He said that this kind of resolution has no influence on state legislation.

Leah Gunn countered that this is a message the board needs to send. There are some county employees whose families depend on health insurance and other benefits provided through the “other eligible adult” category, she noted. Gunn said she felt strongly that this is one instance in which the county would be directly affected by the state legislation, and she supported Rabhi’s resolution.

Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie and Ann Arbor city councilmember Sandi Smith. Both spoke during public commentary at the county board meeting, on different topics.

Barbara Bergman agreed with Gunn, saying that the quality of life for county employees is the board’s responsibility, and this legislation affects their quality of life. Generally she agreed with Turner that the board should stay away from state issues, but this is a moral obligation to employees, who are doing “yeoman’s work” for the county, she said.

Dan Smith supported Turner’s view opposing the resolution. They could spend lots of time debating issues at the state and national level – or even issues at the United Nations. The board needs to stay focused on Washtenaw County issues, he said.

Rabhi acknowledged the concerns raised by Turner and D. Smith, and said he respected their opinion. He hoped this wouldn’t be divisive, and he didn’t think it would be – the commissioners work together “phenomenally,” he said. But Rabhi added that he wouldn’t withdraw the resolution, saying he firmly believed they needed to take a stand on this, and that it’s important to staff.

Felicia Brabec also supported the resolution. It’s an issue of fairness and equality, she said, and it affects everyone – not just those who receive benefits. Alicia Ping pointed out that there are around 50,000 people in the county who don’t have health insurance, and any legislation that affects people’s access to health insurance is a bad thing, even if it’s just nine people.

Turner said there have been other times when issues at the state level would have affected staff. He cited a time when AFSCME leaders approached commissioners about an issue. In that case, the approach was for individual commissioners to write letters to state legislators. That was a good way to handle it, Turner said.

Conan Smith said he agreed with Turner in terms of process – the board faces challenges, and needs unity. He said they know their legislators extraordinarily well, and it was easy to get in touch. [This remark elicited laughs, as Smith is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), who attended part of the Dec. 7 meeting.]

In general, C. Smith hoped the board would stay far away from issues that don’t impact the county, and he hoped to minimize the times that they would weigh in on state issues.

Gunn added that anyone can vote the way they want, and it won’t be held against them.

Ronnie Peterson said the resolution had his vote “even without the phone call” – an allusion to Rabhi’s communication with individual commissioners prior to the meeting. The benefits came as part of the condition of employment at the county, he said, and no one should be able to take them away. “Any form of discrimination is wrong,” he said.

Outcome: On a 9-2 vote, commissioners passed the resolution urging state lawmakers to reject HB 4770 and HB 4771. Dissenting were Rob Turner (R-District 1) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Brownfield Plans for Ford, Arbor Hills Crossing

Two brownfield plans were on the agenda for the Dec. 7 meeting: for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant, and Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw. Projects at locations within municipalities that are part of the county brownfield redevelopment authority – including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – must have brownfield plans approved by the county board.

Brownfield Plan: Arbor Hills Crossing

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a brownfield plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw. The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces. The brownfield plan includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing (TIF) to be paid back over a 19-year period.

The Ann Arbor city council approved the brownfield plan at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Dan Smith asked staff to tell him how much of the TIF capture would otherwise be coming to the county’s general fund. Brett Lenart, who has provided staff support for the county’s brownfield program, said that the project is expected to bring an annual increase of $432,000 in property taxes for all taxing jurisdictions. Of that, the county’s portion would be $58,913 compared to the current $16,254. These higher amounts would occur after the end of the 19-year period of the brownfield plan.

Smith said he would support this plan reluctantly. The board still hasn’t had a broader discussion about brownfield plans that require TIF capture, he noted. There are tradeoffs, but commissioners haven’t discussed those tradeoffs.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the working sessions of the board, said he’d schedule the topic for an upcoming session. [The board had debated the issue of brownfield projects in May of this year, in the context of a request from developers of Packard Square in Ann Arbor.] Rabhi noted that the increase eventually coming to the county is money is money it doesn’t currently have.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to give initial approval to the Arbor Hills Crossing brownfield plan. A final vote will likely occur at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, when a public hearing is set. 

Brownfield Plan: Ford’s Rawsonville Plant

The board held a public hearing and was asked to give final approval to a brownfield plan for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant. The plan would allow Ford to apply for $625,000 in Michigan Business Tax credits. According to a staff memo, the plan – with the potential tax credits – would allow the company to retain 260 jobs by bringing back work that’s currently done in China and Mexico. Investment in 2012 would be about $20 million, with total jobs stabilized at about 700 workers.

Two people spoke during the public hearing. Thomas Partridge criticized the hearing for being held so late in the meeting, when the public would have a difficult time being there. He also said these kinds of hearings should be better publicized. Partridge urged the company to reconsider its request and to lower the amount of tax credits and shorten the time it would receive this assistance. The project was taking away vital resources from schools and other taxing entities, he said.

Jeff Donofrio, with Ford Motor Co.’s government affairs office, said this request is all about keeping the Rawsonville plant competitive within the Ford system, so that it can receive additional investment and retain jobs. The request is part of a package of incentives to bring in new investments for Ford’s hybrid-electric and plug-in electric vehicles. He urged commissioners to support the plan.

During the brief discussion of this item, Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether there might be job-shadowing opportunities at the Rawsonville plant for local youth. Donofrio indicated that Ford would be willing to explore that idea.

Ronnie Peterson recalled when the plant had employed more than 5,000 workers, including his father and brother. He was pleased to see jobs coming back, and said the board should be advocates for Ford to continue investing in the county.

As a general commentary on the brownfield program, Wes Prater said the county gives more than $2 million in tax breaks to companies each year, and the board needs a better policy to guide decision-making in this area.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the brownfield plan for Ford Motor Co.’s Rawsonville plant.

Western Washtenaw Recycling

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to issue up to $2.7 million in bonds – backed by the county’s full faith and credit – to help pay for a $3.2 million facility operated by the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority (WWRA). The board had approved a contract for this project at its Sept. 21, 2011 meeting, and taken an initial vote on the bonds at its Nov. 16 meeting.

The WWRA plans to use $500,000 from its reserves to fund part of the project. The $2.7 million in bonds will be repaid through special assessments on households in participating WWRA communities: the city of Chelsea, Dexter Township, Lima Township, Lyndon Township, and Manchester Township. Bridgewater Township is participating in the WWRA, but will not help fund the new facility. The village of Manchester and Sylvan Township have withdrawn from the WWRA.

Drop-off recycling bins will be located in the township, where residents will be assessed $24 per household per year. In Chelsea, where residents will receive curbside recycling service, the assessments will be $56 per household per year. The first of the 15-year assessments, established through the county’s board of public works, will be on the December 2011 tax bills for these areas.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the WWRA bonds.

Energy Subcommittee Formed

On the Dec. 7 agenda was a resolution to create an energy policy subcommittee. The subcommittee’s purpose is to help develop a county energy policy. Such a policy is required in order to receive federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants.

By way of background related to energy issues, at its Aug. 3, 2011 meeting, the board had held a public hearing and subsequently approved an interlocal agreement with the Southeast Michigan Energy Office Community Alliance (SEMRO). The Ferndale-based nonprofit (SEMRO) provides technical services to the county in identifying and implementing federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant projects. [.pdf of interlocal agreement]

The energy office is a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. County commissioner and board chair Conan Smith is CEO of the alliance. The board voted initially to join the energy office at its March 17, 2010 meeting. Smith abstained from that vote. Smith was absent from the Aug. 3 meeting.

At the Dec. 7 meeting, Ronnie Peterson complained about a lack of information regarding the resolution. He asked how far-reaching the subcommittee’s scope would be. Tony VanDerworp, who leads the county’s energy initiatives, told commissioners that having an energy policy is a requirement for receiving federal block grants. But the subcommittee’s charge can be whatever the board wants it to be, he said. The subcommittee’s focus was intended to form a policy for internal purposes, he added – looking at county-owned buildings, its vehicle fleet, and overall energy conservation efforts. But it could be farther-reaching.

In response to a query about who would be appointed, Conan Smith said the members would be commissioners Rob Turner, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Yousef Rabhi. However, he added, others could join if they were interested.

Barbara Bergman noted that any policies or actions proposed by the subcommittee would come before the board for approval. That is, she said, the subcommittee wouldn’t be “czaristic.”

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to create an energy policy subcommittee.

York Twp. Drain Project

Commissioners were asked to authorize the county’s full faith and credit to back the payment of bonds used to repair sinkholes and replace broken tile in a drain along Saline-Milan Road in York Township. [.pdf of map showing project area]

The amount of the bonds is not to exceed $235,000, and will be retired in part through special assessments against the property owners in that area’s drainage district. Money from assessments will account for 69.16% of the project cost, with remaining project costs prepaid by York Township (20%), and Washtenaw County (10.84%). The Wasthenaw County road commission will pay half of the county’s portion of this project, which is being managed by the county office of the water resources commissioner.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize bonds for the York Township drain project.

Appointments

Immediately prior to the board’s Dec. 7, commissioners held an appointments caucus to review applications to 15 county-appointed boards, commissioners and committees – a bi-annual process.

The start of the Washtenaw County appointments caucus. Other commissioners arrived later in the meeting. From left: Alicia Ping, deputy county clerk Peter Simms, Wes Prater, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Leah Gunn, Rob Turner.

Many of the applicants already serve on these groups and were seeking reappointments. Most of the board, commissions and committees require certain categories of people to serve. For example, the brownfield redevelopment authority board required the appointment of someone from a development company (Douglas McClure), a nonprofit (Anna Sandhu), and a municipality (Todd Campbell). There were no other applicants for those slots, and all were reappointed.

In some cases, there were insufficient applicants to fill all the available seats. The local emergency planning committee, for example, has 12 seats to fill, but only one person – Leon Moore – applied.

Some of the other appointments include:

• Washtenaw County Historic District Commission: Paul Darling (general public), Nancy Snyder (general public) and Alice Ralph (architect) were reappointed to terms ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission: Jimmie Maggard, Janice Anschuetz and Robert Marans were all reappointed in the category of general public to terms expiring Dec. 31, 2014. A fourth position was left open, also in the category of general public, although two other people applied. Conan Smith, the county board chair who also serves on the parks & rec commission, said there’s some concern about the aging membership of the commission – about two-thirds of the group is 70 or old, he said, and younger commissioners are needed. He wanted to keep the fourth position open to take time to find someone who loves the work and “will be able to stick around.”
• Environmental Health Code Appeals Board/Public Health Advisory Committee: Jim Carty (general public).
• Community Action Board: Much of the caucus discussion focused on this board, which had nine openings and 16 applicants. Ultimately only six appointments were made: Mary Smith (consumer/Head Start), Joe Dulin (private sector), Deloisteen Brown (private sector), Howard Edelson (private sector), Faye Askew-King (private sector) and Greg Pordon (public sector/Dept. of Human Services). Several other current members did not respond to queries about whether they wanted to be reappointed, and the plan was to attempt to contact them again before making a decision on the remaining appointments. The length of these terms varies.
• Workforce Development Board: Nine positions were open and 12 people applied, but the board only appointed seven people on Dec. 7, with remaining appointments to be made at a later date. The appointees are: Paul Ganz (private sector), Charles Penner (private sector/economic development), Les Alexander (private sector), Howard Edelson (private sector), Steven Gulick (organized labor) and Wes Prater (organized labor). The length of these terms varies.
• Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee: Two reappointments were made to this group, which oversees the county’s natural areas preservation program: Rane Curl (land trust/conservation) and David Lutton (professional real estate or development practice). The terms end Dec. 31, 2013. A third reappointment request – for John Russell (environmental education) – was denied. In explaining the decision to commissioners at the appointments caucus, Conan Smith described Russell as passionate, but not a constructive committee member. Smith said the position will be reposted, and noted that other applications came in after the deadline. Barbara Bergman urged Smith to send a letter of thanks to Russell for his service.

Outcome: At the board’s regular meeting, appointments were approved unanimously. [.pdf of all appointments]

Communications/Public Commentary

There are various opportunities for communications from commissioners as well as general public commentary.

Communications: Parks & Recreation Grants

Conan Smith, who also serves on the county parks & recreation commission, asked parks & rec director Bob Tetens to come forward and report on state grants that were recently awarded to projects in the county. Tetens reported that earlier in the day he’d been notified by Kirk Profit – a Lansing-based lobbyist for the county – that the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund had awarded grants to four local projects: (1) a skatepark  to be built at Ann Arbor’s Veterans Memorial Park, (2) improvements at the Gallup Park canoe livery, (3) improvements at Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti, and (4) a Michigan Ave. (US-12) Border-to-Border bridge project.

In addition, Tetens said the county had been awarded $2.2 million toward the purchase of a 54-acre parcel near Domino’s Farms in Ann Arbor Township, through the county’s natural areas preservation program. In total, about $3.5 million were awarded to projects within the county, Tetens said. “We were happy.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr., another commissioner serving on the parks & recreation commission, thanked state Sen. Rebekah Warren for her help in securing the funds.

Ronnie Peterson also praised Warren, especially for pointing out this possible funding source for the Rutherford pool, which is located in Peterson’s district. He also thanked Profit and others for working on these projects.

Communications: Pearl Harbor Day, Armistice Day

Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that Dec. 7 was Pearl Harbor Day, saying that he wanted people to keep that in mind.

Dan Smith said he’d recently come across some relevant state legislation:

MCL 46.11a Armistice day celebration; appropriation by board of supervisors. [The board of supervisors is a predecessor to the current board of commissioners.]

The board of supervisors is hereby authorized to appropriate such sum as they deem fit for the purpose of a public celebration on Armistice day. The board shall provide for the expenditure of this money in any way they see fit.

He noted that Armistice Day is now called Veterans Day, celebrated in September. He said his father served in the navy from September 1945 through August 1946, and was always proud of that naval service.

Public Commentary: Lourdes Salazar Bautista

In addition to the public commentary reported above, six people spoke regarding the imminent deportation of Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista. Many others were in the audience carrying signs of support and applauding those who addressed the board. Some of the speakers had also attended the Dec. 5 Ann Arbor city council meeting and spoken during public commentary there as well.

Speaking Spanish that was translated by an interpreter, Lourdes Salazar Bautista described how she’d lived in Ann Arbor for 14 years, fulfilling a dream of hers to come here. Her father had often come to America to work in the fields, and had spoken highly of the country. Her three children – ages 7, 9 and 13 – were all born here. Everything was going well until agents of the federal Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) office had detained her in front of her oldest daughter last year. They deported her husband, but told her that everything else was fine. Then in September of this year, they told her that she would be deported too – her deportation date is set for Dec. 27. She tearfully asked commissioners to do whatever was in their power to help.

Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) said that Bautista’s case is not isolated. Washtenaw County is a target because of its proximity to the border with Canada, and the need for federal immigration official to meet deportation quotas. Thousands of residents are affected, she said. Sanders urged commissioners to sign a letter of support for Bautista, that would be sent to ICE director John Morton and Janet Napolitano, director of homeland security. [.pdf of WICIR's cover letter to commissioners] [.pdf of proposed letter to Morton and Napolitano] Sanders praised county sheriff Jerry Clayton, saying he had been accessible to WICIR on this issue.

Diana Carolina, a PhD student at the University of Michigan, said she was the daughter of an immigrant who was a domestic worker, often coming home with her hands smelling like cleaning products. ICE is tearing families apart, she said, including families with children who, like her, have assimilated to the U.S. She noted the irony of the U.S. government promoting policies that destroyed economies in South America, while at the same time deporting people who were forced to come to America to find jobs.

Carlos Zalval identified himself as a member of WICIR and of the St. Mary Student Parish, where Bautista is also a member. He’s known Bautista for years, and described her as a role model for families, working with children even under this adverse situation. She is a positive influence, and the U.S. would gain a productive and caring person if she stayed. She’s a hard worker and pays taxes, he said. Immigrants move this country forward, and he urged commissioners to help stop her deportation.

Linda Kurtz is a neighbor of Bautista, living across the street from her for more than 10 years. Bautista is a good neighbor and a good friend, Kurtz said, and their children played together for many years. She’s hard-working, quiet, respectful and caring, and turned a run-down house on the block into a nice home. Of the nine houses on the block, two had been foreclosed on and one of those is still vacant. The block doesn’t need another empty house, she said. Bautista pays her bills on time, and is an asset to the community – an embodiment of the American dream, Kurtz said, and it would be devastating in she was deported.

Priscila Martinez read a letter from David DeYoung, the principal of Wines Elementary, where Bautista’s two youngest children attend school. In the letter, DeYoung described the children as model students, and said that Bautista is an active member in the school community. Pulling them out of school would have a devastating affect on their future. Martinez also told commissioners that other letters were being written in support of Bautista by leaders of the Catholic church and by Congressman John Dingell and Sen. Carl Levin.

Three commissioners – Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, and Yousef Rabhi – responded to the public commentary, thanking people for coming and indicating their support. Gunn noted that all the commissioners had signed a copy of the letter to Morton and Napolitano – it had been passed around the board table earlier in the meeting.

Public Commentary: Thomas Partridge

In addition to the public hearing on Ford’s brownfield plan, Thomas Partridge spoke during the four other opportunities for public commentary during the Dec. 7 meeting. He reiterated themes he frequently touches on during commentary at various public meetings, advocating for action to bring more affordable housing, transportation, education and health care to the county’s most vulnerable residents. He urged commissioners to enact protections for the vulnerable, and impose penalties for those who bully the disadvantaged. He asked the board to reverse course and find a way to fully fund programs like Head Start.

Partridge also called on commissioners to oppose the deportation of Lourdes Salazar Bautista, saying that the county’s corporation counsel should go to court to seek an injunction against such an action.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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

Ben Carlisle mans the laptop for the projection onto the screen as his father Dick Carlisle explains to the unincorporated Act 196 (U196) board how an online community input tool can be used to map out suggestions from attendees at public forums. The men are with Carlisle Wortman Associates, an Ann Arbor consulting firm hired by the AATA to help with district planning meetings. The U196 meeting took place on Nov. 14. (Image links to the online participation tool.)

One item was the ratification of a new policy on public input for changes in bus fares and schedules. When the board arrived at the item on the agenda, board member David Nacht, who was first to speak to the issue, suggested the issue was so straightforward that the board could vote immediately.

The board unanimously approved the new public input policy, which distinguishes between major and minor changes to fares and routes, and provides a range of ways that the public is to be notified about such changes. The policy also includes a range of ways the AATA will receive the public’s feedback on such changes.

Another item generating little controversy at the board table was approval of an increase to the number of buses running on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor – between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which is served by AATA Route #4. Again, Nacht led off board discussion on the issue, calling it a “no-brainer.” At the conclusion of his brief remarks, he declared, “Let’s vote!” Others had more to say, but the board eventually approved the increased bus frequency – up to eight buses per hour during peak periods.

Nacht’s apparent eagerness to dispatch with those items with extra efficiency could be attributed to a hour-long closed session the board had held before those votes.

The session was held to deliberate on a request from the American Civil Liberties Union that the AATA accept an advertisement for the sides of its buses that had been previously rejected. When the board emerged from the closed session – held to consider a written opinion of its legal counsel, which is allowed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act – the board voted to affirm the rejection of the ad. The ad includes the text, “Boycott ‘Israel’ Boycott Apartheid.”

In addition to taking those three votes, the board entertained its usual range of committee and staff reports, including updates on a possible transition by the AATA into a countywide authority. Those updates included a report on the second meeting of the U196 – an unincorporated board of a countywide transit authority likely to be formed under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986.

Another update connected to countywide expansion related to progress on a four-way agreement between Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. The four-way agreement would establish the contribution of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti millage funding to the new countywide authority, and set the role of Washtenaw County to incorporate the new authority.

CEO Michael Ford also announced a $2.1 million federal grant the AATA had received (in addition to a previously announced $2.65 million grant in October) to fund the incremental cost of purchasing hybrid-electric buses.

Thursday’s meeting likely marked the penultimate monthly AATA board meeting for Sue McCormick, who is currently public services area administrator for the city of Ann Arbor. She’s leaving that position to take a job, beginning at the start of 2012, leading Detroit’s water and sewerage department.

Public Input Policy

The board considered a new set of guidelines for receiving input on future changes to routes and fare structures.

The new public input policy replaces an older policy that is described in the resolution as “out of date” and not consistent with the way that AATA currently uses public input for decisions on routes and fares, even though the older policy meets the minimum standards required in order to receive federal assistance.

The policy identifies “major” service changes as those affecting more than 25% of riders of a route, or more than 25% of the miles of a route. A “major” service change also includes changes of multiple routes affecting more than 10% of riders or miles of the regular bus service system. The policy identifies “major” fare changes as any change to the base fare – that is, the full adult cash fare – or any change affecting the fare of more than 10% of fare-paying riders.

According to the new policy, notification of major service and fare changes is to be provided through email subscription, printed brochures, the AATA website, social media, posted notices at bus stops, press releases, specific notification of various organizations (housing, educational, civic, and social services, and senior, disabled and minority organizations), as well as other specific organizations that might have membership that would be affected (high schools and colleges, senior citizen housing, apartment complexes, libraries, government offices, or recreation centers).

After notification, opportunity for public input will be provided through email, telephone, written letters, social media, and face to face. [.pdf of AATA public input policy on fare and route changes]

In reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Sue McCormick said that the policy had been reviewed at the committee level a couple of times. [McCormick was reporting on behalf of committee chair Charles Griffith, who arrived late to the meeting.] McCormick explained that the policy reflects the way the AATA already does its outreach, and said that it goes above and beyond what is required.

When the board landed on the agenda item requiring a vote on the new public input policy, David Nacht led off the deliberations saying that he felt it was such a straightforward issue that the board could vote immediately.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the new public input policy.

Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Service Increases

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize a service increase between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti along Washtenaw Avenue – the Route #4 service. The increase, effective Jan. 29, 2012, roughly doubles the frequency of buses traveling along the corridor. The new service levels include up to eight buses per hour during peak periods. [.pdf of Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti schedule] [.pdf of Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor schedule]

David Nacht led off deliberations, calling the increase in service a “no-brainer” and noting that it had been carefully reviewed and argued before the public. The work had been done beautifully, he said, concluding with: “Let’s vote!

Roger Kerson said he wanted to recognize the work of the AATA staff, who called the increase in service a very important improvement. He said it was a good first step in implementing the transit master plan (TMP) with its expanded service. Kerson’s sentiments were echoed by Sue McCormick.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein said that the increase in service levels reflected a decision the board had made to use some reserve funds to get the TMP started right now. [See Chronicle coverage of AATA budget: "AATA to Use One-Time Deficit as Catapult"]

Bernstein said the board had decided to fund the service increase with reserve funds with its “eyes open,” and said it’s the board’s hope and expectation that the AATA will be able to continue that same level of service. Nacht added that the people who pay the Ann Arbor property tax supporting transit should know that Ann Arbor businesses will benefit, many of which are located along the Route 4 corridor.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the new service levels on Route #4.

As a part of his CEO’s report earlier in the meeting, Michael Ford had said that Chris White, AATA manager of service development, and AATA community outreach coordinator Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz had attended a recent meeting of the Ypsilanti city council. The council had discussed the fact that the dedicated millage Ypsilanti now levies to cover the cost of its purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA would not be sufficient to cover the 2013 cost. Ford noted that a gap had been anticipated, but that the gap was larger than expected due to continuing decline of Ypsilanti property values on which the millage is based.

Rejection of Ad

The AATA has a commercial advertising program offering space on its buses, bus shelters, and benches. During its meeting, the board held a closed session related to the rejection of an advertisement proposed by local pro-Palestinian activist Blaine Coleman.

The board held its closed session under the provision of the Michigan Open Meetings Act that allows such a session to discuss a written opinion from its legal counsel. The AATA’s legal counsel, Jerry Lax – an attorney with Pear Sperling Eggan and Daniels PC – was also on hand for the closed session.

There is not a time limit for such closed sessions; however, it was noted at the meeting that the Ann Arbor District Library, where the AATA board holds its meetings, closes at 9 p.m. The board started its closed session around 7 p.m. and took a bit over an hour to deliberate on the issue.

Rejection of Ad: Background on Ad Program

The AATA’s advertising program currently accounts for about $80,000 a year in a budget (approved recently for fiscal year 2012) that calls for $29.4 million in total revenues. But in the past, the advertising program has netted up to $169,000 a year.

When first implemented in 2005, it was hoped to generate $200,000 a year [.pdf of 2005 Ann Arbor News Article: "Some AATA Buses to Be Used as 'Movable Billboards'". Ann Arbor News coverage from that era documents some controversy associated with the decision to offer advertising on buses, as well as the initial implementation that allowed for complete wraps. [.pdf of 2007 Ann Arbor News Article: "AATA to Review Bus Ads"]

The letter received by the AATA from the ACLU about Coleman’s proposed ad lists examples of text from past ads accepted and placed by the AATA:

• “Every 9 1/2 minutes someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV”
• “Two-Faced Landlords Can be Stopped. Housing Discrimination is Against the Law.”
• “Domestic Violence. It happens here.”
• “In Washtenaw County black babies are 3x more likely to die than white babies”
• “Breastfeeding makes babies smarter.”
• “NorthRidge Church is for Hypocrites. NorthRidge Church is For Fakes. NorthRidge Church is for Liars. NorthRidge Church is For Losers.” [Advertiser was NorthRidge Church]
• 2WordStory.com, a website featuring the stories of people who “experienced the life changing love and grace of Jesus Christ.”
• Campaign ads supporting Joan Lowenstein and Margaret Connors for district judge.

Acceptance of the campaign ads, during the 2008 campaign for the 15th District Court judgeship eventually won by Chris Easthope, was apparently a mistake. The AATA’s ad policy states that an ad will not be accepted that: “Supports or opposes the election of any person to office or supports or opposes any ballot proposition.”

The AATA’s advertising policy is administered by the company that sells the ads – Transit Advertising Group.

Rejection of Ad: Letter from the ACLU

The ad that was rejected by the AATA, which is the subject of a letter sent by the ACLU to the AATA, reads “Boycott ‘Israel’” and “Boycott Apartheid.” It also features an image of a spider-like creature with a skull for a head. [.pdf of image and text of proposed ad].

The Aug. 12, 2011 letter to the AATA from the ACLU argues that the AATA’s policy on accepting advertising is unconstitutional. The ACLU does concede that the proposed advertisement “arguably subjects Israel to scorn or ridicule,” which is prohibited under the AATA’s ad policy. [From the AATA policy: "Advertising ... which does any of the following shall be prohibited ... 5. Defames or is likely to hold up to scorn or ridicule a person or group of persons."]

However, the ACLU contends that the policy itself is unconstitutional: “An ad paid for by Israel’s tourist bureau encouraging people to visit the county or purchase its products expresses the opposite view and would be accepted under AATA’s policy. A distinction of this kind, based on the message expressed by the speaker, violates the First Amendment.” [.pdf of ACLU Aug. 12 letter] [.pdf of AATA advertising policy]

A key to the ACLU’s position is a 1998 case involving a labor union that had proposed an advertisement on a regional transit authority’s vehicles. The ad had been rejected on the grounds that it was “too controversial and not aesthetically pleasing.” The case was argued and won by the union in the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. [.pdf of United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099, v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority]

In that decision, the Court of Appeals included this statement [emphasis added]:

We note, however, that the Supreme Court has suggested that excluding speech because its controversial nature adversely impacts the forum’s other purposes constitutes a reasonable restriction on access to a nonpublic forum. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 811, 105 S.Ct. 3439 (“Although the avoidance of controversy is not a valid ground for restricting speech in a public forum, a nonpublic forum by definition is not dedicated to general debate or the free exchange of ideas. The First Amendment does not forbid a viewpoint-neutral exclusion of speakers who would disrupt a nonpublic forum and hinder its effectiveness for its intended purpose.”);

In the United Food case, the court disagreed with the transit authority’s contention that it maintained a nonpublic forum. The court also disagreed with the transit authority’s position on the reasonableness of its exclusion of the ad, saying that even if the advertising platform were a nonpublic forum, it was not reasonable to exclude the proposed ad on the grounds that the ad would interfere with the transit authority’s purpose.

Part of the ACLU’s argument in the case of the AATA ad relies on the idea that the AATA has, in fact, through its past pattern of accepted ads, established a “public forum,” although the AATA’s ad policy explicitly states that the AATA “does not [with its ad program] intend to create a public forum.”

In a similar case in Seattle, the ACLU has now filed a notice of appeal after the federal district court ruled in October 2011 in favor of the transit authority over an ad with the text, “Israeli War Crimes: Your Tax Dollars at Work,” and featuring a picture of children next to a bomb-damaged building. [.pdf of the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign (SeaMAC) v. King County ruling]

In contrast to the AATA case, the transit authority in Seattle at first accepted the SeaMAC ad. Then, when advance publicity about the prospects of the ad’s future appearance resulted in proposed counter-ads, possible demonstrations, and the specter of violence, the transit authority decided not to allow the ad to appear.

Rejection of Ad: AATA Board Response

On emerging from the closed session after a bit more than an hour, board members voted on a resolution that affirms the AATA policy on accepting ads and the decision to reject the proposed ad in its current form. [.pdf of AATA board resolution rejecting advertisement]

The resolution invites the ACLU and Coleman to discuss the AATA advertising policy.

The board did not deliberate on the issue after it returned to open session.

Outcome: The AATA board unanimously approved the resolution that affirms the rejection of the ad proposed by Coleman.

Countywide Updates

A number of updates were given at the Nov. 17 board meeting, including updates on a possible transition by the AATA into a countywide authority. Those updates included a report from CEO Michael Ford on the second meeting of the U196 – an unincorporated board of a countywide transit authority likely to be formed under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986.

Karen Lovejoy Rowe, left, is one of two representatives of the southeast district of an as-yet-unincorporated board for a proposed countywide transit authority. At the board's Nov. 14 meeting, she wanted to know how she was supposed to "sell" her constituents on the idea of the plan, without more robust north-south service in Ypsilanti Township, citing the Whitaker Road corridor in particular. She serves as the township's clerk.

Ford summarized the content of the meeting, held on Nov. 14, highlighting the description of two district meetings that had been held – in the north middle district and in the north east district. Additional meetings are scheduled through the end of the year. [MovingYouForward.org provides a listing of all meetings.] Ford also reported that a community participation tool had been demonstrated by Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates, an Ann Arbor consulting firm.

Ford also summarized some of the material from the last meeting of the financial planning group, held on Oct. 28.

By way of background, at that Oct. 28 meeting the group heard from Dennis Schornack, a special advisor to Gov. Rick Snyder on transportation. Schornack sketched out the contents of a still “somewhat secret” three-bill package that would establish a regional transit authority (RTA), including Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw counties. Reaction of the financial planning group to the RTA seemed sanguine. The idea of possibly funding transit through vehicle registration fees (enacted on an ad valorem basis) – as an alternative to floating a countywide transit millage – appeared to be the most attractive aspect of the possible RTA.

At that meeting, co-chair Albert Berriz concluded that Schornack’s presentation had thrown the group’s conversation into a state of flux. [More Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"]

Districts of Washtenaw County and their respective representation on the U196 board.

At the U196 meeting on Nov. 14, Jesse Bernstein (who is chairing the group) told members that the financial planning group was enthusiastic about the idea that vehicle registration fees could serve as an alternative to asking voters to approve a millage. On hearing Gov. Snyder’s proposal, Bernstein said, “We were on it like …,” then paused to weigh alternative sentence completions. [More polite versions include "ugly on an ape" and "white on rice."]

Bernstein settled for “icing on a layer cake.” The “layer cake” funding approach to countywide transit is one in which a countywide millage would be layered on top of existing millages levied in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. [For more detail on various funding and governance models for countywide transit, see Chronicle coverage from December 2009: "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

Another countywide-related update from the Nov. 17 meeting involved progress on a four-way agreement between Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. The four-way agreement would establish the contribution of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti millage funding to the new countywide authority and set the role of Washtenaw County to incorporate the new authority.

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.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Nov. 17 meeting, the AATA board entertained various miscellaneous communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Airport Service

CEO Michael Ford reported that negotiations continue with the Indian Trails Michigan Flyer service to establish a contract for service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro airport. Ford said it’s hoped that a contract [which would presumably include a proposed fare] would be ready for review by the board’s planning and development committee in December.

Comm/Comm: Website Development

Mary Stasiak, AATA’s manager of community relations, reported on the status of the new website development. At the board’s Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, board members received a short briefing from John Gilkey of Artemis Solutions Group Inc., which won the bid for the website redesign.

Screen shot of the possible layout of a new AATA website design. (Image links to interactive task-based survey on the new design.)

Among the improvements desired by the AATA is a way for staff – who do not have programming skills – to update the website. AATA also wants its new website to be a tool that staff can use to broadcast information to AATA riders via email, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Among the enhanced information the AATA wants available on its website is real-time bus location information that includes a way for third-party developers to create and distribute smart phone applications using AATA’s real-time data.

At the Nov. 17 meeting, Stasiak described how the AATA continued to work with the website developer on two main areas. First, the AATA is working on the agreement, which is close to being finalized, that will make sure all the custom website functionality is owned by AATA and that AATA can make needed updates. The second area is usability testing. The initial part of usability testing, Stasiak said, is to make sure things are in the right place on the web page. [AATA website usability test]

Stasiak explained that an interactive survey task had been developed and that about 70 responses had been collected so far. Some responses had been collected at the Blake Transit Center. Plans are to include a visit to a grocery store to get additional input. It will also be distributed by email and via the AATA Facebook page.

Responding to a question from Sue McCormick, Stasiak said that the email list included people who had expressed an interest in keeping up to date on AATA issues.

Comm/Comm: More Hybrid Bus Funding

CEO Michael Ford announced a $2.1 million federal grant the AATA had received (in addition to a previously announced $2.65 million grant in October) to fund the incremental cost of purchasing hybrid-electric buses. The money was awarded through the Federal Transit Administration’s Clean Fuels grant program.

The announcement means that funds are reserved for the AATA and will be awarded, once the documentation is completed that all requirements are met. Ford anticipated delivery of the new vehicles in August 2012.

Comm/Comm: High-Capacity Connector Alternatives Analysis

CEO Michael Ford gave a clarification on the timeline for completion of the alternatives analysis phase of a high-capacity connector study. Last month it was announced that the AATA had received a $1.2 million federal grant to support that phase of the study. The feasibility portion of the study has been completed, with the conclusion that the corridor – which includes Plymouth Road from US-23 down through downtown Ann Arbor to State Street and southward to I-94 – could for at least its middle portion support public transit that’s higher in capacity than conventional buses. [More Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in 'Flux'"]

At the AATA’s Nov. 17 meeting, Ford clarified that the timeline for the alternatives analysis 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.

Comm/Comm: Paratransit, Grocery Bags

Speaking during public commentary, Christopher Harris began by thanking the board for allowing him to be heard. He said he’d used the AATA since May, and had a great experience up to Nov. 3. On that day, he was doing his grocery shopping, which he does once a month at Kroger. He told the board that his eight-year-old daughter, who accompanied Harris to the board meeting, is his PCA (personal care attendant). He told the board he has Stargardt’s disease – he’s legally blind.

Harris described the events of Nov. 3. He called the A-Ride program, but was immediately refused because of the number of grocery bags – he allowed that in the past he had been told that might happen. The driver then asked Harris if he wanted a “straight meter” ride. [The A-Ride paratransit service is provided through SelectRide, a taxicab company]. Harris said that he then asked for a different cab, which was refused by the driver at the scene. When he then called himself, he was told it was the cab driver’s decision – no.

Harris asked for a supervisor and was put on hold. The public commentary time of two minutes expired as Harris was concluding his remarks. Board chair Jesse Bernstein told him that he wanted to follow up with Harris after the meeting to see what the AATA could do. [The A-Ride paratransit service offered by the AATA is a shared-ride transportation service for those who are not able to ride the fixed route service. There's a limit of "one armload or the equivalent to two (2) grocery bags, or two (2) pieces of luggage." .pdf of A-Ride policy]

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council

Cheryl Weber reported out from the AATA’s local advisory council, which provides advice to the AATA on issues related to the senior and disabled community. Highlights included the LAC’s continued work on a driver appreciation program.

Comm/Comm: Center of Independent Living

During public commentary, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living thanked the board for its commitment to transit. She also alerted them to the meetings of a Toastmaster group that now meets at the CIL during lunch hours on the first and third Thursdays of the month, from 12:30-1:30 p.m. at the CIL, 3941 Research Drive.

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke at both opportunities for public commentary. He introduced himself as an advocate for senior citizens and disabled people and other members of the public who need courteous and competent transportation services. He called on the AATA board to adopt training programs for all drivers, especially those who provide services to seniors and disabled people – training that addresses not only competence, but also the provisions of courteous assistance to seniors and disabled people.

Partridge called on the AATA board to end discrimination by the SelectRide company. He arrived at the meeting via a ride provided by SelectRide through the AATA’s A-Ride program, he said. The vehicle that provided his ride had 400,000 miles on it, he claimed, and was a make and a model that had been subject to recall. Partridge called for full disclosure of vehicle conditions and maintenance records.

Partridge reprised similar themes at the conclusion of the meeting.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: Rich Robben

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011 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 help support 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]

AATA CEO Michael Ford adjusts the microphone for board member Charles Griffith at the board's Oct. 20 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

At an Oct. 10 Ann Arbor city council work session, the council received an update on the high capacity connector study for a geographic area that broadly connects the boomerang-shaped swath from Plymouth Road and US-23 down through Ann Arbor to South State Street.

Most significantly, the swath connects the University of Michigan’s north, central and medical campuses. The basic conclusion of that study was delivered to the AATA board several months ago: Sufficient ridership exists in the core of that area to support some kind of high-capacity “fixed guideway” system like Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), light rail, or elevated guideway.

What’s new are the steps that are now being taken to secure funding for the next phase of the connector study: An analysis that will yield the “preferred alternative.” That alternative will include selection of a specific transportation technology, as well as proposed routes and station locations.

Funding for part of that alternatives analysis was announced on Oct. 13 by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation – $1.2 million has been awarded to the AATA. However, that funding won’t cover the cost of the environmental study component of the project.

Related to that project, on Oct. 19 the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) policy board voted to add the alternatives analysis to its Unified Planning Work Program. Next up will be formal action by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation that will facilitate funding applications to the Federal Highway Administration by the spring of 2012. Work on the study might begin before complete federal funding is in place.

The high-capacity connector study is taking place in the context of AATA’s countywide transportation master plan, which the board approved earlier this year, after more than a year of development. On Oct. 20, a day after the WATS policy board vote, the first meeting of a group was held that could become the board of a new countywide transportation authority. That new authority could be formed under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986 – the current group is called the U196 board, short for “unincorporated Act 196.” Their first meeting was relatively informal, but members determined to schedule meetings for November and December instead of waiting until January 2012.

The following week, on Oct. 26, Gov. Rick Snyder gave a speech outlining key components of a sketch for improved transportation infrastructure in the state. The speech included a call for the formation of a regional transit authority in southeast Michigan that could include Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw counties.

Two days later, on Oct. 28, the content of the governor’s speech was part of the focus of conversation for a transportation financial planning group, led by former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz. The group convened its second of four meetings that it expects to hold before the end of the year. In early 2012, the group is expected to deliver a white paper to the U196 board with recommendations on funding options for countywide transit.

At that meeting, the group heard from Dennis Schornack, a special advisor to Snyder on transportation. Schornack sketched out the contents of a still “somewhat secret” three-bill package that would establish a regional transit authority (RTA), including Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw counties. Reaction of the financial planning group to the RTA seemed sanguine. The idea of possibly funding transit through vehicle registration fees (enacted on an ad valorem basis), as an alternative to floating a countywide transit millage, appeared to be the most attractive aspect of the possible RTA.

Berriz concluded that Schornack’s presentation had thrown the group’s conversation into a state of flux.

Amid that activity, the AATA board did its part to keep the existing buses running, by convening its regular monthly meeting on Oct. 20. Of its action items, the most significant was a resolution authorizing its CEO to begin negotiations with Michigan Flyer to contract for bus service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport.

Given the possibility that an RTA could be in Ann Arbor’s future, Schornack’s advice on the Detroit-Ann Arbor airport contract was this: Keep it short-term.

Ann Arbor to Detroit Metro Service (AATA Board)

On the agenda at AATA’s Oct. 20 meeting was a resolution to authorize its CEO to start negotiations with Michigan Flyer to provide service between the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center and Detroit Metropolitan Airport. During a presentation to the U196 board earlier in the afternoon, AATA CEO Michael Ford said that the intent was to provide 12 daily trips each way, with a very limited number of stops, in order to achieve a trip time of around 40-45 minutes.

The resolution considered by the board indicates that Michigan Flyer is willing to enter into a cost/revenue sharing arrangement and that marketing efforts for the new Ann Arbor-to-Detroit airport service would be made by both Michigan Flyer and the AATA.

The resolution also indicates that Michigan Flyer’s operating costs for the service would be $81.25 per service hour. By way of comparison, AATA’s budgeted cost per service hour for the current budget year is around $110 per service hour. The airport route will be called Route #900.

The idea of providing service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport is not new. The AATA board has had airport service actively on its work plan at least since an August 2010 board retreat.

Deliberations by the AATA board did not last long. Noting the Michigan Flyer operating cost of $81 per service hour, AATA board member Roger Kerson wanted to know if that provides any insight on how many passengers the AATA needs in order to break even.

AATA deputy director Dawn Gabay explained there was an estimate, but some of it depends on negotiations with Michigan Flyer. Kerson recalled from previous discussions that the fare was planned to be around $15 – was that accurate? Gabay said it’s part of the negotiations. There is less detail about the proposal, because AATA still has to enter into negotiations. Once the contract is negotiated, she said, more details will be provided.

Gabay’s remarks were consistent with Rich Robben’s report from the planning and development committee, as he described how AATA staff is working on ticketing, branding and agreements with the airport. The committee had withheld examining details, he said, until the contract is brought for approval.

Outcome: The AATA board voted unanimously to authorize contract negotiations with Michigan Flyer to provide service to Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Regional Transit Authority? (Financial Group)

AATA’s current negotiations with Michigan Flyer to provide airport service from Ann Arbor to Detroit Metro came up at the Oct. 28 meeting of a financial group that’s examining funding options for the AATA’s transit master plan. Dennis Schornack, a special advisor on transportation to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, told AATA staff present that he’d suggest making those contracts short-term.

Four-county region that may be proposed for a regional transit authority (RTA) counterclockwise from Washtenaw County (orange): Wayne, Macomb, Oakland. Pushpin A is the location of the Detroit Metro airport. Major corridors on which rolling rapid transit would be provided include Gratiot (red), M-59 (yellow), Woodward (purple) and Michigan Avenue (green). (Map is by The Ann Arbor Chronicle. Image links to dynamic Google Map with .kml file)

The advice for short-term contracts came in the context of a sketch of a regional transit authority that Schornack gave to the group based on the draft of a three-bill package that he thought would find its way before the legislature. That legislative package could lead to a regional transit authority (RTA) that could wind up providing the airport connection.

The bills would address: creation of the RTA, governance and finance. The bills would implement part of the plan for improvement of transportation infrastructure described in an Oct. 26 speech by Gov. Snyder. [.pdf of text of Snyder's Oct. 26 infrastructure speech]

[Schornack had a draft of the legislation in hand at the meeting, but told those present it was still "somewhat secret" and he couldn't show it to them. Schornack left the meeting early to deal with a downtown Ann Arbor traffic accident he'd been involved with on his way there. After Schornack's departure, Berriz quipped that he'd tried to peek over at Schornack's sheaf of papers, without success. A member of the group piped up: "Now we know how you got through school!"]

A regional transit authority contrasts with the current planning the AATA has been doing, which has focused on expanding local service to a countywide area inside Washtenaw.

Schornack said the draft bills will be discussed at a meeting scheduled  in early November with Federal Transit Authority administrator Peter Rogoff, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, the county administrators of Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties, Washtenaw County board chair Conan Smith and Snyder.

To make regional transit work, Schornack said, it was felt that Washtenaw County had to be brought into the mix. By way of background, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners passed a resolution at their Sept. 21, 2011 meeting expressing support for the idea of a regional transit authority. From The Chronicle’s meeting coverage:

The context for the resolution [on forming a regional transit authority] is a Sept. 30 southeast Michigan regional summit that Washtenaw County has been invited to participate in for the first time. In past years, the summit included Detroit and the counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. This year, Washtenaw and St. Clair counties will be included, and the topics will focus on regional cooperation and transportation. [Conan] Smith and Kristin Judge have been participating in the planning stages on Washtenaw County’s behalf.

The resolution cites the benefits and goals of regional transportation, including transit options along the Ann Arbor to Detroit corridor, and connections to Detroit Metro and Willow Run airports. It notes that state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) – who is married to Conan Smith – has introduced legislation as part of a bipartisan package to create a regional transportation authority.

The main resolved clause of the Washtenaw County resolution states:

Be It Therefore Resolved that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners supports the creation of a new Regional Transportation Authority to enhance interconnectivity among the communities of the southeast Michigan region and urges the participants in the 2011 Southeast Michigan Regional Summit to aggressively pursue work that meets the above outlined goals.

Based on the sketch of the RTA that Schornack provided, voters in the four-county region forming the RTA would have a proposal put before them to enact a vehicle registration fee of up to $40 per year. Whether the fee (which would depend on the value of the vehicle) and the RTA were enacted would not depend on the results of county-by-county voting but rather on the result in the four-county area. That is, if the referendum failed in one of the counties, it would not mean that county had opted out. If a majority of voters in the four-county approved the plan, it would pass, Schornack said – that’s what it means for it to be regional.

Schornack described how roughly 95% of that revenue would come back to Washtenaw County. Members of the financial group seemed enthusiastic about that, because they held out some expectation that vehicle registration fees as a funding source might cover a roughly $60.8 million funding gap they’d identified over the first five years of implementation of the AATA’s transit master plan.

Funding Gap, Vetting Services (Financial Group)

The $60.8 million figure is the cumulative total funding gap for the first five years of implementation of the AATA’s countywide transit master plan. That gap is the sum of a $27 million gap on the capital side and a $34 million gap on the operating side. The gap is calculated based on no additional revenue sources in the categories of: (1) business/philanthropic sources; (2) local countywide millage; and (3) new local/state enabled funds.

At the Oct. 28 meeting of the financial group, Berriz had initially expressed a desire to divide into three sub-committees based on those categories of funding, to further study those specific issues. But that idea was paused after Schornack’s presentation.

Instead, Berriz took volunteers who were willing to take on the task of “vetting” the collection of services and sequencing over AATA’s 30-year transit master plan. Berriz argued that the financial group had a fiduciary responsibility to weigh in on the expenditures, as well as the revenues. He said he didn’t feel his task was simply to figure out how to raise $60.8 million. There are line items in the first five years of the plan, he said, that had three problems – low ridership, high cost per rider, and limited opportunity of external funding.

At the financial group's Oct. 28 meeting, Michael Benham, project coordinator for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority's transit master plan, distributed "one page" summaries of the financial projections for the first five years of the plan.

[Door-to-door countywide paratransit service, for example, fits that general description and is a key component of the first five-year phase of the transit master plan (TMP) as developed by the AATA. It's also one of the features that makes the TMP attractive to communities countywide, which have voted initially to join the U196 board, the possible precursor to a countywide transit authority for Washtenaw County.]

Berriz said that Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, “has a lot of people asking for things and not  a lot of people giving him money.”

More than once, Berriz characterized a certain set of line items as “not fitting.” At one point the head of the county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, Mary Jo Callan (who is the only woman serving on the financial group), asked Berriz to explain what he exactly meant by “not fitting.” Berriz explained that, to him, items that “don’t fit” are services that have been requested by a certain constituency, without necessarily providing any revenue – items that are far more expensive than the existing service.

Earlier in the meeting, Berriz had characterized a lot of those types of services as “social services” as opposed to “running a bus company.” Berriz said he was not against providing those kinds of services, but the group needed to be clear and upfront about it, if that’s what they were doing.

Near the end of the meeting, Berriz called for a subcommittee to form that would “vet” the services and their sequencing. Callan was one of the first to raise her hand, and will serve on that subcommittee. [.pdf of "Volume I: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume II: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"] [.pdf of Part 1 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report] [.pdf of Part 2 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report]

Title VI, Social Services (Financial Group, AATA Board)

Also at the  meeting of the financial group, Schornack state that the proposed RTA would be the designated recipient of federal transit funds for the four-county area of the RTA. This represents a funding issue for the AATA, which is currently the designated recipient for the Ann Arbor area.

It also has an impact on requirements that the RTA will need to meet under federal civil rights legislation.

During public commentary at the AATA board’s Oct. 20 meeting, Jim Mogensen noted that in CEO Michael Ford’s written monthly report, there’s a note about the new Federal Transit Authority Title VI circular. Title VI, as Mogensen pointed out, is the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. AATA is the designated recipient of federal funds and is responsible for compliance with the act, he said. [.pdf of 2007 FTA Title VI Circular] [.pdf of proposed FTA Title VI Circular]

Mogensen reminded the board of the requirements that the AATA must meet under the Civil Rights Act. He said he was trying to point out that changes to routes can have a disparate impact on different populations, and although they may not be intentionally discriminating, they might still have that impact. As an example, he gave local Ypsilanti routes, and questioned whether they would be as robust when the TMP gets implemented. As the AATA moves towards the TMP, he asked the board to make sure those issues of possible disparate impact are taken care of and addressed.

High-Capacity Connector Study (City Council)

Besides service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, the AATA has a number of other service initiatives it’s currently pursuing, including several inside Washtenaw County.

The "boomerang map" showing the Ann Arbor corridors being studied for higher quality transit options like bus rapid transit, streetcars, and monorail. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The AATA board received an update earlier this year on a feasibility study for a boomerang- or crescent-shaped  area extending from Plymouth Road and US-23 down through the center of Ann Arbor along State Street to I-94. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Transit Study Planning Updates"]

The result of that feasibility study was that there’s sufficient ridership in the core area of that boomerang swath – between the University of Michigan north and central campuses – to support transportation technologies more robust than regular buses. Those could include bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail (street cars), or an elevated rail system. BRT is a combination of longer vehicles, typically with an accordion connector at some point, and various dedicated lanes and signalization systems that would give such a rubber-tired vehicle a travel-time advantage over other traffic. When Gov. Snyder refers to “rolling rapid transit,” it’s essentially BRT-type technology to which he’s referring.

That same result was presented to the Ann Arbor city council at a working session on Oct. 10. Rick Nau of URS Corp., the consultant that did the feasibility study, fielded questions from councilmembers. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) got clarification from Nau that based on current forecasts for growth (due in large part to the University of Michigan), roadway capacity in the corridor would result in significant congestion if some alternative were not provided.

Forecast of ridership in the Plymouth-State corridor. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution image.)

In response to councilmember questions,  Nau explained that a BRT vehicle could roll on regular roadways, which meant that there was flexibility in implementation. A BRT system could be built out in incremental fashion, he said. In response to a query from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Nau explained that it would not be as simple as assigning some existing lanes to BRT vehicles – in some cases, traffic engineering would dictate that you could not use existing lanes for regular traffic in favor of mass transit.

In response to a question from Hohnke, Nau clarified that by concluding that high-capacity transit in the corridor would be operationally feasible, the study had not established that there would be sufficient fare-box revenues for the system to be self-sustaining. In general, Nau said, public transportation requires some kind of additional subsidy, but for high capacity systems, that subsidy is lower as a percentage of operating costs.

High-Capacity Connector Study (AATA Board, WATS)

While the result of the feasibility study on the high-capacity connector was old news, the prospects for funding of the second phase of the study have become somewhat more concrete in recent weeks.

That next phase of the study would identify a “locally preferred alternative.” That would mean analyzing all the various challenges (the Huron River crossing, elevation changes, at least two railroad crossings, right-of-way issues, historic districts, flood plains and the like) and identifying a mode (BRT or light rail or elevated guideway) and a system of routes and station locations.

At its Oct. 19 meeting, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) policy board voted to add the alternatives analysis to its Unified Planning Work Program. [.pdf of current UPWP before amendment]. At the WATS meeting, brief discussion unfolded on the question of adding the role of different partners on the study. Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, pointed out that the connector study is a joint University of Michigan and city of Ann Arbor project, with the AATA taking the lead. WATS executive director Terri Blackmore asked if the city of Ann Arbor should be added in the text of the plan. White noted that city has not committed any funds to the next phase of the study. Blackmore wondered if “other local” might be appropriate to add.

Blackmore kidded city councilmember Tony Derezinski, who was attending the meeting as the council’s representative to the WATS policy board: “Is the city going to pay any money, Tony?” Derezinski smiled, “We’ll see.” The question was raised about a possible contribution from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Blackmore ventured that the Ann Arbor DDA did not have any money it could contribute at the moment. White added that in the discussions of the relative shares for funding the initial feasibility phase of the study, the DDA and the city had eventually been analyzed as a single unit.

Before the Oct. 19 meeting of the WATS policy board, Washtenaw County road commissioner Doug Fuller, left, and Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi talked about bridges. Both men serve on the WATS policy board.

That brief conversation recalled some of the history that unfolded over the course of more than a year from 2008-09 among the UM, city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor DDA and the AATA about the proper share for each partner in the $640,000 study. [Detailed Chronicle coverage of that issue: "Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis"]

It also recalled the AATA board discussion earlier this year, when board members were presented with the results of the feasibility study. Board member David Nacht had been emphatic that the UM, as one of the chief beneficiaries of such a high-capacity system, would need to pay its fair share. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Transit Study Planning Updates"]

The item approved by the WATS policy board calls for $393,400 in the first year and $1,179,000 in the second year, for a total of $1,572,400. The breakdown for the first year’s funding would be $314,720 of federal funds and $39,340 apiece from AATA and UM.

Next up will be formal action by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation that will facilitate funding applications to the Federal Highway Administration by the spring of 2012. At the AATA’s Oct. 20 board meeting, White indicated that work on the study might begin before complete federal funding is in place. From the time a contract with URS Corp. is signed, White said, it would take around 18 months of work.

Earlier news released on Oct. 13 that the U.S. Dept. of Transportation had awarded a grant of $1.2 million to AATA for the study’s next phase was met with some caution from White at the AATA Oct. 20 board meeting. He noted that while it’s good news, it will not cover the cost of the environmental impact study. [The total cost of the study, White told The Chronicle on Oct. 28, would be around $3.4 million.]

Hybrid-Electric Buses: Too Expensive? (AATA Board) 

Also at their Oct. 20 meeting, the AATA board discussed the U.S. DOT announcement on Oct. 13 that the AATA had been awarded a $2,625,000 grant to purchase five additional hybrid electric buses for increased service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The grant award came in connection with the Reimagine Washtenaw project, an effort to redevelop the Washenaw Avenue corridor. The federal money is expected to cover 83% of the cost, and the state of Michigan is expected to provide the non-federal share. The AATA’s Chris White described how a series of required approvals would mean the buses would be ordered in April 2012, but the buses wouldn’t be built until the beginning of 2013.

Discussion of the grant award prompted questions from board member David Nacht. In his time on the AATA board, Nacht has more than once made the point that federal money is still taxpayer money and that the AATA board has a responsibility to watch that it is spent appropriately.

Nacht said he was concerned about the purchase price of the buses as well as the maintenance costs. He got clarification from AATA CEO Michael Ford that the buses cost about $650,000 apiece. Said Nacht, “I think that’s too much money.” Board chair Jesse Bernstein confirmed with Ford that the AATA is looking at maintenance costs of the hybrids versus conventional buses.

Rich Robben ventured that with the federal funding involved, there’s not a choice about buying hybrid electrics or conventional buses. However, White clarified that the request had been for the hybrid electric funding and the federal award had covered the base price of $400,000 plus the increment for the roughly $225,000 for the hybrid. White explained the decision to request funding for the hybrid electric buses based on the board’s policy that the AATA should pursue acquisition of hybrid electric buses.

Nacht recalled that some years ago, AATA board member Charles Griffith had made a powerful case for the hybrid electric buses. Nacht noted that he’d chaired the board at the time, and the board had enacted the policy. The board was very excited, Nacht said. However, the cost of hybrid electric buses has migrated from $500,000 to $650,000 while there’s a recession going on and a lot of communities are buying the buses. Nacht ventured that with increased demand, you’d think prices would go down, based on classic economic theory.

Nacht noted that the AATA cares about the environment and sustainability, but at a certain point if you have more buses, and you’re getting more people on those buses, that’s better than having fewer buses that run cleaner. He called for reexamining the policy he himself had helped push through. It might be more environmentally friendly to use conventional buses, he said. Nacht said he was not suggesting anything different right at the moment, but at some price point the hybrid electrics are too expensive. He simply wanted to have AATA staff come to alternative way of thinking about it.

Bernstein wanted to know if the next time a grant application is filed, Nacht wanted it to be for conventional buses. Nacht said no, he was comfortable with the board’s PMER (performance monitoring and external relations) committee just thinking about it and figuring out at a committee level what they want to do. Nacht said he just felt it had reached a point where something should be said.

AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black offered that maintenance costs of the hybrids have been a concern of his. He’s called around to other agencies to try to identify  trends, he said. The challenge is that the technology hasn’t been out in the field for more than about six years. So far, he said, manufacturers have stood behind the product. The AATA now has five years with the first 15-20 buses and has had some failures that make him a little bit uncomfortable. When he’s talked with transit agencies in Minneapolis and Seattle, he hears the same uncertainty. He noted that the purchase price is competitive for the market.

But Black said he felt, “I have a lot of eggs in one basket and I can’t get a solid answer, because nobody I call can tell.” He said he would love to be able to say definitively if the AATA is headed down the wrong path. Bernstein wondered if other transit agencies are having the same issues, isn’t that a benchmark? Black explained it wasn’t a benchmark, because he’s looking at keeping a bus for 12 years. A battery pack is supposed to have life of 5 years. He allowed that there’s been only one battery failure and that failed on delivery.

Washtenaw County: U196 Initial Meeting

Current AATA initiatives like acquisition of additional hybrid electric buses, study of the high-capacity connector, and launching airport service are taking place in the context of a countywide transit master planning effort. Governance of the countywide authority would be under Act 196 of 1986, which is a state enabling statute that explicitly provides for the formation of a transit authority at the county level. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is formed under Act 55 of 1963.

The unincorporated version of a possible future Act 196 countywide authority in Washtenaw County met for the first time on Oct. 20, 2011.

Membership in the 11-member unincorporated board (U196) is as follows: 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) Rich Robben (AATA board).

All the districts were represented at the first meeting except for the South Middle District – Lavery could not attend. Lyndon, Bridgewater, Salem, and Sylvan townships are not participating. Other townships currently participating can choose to opt out later.

Group photo taken at the Oct. 20 meeting of the U196 Board.

The eventual governance of an Act 196 organization has been proposed to be 15 members, with the same distribution geographically as the U196 board except for Ann Arbor’s membership, which has been proposed to be seven members. For now, the membership of AATA board members on the U196 board has been limited to three – less than a quorum of board members – in order to avoid the perception that any action that might be taken by the U196 board was an action of the AATA board. At the Oct. 20 meeting, AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein stressed that the U196 board meetings would be open to the public and that its work would be done in public.

The Oct. 20 initial meeting was mostly a meet-and-greet and included a tour of the AATA headquarters on South Industrial. The U196 members who were present agreed that they would try to meet in November and December, and that the location of those meetings would be the AATA headquarters.

Districts of Washtenaw County and their respective representation on the U196 board.

They also agreed that Bernstein would chair their initial meetings, which will focus on developing bylaws for the organization, setting a committee structure, receiving presentations on service options, and receiving updates from district advisory committee meetings. Reporting out from the U196 meeting to the AATA board, Bernstein quipped that his chairship of the group meant he had “lost the vote.” Each district will convene meetings of advisory committees to focus on implementing service options for their districts.

The day and time of the November and December meetings will be set after surveying board member availability.

Speaking during the public commentary slot of the AATA’s board meeting, which was held later on Oct. 20, after the U196 board met, Vivienne Armentrout told the board she’d attended the first meeting of the U196 that day.

At the meeting, Armentrout said she’d heard board chair Jesse Bernstein say the U196 group was intended to be fully open. She thanked Bernstein for that, saying that it would enhance public trust. She followed up by asking how can the public be notified of meetings for U196, and for the financial group. She hoped the information would be posted on the AATA’s movingyouforward.org website or that an email list could be created for people who request to be notified.

Revised Bylaws – Meeting Time (AATA Board)

On the agenda at AATA’s Oct. 20 meeting was a revision to its bylaws so that its meeting time is set each year at the same time that it approves the budget.

Before revision, the bylaws stipulated 6:30 p.m. as the meeting time. The resolution struck specific mention of a clocktime in favor of the language: “The Board shall set the time of Board meetings at such time as the budget is passed for the fiscal year.” The bylaws still specify the third Thursday of the month as the regular meeting time.

During deliberations, David Nacht said he would  like to make the meeting time even more flexible – to the extent the board can get higher attendance. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said part of the issue is for the public to know reliably when the board is going to meet – he was comfortable setting the meeting time year to year. The board will continue to meet at 6:30 p.m. at least until it sets the budget next year in September.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to change its bylaws with respect to its meeting times.

Bus Storage Facility (AATA Board)

Before the board was a resolution to authorize its CEO to execute construction contracts with 11 different companies totaling $1,695,167. With the contingency of $169,517, the total construction budget for the project comes to $1,864,684.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the contracts.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary (AATA Board)

At its Oct. 20 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: On-Time Performance

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith noted that current on-time performance does not meet the AATA’s service standard. The organization has struggled with that over the last few years, he said.

The dark red bars are ridership numbers for the current year, month by month. Since March, ridership has been higher than in the corresponding month for last year, with a marked increase in September. (Image links to higher resolution graphs, including A-Ride numbers.)

The time standards were developed when the roads didn’t have the congestion we have now, he said, so there’s some discussion of  adjusting the time standards. But he said that they were not giving up.  The committee would be focusing on the issue of  ”very late” buses.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

Griffith also noted that ridership continued to increase compared with last year. That would be further helped by increased service that is planned on Route #4 between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, he said. Also included in the board packet were ridership numbers for A-Ride, which is AATA’s paratransit service for disabled passengers who are not able to use the regular fixed route service. Ridership numbers for A-Ride had been lagging behind last year’s numbers, but have increased slightly to roughly match last year’s levels in the last two months.

Com/Comm: SelectRide Allegations

AATA’s paratransit service is provided by SelectRide taxicab company. The company is a frequent target of complaint by Thomas Partridge during his public commentary – he alleges their vehicles are not in good repair and that the company engages in discriminatory practices. At the board meeting, CEO Michael Ford  reported out on an investigation he’d conducted, which had included inspection of maintenance facilities, and review of practices and procedures. He had found no evidence that SelectRide had engaged in discrimination or was not living up to its contract with AATA. Partridge complained that the investigation had been cursory and not sufficiently thorough.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 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 help support The Chronicle, too!

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]

AATA board member Roger Kerson at the board's Aug. 24, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

At the board meeting, CEO Michael Ford announced that McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, will be co-chairing a panel of financial and funding experts who will review various funding options for a possible expanded, countywide transportation system.

The board voted to release a funding report to the panel – the third volume of its 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]. The first two volumes were released previously.

The report describes a range of funding options, which would likely be used in some combination of strategies: fare revenues, advertising, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking taxes, stakeholder contributions, fuel taxes and vehicle license fees.

In anticipation that the panel could recommend funding options that would require voter approval, the board also approved the selection of CJI Research Corp. as the vendor for survey work over the next three years. That survey work can include on-board surveys of bus riders as well as telephone surveys of Washtenaw County voters.

At the Aug. 24 meeting, the board also approved implementation of a new website, which will provide greater flexibility for AATA staff who aren’t computer programmers to push information to the public. The new site is also intended to make it easier for the public to track the real-time locations of their bus.

The board also changed its pricing policy for the go!pass, a bus pass offered to downtown Ann Arbor employees that allows them to board AATA buses on an unlimited basis without paying a fare. The cost of the fares has historically been paid by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority using public parking system revenues, plus a nominal fee per card paid by downtown employers. The revised policy breaks with AATA’s past practice of charging costs for go!pass rides based on its cheapest full-fare alternative. Those costs per ride will now be lower, based on the DDA’s ability to pay and the AATA’s estimate of what employers would be willing to pay.

In other business, the board approved a revision to its contract with the Select Ride company, which provides AATA’s on-demand paratransit service (A-Ride) for those who are not able to ride the fixed-route regularly-scheduled bus system. The upward adjustment was driven by a recent increase in maximum taxicab fares implemented by the city of Ann Arbor.

The board also approved a master agreement that will apply to all of its contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and adjusted its capital plan to accommodate changes in three projects: the Blake Transit Center, the bus storage facility, and the bus maintenance facility.

Transit Master Plan Funding Report

The board was asked to authorize the release of “Volume 3: Funding Options Report” of its transit master plan (TMP). The TMP is part of the AATA’s effort to fulfill a countywide transportation mission.

The resolution specified that Volume 3 of the TMP was authorized for release to “a panel of financial and public funding experts to review, refine, and adjust the document.” The first two volumes were released to the public earlier this year. [.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

During the Aug. 24 meeting, CEO Michael Ford announced that co-chairing the panel will be Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc., and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.

Funding recommendations made by the panel of experts are to be forwarded to a fully constituted but unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) for further consideration and action. The transition of transportation service from the AATA to an authority formed under Act 196 of 1986 is the most likely scenario under which transit funding would be established on a countywide basis.

At its July 19, 2011 meeting, the board authorized the board chair to appoint three of its members to the U196 board, and authorized the AATA’s CEO to use AATA resources in support of the U196.

Immediately following the Aug. 24 meeting, the AATA made the funding report available in digital form: [.pdf of Part 1 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report] [.pdf of Part 2 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report]

In reporting out from the AATA planning and development committee’s regular monthly meeting, Rich Robben – the committee’s chair – said the committee had expected to vote on the release of the TMP funding report, but it was not finalized at the time of the meeting. Committee members had received it by email and recommended via email that the report come forward to the full board.

During board comment on the funding report, board chair Jesse Bernstein said the third volume of the TMP was the most difficult section to write. He said the AATA staff had made a heroic effort. The report would be helpful in understanding where the AATA is and where it wants to go, he said.

The report describes funding options, he continued, which will need to be developed in conjunction with a service delivery model. He described the collection of people on the funding task force, which will study the report and make recommendations based on it, as an “excellent group of folks.”

Among the funding options described in the report are: fare revenues, advertising, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking taxes, stakeholder contributions, fuel taxes and vehicle license fees.

Charles Griffith called the report valuable, because it lays out how transit funding works generally. He allowed that at certain points, his eyes glazed over trying to get through it, but he did find it illuminating for at least thinking about how to fund different elements of the transit master plan. He said he looked forward to the feedback the board received on the report.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the release of the funding report.

Voter/Rider Survey Vendor

Before the board for its consideration was authorization of a three-year contract with CJI Research Corp. to conduct survey research. The contract has two additional one-year options.

Of the three respondents to the AATA’s request for proposals (RFP), the one from CJI was the top-rated proposal with respect to the criteria: price, experience, and technical approach. CJI was the firm that conducted the AATA’s most recent on-board and telephone surveys in 2009.

CJI has experience with polling for ballot initiatives. That experience is significant, because at some point it’s expected that a proposal will be put before voters across Washtenaw County that would levy a transit tax, if approved. The draft fiscal year 2012 budget for AATA includes $75,000 for an on-board survey of riders and a telephone survey of Washtenaw County voters.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the selection of CJI as the vendor for the survey work.

New Website

A resolution on the agenda called for approving the use of $140,000 in federal funds to implement the redesign of AATA’s website. The bid for the redesign had already been awarded to the Michigan firm Artemis Solutions Group Inc.

Among the improvements desired by the AATA is a way for staff – who do not have programming skills – to update the website. AATA also wants its new website to be a tool that staff can use to broadcast information to AATA riders via email, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Among the enhanced information the AATA wants available on its website is real-time bus location information that includes a way for third-party developers to create and distribute smart phone applications using AATA’s real-time data.

AATA board member Anya Dale had some questions about the new website.

The new website will also allow the AATA to provide a “performance scorecard” to display metrics that include finances, operations, ridership, environmental impact, maintenance and safety performance. The website is supposed to allow AATA to comply with section 508 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards, and provide translation into multiple languages.

During board deliberations, Anya Dale asked if anything would be changed to the way that routes and schedules are looked up. She noted that when she first started riding the bus, she found some parts difficult to navigate. Board chair Jesse Bernstein asked John Gilkey of Artemis Solutions if he could provide a presentation and if so, how long that might last. Gilkey said his last presentation had lasted 45 minutes. Bernstein wondered if it might not be possible to get a five-minute version.

After some back and forth, board members seemed content not to receive a presentation at the board meeting, but they wanted to see a demonstration of some of the working functionality before the new website goes live. Roger Kerson, in particular, was keen to establish that some kind of usability testing would be done before launch. He asked specifically if the budget included a usability study. Gilkey said it was not planned – Artemis had done data collection and collected input in advance of design.

John Gilkey, of Artemis Solutions, was prepared to give a presentation on the AATA's new website that his company will implement. The board blanched at the 45-minute estimated time it would take, and decided to forgo the presentation for that meeting.

Kerson responded to Gilkey saying that he felt strongly that usability testing should be included and that it needn’t be expensive. Gilkey then said that Artemis does a lot of usability testing and would be testing out the implementation with users – he’d understood Kerson’s original question to be whether Artemis would be undertaking a full-blown scientific study, using something like Michigan State University’s usability lab.

Kerson noted that users “always find stuff we don’t find.” Kerson stressed that he’d like to see what’s included in the new website, before AATA rolls it out, so that they can find what the bugs are. Bernstein asked Mary Stasiak, AATA’s community relations manager, to keep the board posted as progress is made on the implementation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the implementation of the new website.

Go!pass Rides

The board was asked to vote on a change to the price AATA charges for rides taken under the go!pass program. The go!pass can be purchased by downtown Ann Arbor employers for their employees at a cost of $5 per pass annually.

AATA board member Rich Robben. In the background is Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program.

The change authorized by the board might go unnoticed for holders of the passes, who do not pay fares to board the bus. But the change will include an increase from $5 to $10 for the annual fee paid by employers per pass. That’s an increase that will be implemented by the getDowntown program, which administers the go!pass. However, in the action the board was asked to approve on Aug. 24, the AATA was actually in effect lowering the price per go!pass ride.

Here’s why. Holders of the go!pass card can board the bus without paying a fare, and there are no limits on the number of rides that can be taken with the card. The number of those rides is counted as they’re swiped at the fare box. [Before the fare boxes were converted to swipe-able technology, drivers recorded such rides with a button press].

The cost of such rides is funded in small part by the $5/card fee paid by employers, but in largest part by revenues from the city’s public parking system provided through the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA authorized three years worth of funding for the go!pass program. For the second two fiscal years of that funding, approval amounted to $438,565 (FY 2012) and $475,571 (FY 2013).

The number of rides taken using the go!pass has increased each year for the last decade, but has jumped significantly during the last year. In the past, the AATA has priced go!pass rides in a way that matches the revenue per go!pass ride to the amount that bus riders would pay if they paid the full fare under a regular 30-day pass – the cheapest full-fare option. So, as go!pass ridership has increased, the total amount charged to getDowntown by the AATA for the rides has also increased.

In the past, the DDA has increased its level of support to match what the AATA has charged. As the DDA is under increasing financial pressure due to the new public parking system management contract recently signed with the city of Ann Arbor, as well as a possible need to return excess tax increment finance (TIF) revenues that have been collected, it’s not anticipated that the DDA will be able to increase the amount it contributes to the go!pass program.

Given the levels of funding now pledged by the DDA, the price that employers would need to be charged per go!pass per year would be $26 – if the same policy is maintained of charging for go!pass rides so that their cost matches what the cheapest full-fare option would be.

In recent presentations to the DDA, Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, has recommended an increase from $5 to $10, not to $26. The advisory board of getDowntown has approved the increase to $10.

The action the AATA board was asked to take on Aug. 24 essentially sets the charge for go!pass rides at a flat rate – equal to the DDA’s current level of pledged support, plus an estimate that the total employer contribution (at $10/pass/year) would be $71,000 per year, based on the roughly 7,100 go!passes sold to employers so far this year. That is, the price charged for go!pass rides for the next two fiscal years will be $509,565 and $546,571, respectively – independently of the number of rides taken by go!pass holders.

The board’s action translates to a decision to accept a $16/pass/year shortfall in revenues from go!pass rides, compared to what the previous pricing policy has been, or a shortfall of roughly $113,600 (16*7,100).

In introducing the background of the go!pass issue for board members, Chris White, manager of service development for AATA, described how the proposed pricing change was really only an interim solution, for the next two years. Three years from now, he said, the DDA may not have funds to support the program at all.

Shore, who attended the board meeting, noted that in the last 10 years, fares have gone up, gas prices have gone up, and an increase from $5 to $10 per year per pass for the employer contribution seemed feasible. She noted that it’s a “universal pass,” which means that employers must purchase the passes for all their employees, whether employees use the passes or not. It’s not an option to purchase passes for just a subset of employees.

Shore said that very few employers she’d talked with had much of a problem with the increased $10 cost. She compared it to a health care benefit – some employees would use it more and some would use it less. She noted that there’s been a huge uptick in use of the pass and it was important to maintain that benefit to everyone.

Go!pass rides by month, charted year by year. (Links to higher resolution image.)

Charles Griffith wondered if the resolution was worded properly – was the board being asked to approve the increase from $5 to $10? White clarified that the board was being asked to approve the cost for the go!pass program as a whole. That would then be conveyed to the getDowntown advisory board, which sets the cost for employers. White described the situation as one where the AATA essentially sells the go!passes to the getDowntown program.

The proposal before the board would establish a fixed cost for each pass instead of linking the cost to the number of rides that are taken, White explained. White allowed that it’s a bit of a strange relationship, because the getDowntown program is currently part of the AATA – its two staff members are compensated as employees of the AATA. [Discussions are currently taking place about the future of the program, and whether the getDowntown program will become part of the DDA. For recent coverage, see "DDA Board Mulls Absorbing getDowntown Staff into DDA"]

Rich Robben noted that when board members had questioned the issue at the planning and development committee meeting, from the AATA’s perspective, if there’s a dramatic increase in ridership, then the AATA recovers less per ride. Historically, Robben said, the go!pass program has panned out nicely for the AATA.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change in price structure for the go!pass.

Amendment to Capital Plan

Before the board for its consideration was approval of a revision to AATA’s capital and categorical grant program to accommodate three projects: the Blake Transit Center (BTC) reconstruction in downtown Ann Arbor, the bus storage facility expansion, and the bus maintenance facility upgrade.

The scope of the BTC project has expanded, with a total estimated cost of $5.5 million. The estimate is based on a schematic design that is not yet complete. Already secured is $4.195 million in grant funds, which leaves a balance of $1.044 million.

At the Aug. 24 meeting, CEO Michael Ford said that AATA is looking to finalize design of a newly reconstructed Blake Transit Center in the next month. The AATA is still working with the city to obtain the use of a six-foot strip of land on the southwest edge of the AATA parcel, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The AATA is planning to issue construction bids in October or November 2011 with the hope that construction work can start in the spring of 2012.

The bus storage expansion was AATA’s final project approved for federal stimulus funds – $1.01 million in stimulus funds were allocated to the project. With a current cost estimate of $2.404 million, there is a balance of $1.394 million.

The bus maintenance facility upgrade includes the addition of a urea filling station. Already approved in grants for that work is $0.598 million. The total cost will be $1.244 million, leaving a balance of $0.647 million.

The board’s action on Aug. 24 revised the AATA’s capital and categorical grant program to provide a total of $2,676,678 for the three projects from the AATA’s federal formula funds.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the adjustment of its capital plan.

A-Ride Deal

The board was asked to consider an increase in AATA’s contract with Select Ride, to provide service for the AATA’s A-Ride – an on-demand program offered to those with disabilities preventing them from riding the regularly scheduled AATA fixed-route service. The increase in the contract authorized by the board is 2.9% – from $2,793,481 to $2,873,481.

The increase reflects the recent increases in taxicab rates, authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its May 16, 2011 meeting. The increase authorized by the council was from $2.25/mile to $2.50/mile, which had been requested by several taxicab companies in light of rising fuel prices.

The contract with Select Ride is structured so that the company is paid based upon the distance that passengers are transported, together with the fare structure for the taxicab rides. The contract increase reflects a compromise under which the AATA is shouldering only part of the increased cost due to the taxicab fare increase.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change in the A-Ride deal.

MDOT Master Agreement

A resolution on the agenda called for authorizing standard terms and conditions for a five-year master agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The master agreement will facilitate future contracts with MDOT for state funding, as well as to pass through federal funding to the AATA. The standard terms and conditions are established as part of a master agreement so that they don’t have to be spelled out in every future contract individually.

The current five-year master agreement expires on Sept. 30, 2011. The board’s action authorized a new agreement that reflected only minor changes from the current one: third-party contracting procedures are updated, and reference to a regional program was eliminated because it no longer exists.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the five-year master agreement.

Commuter Rail Communications: WALLY

During his communications to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the last planning and development committee meeting had included discussion of the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. AATA continues to look at the project and evaluate it, Ford said. He’d come back to the board in September on the issue, Ford told the board, but there would be additional discussion by the planning and development committee to focus on the status of the project, the money that’s been spent so far, investments in the WALLY corridor, and a description of the project’s major issues.

Ford said an “analysis paper” would be created to describe the WALLY project’s status and an action plan going forward, which would clarify the role of the state (via MDOT). Work would include talking to Livingston County and other community partners, as well at to Ann Arbor Railroad.

In reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben, chair of that committee, characterized the committee’s conversation about WALLY as “quite a discussion.”

In relevant part, the minutes of the planning and development committee meeting read as follows:

David Nacht stated that he was opposed to any further spending of funds at this time on architectural services for WALLY noting that these funds have been provided by AATA’s WALLY partners, and suggesting that at this point it is very unlikely that the project will go forward. He suggested that an offer be extended to the WALLY partners to return the funds, or ask for permission to spend the funds on other projects that will benefit transit. Michael Benham explained that the completion of station design would aid with qualifying for additional federal grant funds and added that the WALLY project was rated the top project by the State of Michigan to receive funding to improve signals and ongoing development of the project.

Committee members and staff engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding WALLY. It was suggested that absent the political will in Washtenaw and Livingston County, it is unlikely that trains will run. In contrast, it was noted that even if WALLY does not go forward, the tracks (which have already been improved) can still be used by freight cars.

Michael Ford was requested to contact the Governor’s office and the head of the Michigan Department ofTransportation (MDOT) to ascertain whether the project is a priority of the current administration, and if so, will that support lead to the needed capital and operating support for WALLY. Michael Ford indicated that he recently met with Kirk Steudle (the Director of MDOT). They discussed the idea of identifying more incentives to develop and urge collaboration between communities.

Rich Robben suggested tabling the WALLY discussion with a caveat that the funding not be spent without specific authorization from the board. Mr. Robben requested the opportunity for more discussion on operating funds. Michael Ford requested confirmation (which he received) that the funds for WALLY will remain in the draft budget, but will not be spent without specific action from the Board.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the board entertained other various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Shorter-Term Service Improvements

In addition to the work on the transit master plan (TMP) and the governing body that would be the countywide authority, CEO Michael Ford mentioned shorter-term initiatives that the AATA is working on to enhance service: Ypsi-to-Ann Arbor service, van pool service, extension of A-Ride (paratransit) service to the East Ann Arbor Health Center, and airport service.

Ford reported that because the AATA had received more than one response to the request for proposals (RFP) it had issued for the airport service contract, the project would be delayed by six to eight weeks, but the AATA was still moving forward with that, he said. AATA is collaborating on funding issues with private and public partners, which includes talks with the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. He reported that AATA would be meeting with the Wayne County Airport Authority, as well as with Wayne County EDGE to discuss how the AATA might operate out of the airport.

The A-Ride service was extended on July 1 to the East Ann Arbor Health Center. Ford reported that training was held for employees on the details of the new service.

An RFP was issued for van pool service in late June, Ford reported, and a recommendation could be ready for the planning and development committee to review at its meeting in September.

In the area of improving the Ann Arbor-to-Ypsilanti workforce transportation service, Ford said that Night Ride would be expanded to Ypsilanti in the fall. AATA is also looking at doubling the number of weekday trips on Route #4, which would begin in January 2012. That’s already included in the 2012 budget, Ford said.

The AATA continues to work with community partners to support service, Ford said

Comm/Comm: Landscaping

Ford reported on the in-progress landscaping project at the AATA headquarters facility.

Landscaping work underway at the AATA headquarters facility on South Industrial Highway.

He noted that the ivy, dead trees and rocks were gone and they’d be replaced with low-maintenance plants. Accessible concrete ramps are also being installed.

Comm/Comm: CTN Viewership

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith told his board colleagues that board meeting online viewership on Community Television Nework was included in the board information packet. Counts reflect the number of views, not necessarily the number of unique IP addresses, and do not include views of the regular cable broadcast, which CTN does not track.

Sep. 16, 2010: 27
Oct. 21, 2010: 44
Nov. 18, 2010:  2
Dec. 16, 2010: 50
Jan. 20, 2011:  9
Mar. 17, 2011: 23
Apr. 21, 2011: 21
May  19, 2011: 12
Jun. 16, 2011:  9

-

Comm/Comm: Performance Update

Charles Griffith, chair of the board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, characterized the financial operating data as “in good shape.” He allowed that expenses have started to go up on a per-service-hour basis, but are still under the target amount. The AATA continues to see an uptick in ridership.

Ridership numbers on fixed-route service through July 2011. (Links to higher resolution image.)

It’s now possible to compare on an apples-to-apples basis, he said, because it’s been over a year since the last fare increase was implemented. Ridership in July 2011 was up 6.2%, he said, adding that they can only speculate why.

Griffith said it might be possible for the October 2011 on-board survey to help shed some light on that. He noted that ridership for the demand response component of the AATA’s service is down 3.5%, which is a continuation of the downward trend since the fare increase.

Comm/Comm: Information on Intermediate Stops

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board that she had a suggestion for a service improvement: The stops that are intermediate to those listed in the schedule are not listed anywhere that she could find.

That had caused her some confusion at times, Armentrout said, though overall she was delighted with her Route #13 service. The drivers are considerate and courteous, she reported. But sometimes she thinks there’s going to be a stop and then there’s not. She ventured that one reason it might not be possible to put those intermediate stops into the schedule is that it would take away some flexibility. But she wished for a list or some way that information could be accessed.

Comm/Comm: Wake Up, Washtenaw!

Larry Krieg spoke during both times available for public commentary. He called the board’s attention to several recent developments indicating the role of transit in growing the economies in the regions it serves. He noted that the American Society of Civil Engineers had released a study recently concluding that by 2021, the average American household will lose $7,000 in spending power, unless additional funds are spent on roads, bridges and transit.

He noted that the Michigan State Police had released a report stating that the direct cost of car crashes in 2009 was $4.9 billion, with indirect costs in pain and suffering of $4.0 billion. And Orlando, Florida has begun work on SunRail, a 39-mile commuter line, using existing rail right of way, despite initial objections from Florida Gov. Rick Scott. There’s no doubt that operation costs for SunRail will be fully covered by public and private sources in addition to farebox revenue, he said.

Larry Krieg of Wake Up, Washtenaw! addressed the board.

Transit has an important role to play in the economic development of the community, Krieg said. Now is no time to hang back. In the time allotted for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Krieg returned to the podium to describe some steps that his group – Wake Up, Washtenaw! – is taking to promote economic development through transit.

Krieg said he felt that opposition to investment in transit is generally based on a lack of information. There needs to be a strong voice for each transit project. So Wake Up, Washtenaw! proposes to continue support for Partners for Transit, a citizen group promoting the transit master plan. The group will also engage civic and business leaders in Washtenaw County and surrounding counties. He also suggested convening a roundtable discussion of transportation funding alternatives, that would involve business leaders, transit officials and the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). He suggested that the discussion should include alternative legal and financial structures that could bring public transit closer to being self-sustaining. Krieg concluded by inviting people to email him at wakeupwashtenaw at gmail dot com.

Comm/Comm: Paratransit, Human Rights

Thomas Partridge complained about the time for public commentary at AATA board meetings, which is limited to two minutes (at the start and the end of the meeting), calling it undemocratic censorship. He called on the board to give priority to monitoring the AATA’s paratransit service performance. He contended that he’d be victimized, even though he’d taken a limited number of taxi rides through the service. He contended that some of the taxicabs have more than 250,000 miles on them and don’t ride well or drive well and have non-functioning air conditioning. Partridge contended that the AATA board members are not performing their functions well, because they don’t take ride themselves and inspect buses themselves. They don’t know what’s going on in the streets, he said.

Partridge also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary. He lamented the fact that public meetings have become “routine” for participants and for board members and employees. What the public needs to understand, he said, is that public transit is a primary human rights and civil rights issue. Support for transit should be garnered on this basis, he said. Partridge contended that transportation services are being rationed out on a discriminatory basis. Drivers and other personnel are stressed, and service is strained too far, he contended. Vehicles are assigned to drivers in a racist and discriminatory manner, he claimed.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein,  Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: David Nacht, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 15, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]