Details of the service include a one-way fare of $12 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $15 with re-fundability up to time of departure. Round trip fare would be $22 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $30 with refundability up to time of departure. The resolution also provides for an introductory promotional offer of $10 one-way and $20 round trip. Volume discounts also may be available for groups of up to eight people traveling together. [.pdf of resolution establishing fare structure]

AATA CEO Michael Ford has previously described the intent of the service 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 board previously authorized the negotiation of the contract with Indian Trails. A resolution separate from the one setting fares establishes a two-year contract with Indian Trails at a cost of $2.56 per service mile, with the total cost for the contract not more than $700,000 per year.

Including stops, the AATA has previously described an airport route as long as 70 miles round trip. [On I-94, it's roughly 51 roundtrtip miles from downtown Ann Arbor to the entrance of Detroit Metro.] At the lower end of the regular fare offered on a 70-mile round trip, the service would need to average around eight passengers per bus to cover the cost of the Indian Trails contract on fares alone. [(70*2.56)/22 = 8.14]  [.pdf of board information packet]

The Feb. 16 AATA board meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

The four-party agreement would expand the area and level of transportation service provided by the AATA by expanding the geographic area of its governance structure. Specifically, under the four-party agreement, the AATA would be incorporated as a transportation authority under Act 196 of 1986.

The council’s postponement on Feb. 6 came at the AATA’s request. The council previously postponed the issue at its Jan. 9 and Jan. 23 meetings. Thirty-nine people spoke at a public hearing held on Jan. 23.

The delay by the council is due in part to a desire to hear a recommendation from a financial advisory group that was scheduled to meet on Jan. 27 – but that meeting was postponed. The group is a collection of more than 20 representatives of the public and private sectors, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel. They have met since the fall of 2011.

The day before the group’s scheduled meeting, a 17-bill package was introduced on Jan. 26 in the Michigan house of representatives that provides for the establishment and funding of a regional transit authority that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. However, the AATA has not explicitly cited that new legislation as the reason for the postponement of its meeting. The meeting is now expected to take place on Feb. 29.

Before voting to postpone action on the agreement until March 5, the council undertook an amendment to the agreement. To the text on termination was added: “The City of Ann Arbor may also withdraw from the new TA [transit authority] using any of the methods authorized by MCL 124.458. In the event that the city of Ann Arbor exercise any of the forgoing rights, Ann Arbor may terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other parties.” [.pdf of 4-party agreement as previously amended on Jan. 23, 2011]

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

From the press release: “The bipartisan, bicameral package aims to improve and maintain roads across the state, implement numerous reforms to the Department of Transportation and establish a funding source to be used only to directly improve roads, bridges and key infrastructure. The legislation also would create a regional transit authority in Southeast Michigan.” For background see “AATA in Transition: Briefed on State’s Plans.”

The council postponed action until its Feb. 6 meeting, but not before undertaking several amendments to the text of the agreement. The council had previously postponed action at its Jan. 9 meeting and had set a public hearing for Jan. 23. A few dozen people appeared before the council to speak during the hearing.

The four-party agreement – between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – would establish a framework for making a transition of the AATA to a countywide system of governance under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986.

The transition to a countywide governance and funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which until now has 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.

In the four party-agreement, 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.

Although the council postponed action, it did undertake several amendments to the accord.

Completely struck was a section that contemplated the possibility that “funding sources are elected to fund the NEW TA [transit authority] which do not require voter approval.” A new addition was the explicit requirement that the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would need to vote to adopt the articles of incorporation that Washtenaw County would file to formally incorporate the new Act 196 transit authority. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

A phrase was inserted in two spots (one for each of the cities) to place on the new Act 196 transit authority a requirement to the effect that the new authority must provide to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti “at a minimum, the continued level of services provided by its predecessor-in-interest, AATA, …”

Another revision highlighted at the beginning of some relevant paragraphs the condition that must be met in order for the substance of the paragraph to apply, and expresses it in terms of time, not abstract logic: “After all of the Section 8 contingencies to Closing are satisfied, …”

Another revision accommodated the possibility that some municipalities might choose to opt out of an Act 196 authority if one were to be incorporated – by swapping in “authority-wide” for the phrase “county-wide.” Those amendments undertaken by the council are reflected in the marked up document: [.pdf of marked up four-party agreement]

An additional revision approved by the council stipulates that if Ann Arbor is the only municipality in the county that opts in to the Act 196 authority, then the agreement is null and void.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that at the council’s next meeting, he’d bring forward a possible amendment to change the composition of the board of the new transit authority that’s described in the four-party agreement, so that Ann Arbor has a majority. The original version, which remains in place, calls for a 15-member board to which Ann Arbor would appoint seven members. Ypsilanti would have one seat, and a district that includes Ypsilanti and August townships would have two seats (the southeast district). Pittsfield Township would constitute a district. The other four seats would come from districts labeled as follows: west, north central, northeast, south central. [.jpg of map showing board composition of Act 196 transit authority]

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

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!

Rich Robben's last meeting as an Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board member was Jan. 19, 2012. (Photos by the writer.)

The board itself is in transition – Thursday was Rich Robben’s last meeting as an AATA board member. And the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, attended his first meeting since his nomination was confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 19, 2011. He replaces Sue McCormick on the board.

The AATA as an organization is also possibly in transition, as it seeks to establish a new, countywide governance structure under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. To provide a framework for that move, AATA is asking three other entities – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – to ratify an agreement with the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council postponed action on that agreement at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting, but is expected to take action on Jan. 23. A public hearing on the four-party agreement is scheduled for that council meeting as well. CEO Michael Ford reported that the text of the four-party agreement is currently being revised, to promote clarity.

And as the AATA works on a possible move to countywide governance of public transit in Washtenaw County, Michigan’s state legislature may also act to establish a regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan that would add Washtenaw to Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties.

The AATA board got a briefing on possible upcoming RTA legislation from Dusty Fancher, a consultant for the Michigan Public Transit Association (MPTA). Fancher, who’s employed by Midwest Strategy Group, stressed that the RTA legislation – for which no details have yet been released publicly – comes in the context of a larger transportation infrastructure agenda being pushed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. That larger agenda includes a focus on funding for roads.

Like the move to a local countywide governance, the funding for an RTA would probably include a request to voters for additional taxes. If the state’s RTA legislation were passed before the November 2012 election – and if a decision also were made to place a ballot request to Washtenaw County voters to fund more transportation within the county – that would potentially result in two transportation tax initiatives in the same election.

How likely is it that the state’s RTA legislation would be passed before the November 2012 election? Fancher said that if nothing were passed by March 2012, she’d bet money that nothing would happen before November. Also at the AATA board meeting, Clark Harder, executive director of the MPTA, indicated that it’s important to understand that Snyder does not currently have the votes within his own Republican Party to push the RTA package forward.

Against that backdrop of transition and many unknowns, the AATA went about some regular business with quantifiable, known facts. The board authorized the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide van pool service. The board also authorized its capital grant program for the next five years, which allows for an additional $1.5 million of federal and state grant money to go towards the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center.

The board also heard its usual range of public commentary and reports from committees.

Board in Transition

Charles Griffith chaired the meeting in Jesse Bernstein’s absence. Griffith began the meeting by welcoming Eli Cooper back to the board. Cooper had served previously on the board from 2005-2008. But Cooper was attending his first meeting as an AATA board member since his most recent confirmation by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 19, 2011. Cooper told Griffith it was great to be back.

Cooper is the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, and his recent nomination to a position on the board was for the city council somewhat controversial, due to his employment with the city.

Board in Transition: Robben Departs

At the start of the Jan. 19 meeting, Griffith also noted the departure of Rich Robben from the board – that night’s meeting would be Robben’s last.

Rich Robben was presented with the traditional token of appreciation from the AATA for his board service.

Because Griffith was filling in for Jesse Bernstein as chair, he could not simultaneously play his usual role as the board secretary. The board’s resolutions approved at the meeting required a signature from the chair and the secretary, without those signatures being from the same person. So Griffith tapped Robben to serve as secretary at his final board meeting.

By way of additional background, Robben had submitted his resignation in November 2011, but had agreed to serve through January 2012 to allow some time to find a replacement.

Robben’s departure was early – his four-year term had started last year. In his resignation letter sent to mayor John Hieftje, Robben wrote, “… other factors have risen that will interfere with my time commitment to this endeavor.” Appointments to the AATA board are made through mayoral nomination, and confirmation by the city council. There’s been no public mention of Robben’s resignation at previous meetings of the AATA or city council. Board members queried by The Chronicle after the Jan. 19 meeting had not heard anything about who might be nominated to replace Robben.

Robben received the traditional parting gift for departing board members – a mailbox marked up to resemble an AATA bus. Colleagues on the board offered their praise and gratitude for his service.

CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the board for the month included the following statement about Robben:

The organization has benefited greatly from Rich’s stewardship and tireless service having held the chair of the planning and development committee and served on several other committees prior to PDC’s inception and also served as a U196 Board member. Rich was instrumental in the redesign of the Board structure and made a contribution to many other projects that altered the face of the organization. We will miss him greatly but look forward to continuing to come in contact through AATA’s ongoing partnership with U of M.

Later in the meeting, David Nacht heaped praise on Robben, saying that for those who don’t know, Robben is a senior manager at the University of Michigan, for facilities management. It means that Robben knows how to think about building, running transit operations, hiring and firing, and dealing with people and machinery, Nacht said. “I have learned so much from Rich,” Nacht said, adding that it’s been a delight to serve with him. Nacht called Robben “a terrific guy” who had been of “incalculable assistance to the community.”

Griffith told Robben he enjoyed serving with Robben – they’d started on the board at the same time, back in 2006.

Robben thanked his colleagues for their kind words, saying that he greatly enjoyed his time serving on the board. Robben called the AATA an outstanding, well-run organization with an excellent CEO. The board has gotten great new blood, he said. He turned to the AATA staff in attendance and literally applauded them. “You are a terrific staff,” he said, “you really are.” He said he’d enjoyed his association with them – they are on the pinacle of expertise in the transportation industry, he said. He concluded by saying he hoped he’d helped move things forward – an indirect reference to AATA’s “Moving You Forward” marketing slogan.

Board in Transition: Internal Organization

Robben’s resignation is the second early departure from the board in two months. Sue McCormick’s last meeting was Dec. 15, 2011. Her replacement on the board is Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager.

Eli Cooper sported transit-themed neckwear for his first meeting on the AATA board since his confirmation by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 19, 2011.

Originally on the Jan. 19 agenda were items to elect new officers and make new committee assignments. Just four months ago, on Sept. 15, 2011, the board had elected new officers: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and Sue McCormick (treasurer). But with McCormick’s early departure from the board in December, the board needs to identify a treasurer.

Also at the Sept. 15 meeting, the board had divided its committee responsibilities. The committee chairs were determined to be: Rich Robben (planning and development committee), and Charles Griffith (performance monitoring and external relations). So the board also needs to identify a new chair of the planning and development committee.

However, the items on officers and committee assignments were pulled from the agenda before the meeting.

Another role played by Robben until now was as one of three representatives of the AATA to the U196 board – the unincorporated Act 196 board. That body is a precursor to what could become a transit authority with a countywide governance – an entity that would subsume the AATA as the Ann Arbor area public transit provider. The U196 board has been meeting since late 2011. Compared to the U196 board, a fully incorporated board would include four more Ann Arbor members, for a total of seven out of 15 board seats.

Board in Transition: External Representation – Countywide

The need for the AATA to fill Robben’s slot on the U196 board – and to take a more active role as a entire board in the activities of the U196 – was a view expressed during public commentary delivered at the meeting by Vivienne Armentrout.

Vivienne Armentrout.

Armentrout told the board she’d attended a meeting of the planning and development committee when the issue of a millage vote had been discussed. She reported that David Nacht had asked who would plan the millage vote. Ford had answered that the U196 board would do that.

She then showed the board a diagram from the AATA showing a timeline indicating the U196 board was assigned the responsibility of planning the millage vote.

Armentrout said she is concerned that the U196 board has only three AATA board members on it – one of them Rich Robben, who was departing from the board. The U196 board is really not a real board – it’s a group of very responsible people, but it’s not a real board, she said. She wanted to see the whole AATA board more closely involved, especially in the early stages of planning, as finances and millage votes are discussed.

AATA in Transition

The transition to a countywide governance and funding base is intended to (1) ensure stability of funding for transit connections outside of the city of Ann Arbor, which until now has 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.

To provide a framework for a move to countywide governance, the AATA is asking three other entities – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – to ratify an agreement with the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council postponed action on that agreement at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting, but is expected to take action on Jan. 23. A public hearing on the four-party agreement is scheduled for that council meeting as well. [.pdf of four-party agreement as presented to city council on Jan. 9, 2012]

In the four party-agreement, 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.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the Jan. 19 AATA board meeting, Nancy Kaplan asked for clarification on the four-party agreement. She noted that countywide voter approval of a funding source is one of the contingencies to closing the deal.

8. Contingencies to Closing.
…
(f) Countywide voter approval before December 31, 2014, of a New TA Act 196 funding source adequate to fund ongoing operations of New TA. Any ballot question submitted to the voters of the City of Ann Arbor and/or the City of Ypsilanti shall clearly identify the new funding as additional to the existing millage.

Kaplan compared that contingency to another section of the agreement [added by the city council through amendment at its Jan. 9 meeting] that allows the city of Ann Arbor to withdraw from the agreement, if voters within the city do not approve the countywide funding source – even if the proposal achieves a majority countywide:

9. Ann Arbor Approval.
Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if voters in the City of Ann Arbor fail to approve the NEW TA Act 196 funding source, regardless of whether it is approved or not by the other voting jurisdictions, then the City shall have the right to (i) withdraw from this Agreement without penalty; (ii) veto any attempted termination by AATA of the AATA-City operation agreement; and (iii) refuse to designate and/or assign its millage under Section 3(a).

Kaplan expressed concern that paragraph 9 appears to give the city of Ann Arbor the right to withdraw, but does not obligate the city to withdraw, if a majority of Ann Arbor voters don’t vote for the funding source.

State-Level Transitions

At its Jan. 19 meeting, the board received a briefing on the state-level legislative climate for transit funding. Clark Harder, executive director of the Michigan Public Transit Association, led off the presentation by giving the board a brief history of the MPTA – a group to which the AATA belongs.

Harder was followed by Dusty Fancher of Midwest Strategy Group, a multi-client lobbying firm in Lansing.

State-Level Transitions: Regional Transit, Road Funding

What’s been fantastic about Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Fancher said, is that he’s been openly and publicly supportive of public transit, in a way that hasn’t been seen in a Michigan governor in many years. She said she’s worked with his policy advisors and talked to them extensively about the regional transportation authority legislation that the governor had called for in his State of the State address delivered on Jan. 18. The nitty gritty details of the bills have not yet come forward, she said.

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 bills have not been introduced and the drafts have not yet been released at this time. But from talking to the governor and his staff, Fancher said, it was known that the Ann Arbor area would have two voting board members. It’s known that the governor wants to have major bus lines running in and out of Ann Arbor to the Detroit Metro airport and to the city of Detroit. The governor wants a funding mechanism that will provide additional funding for the area. The details aren’t known, she said. It might be that residents of southeast Michigan will have to vote as a region, for an additional tax. There will be four bills related to the regional transit authority, she said – the charge will be led by state senators Tom Casperson and Tupac Hunter. [Clarification: According to staff from Hunter's office as well as staff from from the office of senator Bert Johnson, it's Johnson who's working closely with Casperson on the legislation.]

The regional transit authority is part of a much larger context of the governor’s transportation infrastructure agenda, she said, which he released in October 2011. The transportation system has been underfunded for years at the state and federal levels, she said. For every dollar sent to Washington D.C. only about 80 cents comes back to Michigan.

Snyder is planning a 13-bill package to increase transportation funding overall – that includes roads and public transit, Fancher reported. What it really looks like Snyder wants to do is change the formula for funding roads. Currently road funding is based on vehicle miles traveled – that might be changed to give more money to fund state highways and less to municipalities. But every revenue package that’s been floated to the legislature so far, she said, has “fallen pretty flat” – both in the senate and the house.

Legislators are wondering if the consumer who pulls up to the pump every week really wants to pay more gas taxes, Fancher explained. Universally there’s no support in the legislature for increasing the gas tax, she said. So what they’ll have to look at is the sales tax on gasoline. When you go to the pump, you’d pay a sales tax on top of a gas tax. That could be re-directed into roads.

Another possibility is that the registration fees paid for vehicles will be restructured to put some of that money into the road funding formula – that’s a real possibility, according to Fancher. Some people are even talking about the Natural Resources Trust Fund and asking if some percentage of that money can be set aside and put towards roads – that idea is getting more traction than you’d think, she said.

There’s still talk of increasing the statewide sales tax by one penny, and designating that revenue for roads. But that would require a statewide popular vote, Fancher said. And it would be hard to get a majority of voters to agree to increase the sales tax after many years of recession. We all know we need a bunch of money to fix our roads and make sure we have a robust transit system, Fancher told the board – it’s just not clear how we’re going to get there.

Rep. Rick Olson is looking at transit funding and trying to put out a report, Fancher said. He’s met with staff of the AATA and Fancher met with him last week in his office. Olson has also put out a report about road funding – “that’s been very interesting,” she said. In the Jan. 18 State of the State address, the governor did call for Michigan as a state and for the legislature to move forward on transportation and infrastructure funding. There’s been enough talk, she said, and Snyder would like to start coalescing around some specific ideas. Snyder likes to talk about moving forward in “dog years,” she said. Fancher felt if something was not passed by March 2012, then there won’t likely be anything passed before the November elections. “I’d bet some money on that,” she said.

State-Level Transitions: RTA – MPTA Policy Position

Harder of the Michigan Public Transit Association stressed that while the regional transit authority (RTA) legislation will be introduced sooner or later, he wanted to assure the AATA that his group will not take a position on the RTA until it knows AATA’s stance. The MPTA would get the AATA’s feedback, he said, as well as feedback from other southeast Michigan transit providers. Any MPTA position would be determined by its members, he said. And if there’s a conflict, the MPTA won’t take a position.

Harder noted that he and AATA CEO Michael Ford both attended an address given in late 2011 at Lawrence Technological University, when Snyder had sketched out a regional transit authority. He recalled asking Ford, “Okay, what do you think, Michael?” Harder said they’d both “kind of shrugged.” It’s hard to know until details come forth. But Harder stressed that the AATA has a very vital stake in a possible regional authority. He indicated that Washtenaw County would definitely be a part of the RTA that would eventually be proposed.

State-Level Transitions: RTA – Board Response

In the context of the AATA’s current effort to collaborate with other entities in Washtenaw County to establish a countywide governance for a transit authority, AATA board member Roger Kerson wanted to know if Harder and Fancher could shed light on how the regional transit authority would work.

Kerson said he assumed it won’t do day-to-day operations, and that the local authority would handle that. Harder indicated that his best understanding is that an RTA will not replace or duplicate existing local systems. If there are areas where transit doesn’t currently work well, that’s an area where the new RTA would come in with some innovative ideas along some key corridors.

Harder said he felt that the RTA would not be funded on the back of existing systems. We can’t afford that, he said, so more funding would be needed. It’s been explained to him this way: “This will free up dollars.” A ballpark estimate is $40-50 million, he said – though that could be off. Fancher said the number she’s heard is $100 million total – broken down roughly as $40 million for bus capital expenses, $40 million for bus operating expenses, and the rest into rail improvements.

Kerson wondered about the possibility of going to voters of the proposed four-county authority – which is what Fancher had indicated the intent of the RTA legislation would be. If people have to vote on two tax increases, Kerson said, “that would not be good.” Harder said he wouldn’t want to see that – but that’s still not known.

Right now, Harder said, Snyder doesn’t have the votes to move the package on the Republican side. So a lot of work will have to be done. A constitutional change would eventually have to be made, and those are not easy changes, he said. But in his State of the State address, Snyder had said transportation would be a top priority.

State-Level Transitions: RTA – Constitutional Impact

Fancher elaborated on the fact that under Article 9 Section 9 of Michigan’s constitution, at least 90% of all transportation dollars must be directed to roads. She said that if you ask for a regional millage to support an RTA, you have to count that against the constitutional cap of not more than 10% going for public transit. It’s important to understand what the gap is between the amount of funding public transit receives today and the 10% cap – in planning for increased public funding of transit under current law, you have only that small space to work in.

David Nacht wondered if the legal argument had been tried that when the feds come up with new programs, the constitutional restriction wouldn’t apply. That’s because it would apply only to those federal dollars in programs that were in effect at the time the constitution was ratified. Harder told Nacht that his idea reflected that he was thinking creatively, and the governor’s staff is thinking creatively, too. Harder concluded by saying that Snyder is prioritizing transportation and is including public transportation as a part of that. He said that even as a Democrat, he respected Snyder for his public stand. No governor since William Milliken had taken as strong a public stand for public transportation, Harder said.

State-Level Transitions: Property Tax, Idling Legislation

Some other things the AATA should be keeping its eyes and ears on include possible changes to property taxes, Fancher said. She’s trying to gauge how that will affect local transit millages. Another piece of legislation (PA 152) deals with how much you can pay for health benefits, which might impact federally funded grant programs. That legislation will be opened up again this year and transit providers might be able to get some clarification.

The legislature is also looking at statewide idling legislation to make sure buses, trucks and other diesel-powered vehicles aren’t idling unnecessarily and polluting the air. The idling legislation, she said, is moving forward quickly. [.pdf of HIB 4899] [.pdf of SIB 0819] [For a report on Ann Arbor city council's recent working session on that topic, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Restarts Talk on Vehicle Idling"]

State-Level Transitions: House Transportation Committee

Next week, Fancher said, the MPTA will make a presentation to the state house transportation committee at the request of its chair, Paul Opsommer, a Republican who represents District 93. It’s the first time in a decade that representatives from public transportation have been asked to present to the committee, she said. MPTA will present on what public transportation means in an urban versus rural setting, and how it’s funded in Michigan compared to other states.

The following week, she said, Opsommer would like to have a discussion about bus rapid transit, perhaps bringing in somebody from Cincinnati and Grand Rapids, and the third week will focus on public transportation. She characterized it as “fantastic news” that the committee would spend the whole month of January on public transportation. It’s getting some traction in the legislature, Fancher said.

State-Level Transitions: Board Response – AATA Achievements

Responding to the presentation from Harder and Fancher, board member David Nacht asked them to take a message back to the governor and the legislature describing what the AATA had been doing and thinking about over the last few years – which he then enumerated as follows.

1. As agency, Nacht said, the AATA has dealt with legacy costs. “We cooperatively, with our union, put forward a fiscally sound basis for going forward, dealing with retirement issues, dealing with health care issues.” The AATA is a fiscally sound agency, he said. The AATA had not needed warning from someone else that this was necessary, but had recognized it on its own – the AATA had dealt with the issue cooperatively with its union. The AATA had solved the problem before it became a problem.
2. Under the leadership of former board member Ted Annis, Nacht continued, the board worked with staff to focus on best practices and improving operating efficiency. Nacht described Annis as a successful entrepreneur who’d gotten the AATA to think about private sector techniques, so that even as a public agency in a unionized environment, the AATA is constantly looking at how to deliver the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayer. That attitude, Nacht said, is an endemic part of the AATA’s culture. Staff has been incredibly flexible, he said. “We’re proud of the culture we’ve created here,” he concluded.
3. The AATA has cooperative agreements with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the University of Michigan, Nacht pointed out. The AATA recognizes that people expect government to be this “one public sector thing.” People pay taxes and want problems solved. They don’t want competing public entities and turf wars – they expect people who are the beneficiaries of tax dollars to work together to solve problems. That’s exactly what the AATA is doing by cooperating with other entities, he said.
4. The AATA has pilot-tested how to do regional commuter bus service – from Chelsea and Canton to Ann Arbor. In the beginning, Nacht allowed, the AATA didn’t know how to do it. Now, he said, “we’re doing it well.” The AATA believes in experimenting at low cost, in that case “on the federal government’s dime.” The AATA is prepared to use what it’s learned and to replicate it.
5. The AATA works cooperatively with the private sector to deliver those services that it makes sense to deliver under the AATA’s flag, or simply cooperatively. The AATA has healthy, positive relationships with multiple private sector providers, he said.

The point of his remarks, Nacht said, is say that the AATA is not a classic Mackinac Center image of a public entity – a reference to the conservative Midland-based public policy group.

AATA board member David Nacht.

The AATA is exactly the kind of public sector entity that “a conservative Republican would be proud to have as a public entity,” Nacht contended.

The AATA has tried to be responsive to policy initiatives that come from all stripes and areas of the policy and political spectrum. “I’m really genuinely proud of our success,” Nacht said.

The AATA’s transit master plan looks at best practices in Europe, the Pacific northwest, in Canada, as well as the Midwest, Nacht said.

The AATA recognizes that the Ann Arbor area is “medium density” – not a major metropolitan area, but on the outskirts of one. “We understand exactly what we are and what we’re not – what we’re capable of doing or not capable of doing.”

Nacht said the AATA has put a lot of effort in developing a reasonable approach to getting a fiscal reality for a plan that will improve the way people are moved around – in an environmentally sound way – and in a way that pays attention to economic development and ensures that taxpayers get the best bang for their buck.

Vehicles for Vanpool Service

At its Jan. 19 meeting, the AATA board considered the purchase of seven Dodge Caravans (model year 2012) for $21,272 each (total = $148,904) with an option to purchase up to a total of 25 vans (total = $531,800). The vans will be used to provide vanpool services. Vanpools are arrangements in which a vehicle is provided through the service, but is driven by one of the members of the pool.

At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized a contract with VPSI Inc. for vanpool services that is not to exceed $6,600 for each AATA owned/managed van. Riders pay for operational costs. Currently, the MichiVan program, operated by VPSI, provides such a service in the Ann Arbor area. However, through fiscal year 2012 MichiVan will only continue to provide vanpool service for existing vanpools in the Ann Arbor area. It is AATA’s intention to provide service for any additional vanpools that people might wish to create.

Charles Griffith, who was chairing the meeting in Jesse Bernstein’s absence, noted that the performance and external relations committee had not discussed the resolution, but the analysis of the issue had been provided in the board packet. It’s been budgeted, noted Griffith, stressing that the initial purchase of seven vans is not all the resolution authorizes – it authorizes up to 25 vans.

Board member David Nacht noted that while he’s in favor of piggy-backing on the state’s procurement contract, and that it’s a Michigan dealer who’d be providing the vans, it is not a Washtenaw County dealer. Nacht wanted to know if the AATA could get a competing bid from a Washtenaw County dealer for the remaining vans – “just to see how local folks compare.” Chris White, AATA manager of service development , responded by saying that it would be possible if the AATA wanted to do a separate procurement process for the remaining vans.

But White noted that Washtenaw County dealers had already had an opportunity to bid – by bidding on the state contract. He also noted that in a separate procurement process, there’d be no guarantee that the Washtenaw County dealer would win the bid – the AATA is prohibited by the feds from having any geographic preference.

Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, added that with this particular purchase the AATA would be able to store the vehicles at no cost. If the AATA purchased them from some alternate source, the AATA would want that same arrangement to apply.

Roger Kerson, whose professional background includes time as public relations director for the United Auto Workers, got confirmation of the brand of vehicle – Dodge. “Great,” said Kerson.

AATA Michael Ford clarified with Nacht that Nacht was essentially interested in getting a reconnaissance check for prices from local dealers.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide vanpool service.

AATA Capital and Categorical Grant Program

The resolution considered by the board authorized AATA’s capital and categorical grant program for 2012-2016. [.pdf of capital and categorical grant program] To continue receiving federal and state funding, it’s required that the AATA develop such an annual plan for use of federal and state funds.

The board had authorized a revised version of its 2011-2015 plan last year on Aug. 24, 2011. That revision was made in order to accommodate three projects: (1) the Blake Transit Center (BTC) reconstruction in downtown Ann Arbor, (2) the bus storage facility expansion, and (3) the bus maintenance facility upgrade.

This year’s program also includes those projects. The resolution adopted by the board at its Jan. 19 meeting includes an additional use of grant funding of up to $1.5 million – $1.2 million in federal formula funds and $0.3 million in state funds – for the planned reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor BTC. That brings the total BTC project budget from the previously reported $5.5 million to as much as $7 million.

The AATA does not think it will be possible to construct the center’s design for $5.5 million, but the board is not necessarily committed to spending the entire $7 million. Some of the additional cost involves technology for informational displays. The resolution considered by the board on Jan. 19 set that additional funding as the final maximum amount for the planned BTC reconstruction.

According to the resolution, the final cost estimates for the planned BTC reconstruction are due by March 2012. For a more detailed description of the planned new center – which will be reconstructed on the opposite end of the same parcel where the current center sits – see “AATA Preps Stage for Future Transit Choice.”

During the report from the planning and development committee, board member David Nacht noted that when it comes to the BTC financing, Rich Robben had previously asked serious questions about the cost. Nacht said that while Robben did not attend the most recent meeting of that committee, Nacht had followed up on those questions. He described the AATA staff as well prepared – they’d given him and the other committee member, Anya Dale, a comfort level that’s good enough to go forward.

When it came time to deliberate on the capital and categorical grant program, Nacht described it as something the AATA does every year – it’s following an established procedure. Nacht noted that the AATA has some flexibility to re-program funds, but the way the program is set out is consistent with the transportation master plan. Nacht stated his feeling that they were being rational about the grant program, therefore it should be done.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the capital and categorical grant program for 2012-2016.

Submissions to the FTA

Also considered by the board was a resolution that authorizes its CEO, Michael Ford, to submit applications, certifications and assurances to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), when the AATA asks for funding from that agency. The FTA requires the AATA to have passed such a resolution. The board’s resolution also authorized the CEO to execute contracts with the FTA on behalf of the AATA.

When it came time to vote on the resolution, Charles Griffith – who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Jesse Bernstein – described the resolution as fairly pro forma.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, described the resolution as the same one that has been on file, with the title of the AATA’s top executive changed from “executive director” to “chief executive officer” – to reflect accurately Michael Ford’s title.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize submissions of materials to the FTA by its CEO.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Jan. 19, 2012 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: First Quarter – Financials, Operating

AATA controller Phil Webb gave the board an update on the first quarter financials. For the first three months of the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, 2011, the AATA is under budget for both revenue and expenses, Webb said.

Over the first three months of this fiscal year (green bars), the AATA is under budget (blue line) for its cost per service hour, but is using more money per hour to provide service than last year (red line). (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution graphs and other financial data.)

Revenue is $473,867 under budget – $6,418,456 compared to a planned $6,892,323. And expenses are also down by 480,154 – $6,512,994 compared to a planned $6,993,148. [.pdf of AATA first quarter financials]

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, noted that the performance and external relations committee had not met in the previous month, so it had not reviewed the operating performance statistics. He described December as a historically low ridership month. He also observed that the cost per service hour is up from last year. So far this year, the AATA is operating at $105.18 per service hour, which is under its $112.30 budget, but more than the $100.17 per service hour it showed last year for the same period.

The on-time performance, White said, continues to improve somewhat. He noted, however, that the impact of the East Stadium bridge closing was significant. Routes 6, 5 and 36 were only about 60% on time. It had been even worse when State Street under the bridge was also closed. Now that State is open again, things are somewhat better, White reported.

But December was a relatively high month for bus crashes – including one that was fairly serious. A pedestrian was struck by a bus that resulted in injuries. [.pdf of operating performance data first quarter of FY 2012]

Comm/Comm: WALLY

In his oral update to the board delivered at the board meeting, CEO Michael Ford reported on the north-south commuter rail project, which would connect Howell and Ann Arbor. [It's called WALLY – Washtenaw Livingston Rail Line]. Ford stressed that it’s currently not a viable project without the TIGER III funding that had been hoped for. It’s very clear that nothing is going to move forward without that capital funding.

By way of background, the AATA continues to prepare for the possibility that additional capital funding can be secured, as preparation for work on station design continues. From the Jan. 10, 2012 meeting of the planning and development committee:

Michael Benham [strategic planner for AATA] reported on issuing a Request for Proposals for Station Design Service for the WALLY project. Proposals are due near the end of January. David Nacht questioned the work, noting that the committee previously had directed staff to seek approval prior to conducting further work on the WALLY project. Benham noted that no funds were yet to be expended and indicated that a plan for moving the project forward would be provided in February or March.

Benham also indicated that the funds for the station design project would be covered with funding obtained from a Section 5303 grant, the City of Howell, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor DDA. Benham added that he was in touch with his counterpart at MDOT, and once the revised business plan was complete, he would arrange a meeting to assess the current commitment from the State.

Comm/Comm: getDowntown Survey

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, gave the AATA board an update on a survey that had been completed, asking downtown employers and employees about their commuting habits. The survey showed a slight reduction in the number of people who commute by driving alone. [.ppt file of getDowntown commuter survey]

Comm/Comm: Website Development

Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, gave an update on development of the new website. She said that one of the things the AATA has been working hard on is the design. She wants to make sure it’s something the AATA can be proud of. She allowed that these days, websites are changing all the time, but the AATA doesn’t want to be unhappy with the design a year down the road. She described how people had been surveyed, both online and in person, about proposed designs.

Stasiak said she expected the final design template to be done in the coming week. When data is loaded into the template, and the pages are built out, she noted that more user testing would be needed.

Comm/Comm: Paratransit – Bags, Vehicle Safety

In his update to the board, CEO Michael Ford described the response he’d made to some complaint about the AATA’s paratransit service (A-Ride) with respect to the policy on the number of bags and some complaints about the quality of vehicles. He reported that he’d personally ridden in some of the high mileage vehicles used by SelectRide, the AATA’s contractor for the service, and found no problematic issues. They showed usual wear and tear, but were clean and acceptable, Ford reported.

In her update from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), Cheryl Weber noted that the council had discussed how packages are carried by A-Ride and fixed-route riders. The council has formed a committee to look at that issue. The board had discussed the issue at its Dec. 15, 2011 meeting – they’d been addressed by a visually-impaired rider at the previous month’s meeting who’d been denied a ride for having too many bags.

Comm/Comm: Importance of Regional Transit

Clark Charnetski introduced himself as a member of the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC). He’s also a member of the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) advisory council. SMART’s council meets four times a year – but in December 2011 the meeting cancelled due in part to a failure of coordination between SMART and the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT). It goes to show what happens if you don’t have a good regional system, he said. He told the AATA board he’s glad they’re working on a good regional plan. He said he hopes there are not too many entities that opt out of joining the Act 196 authority. For SMART, many communities had opted out that have major health centers and educational institutions. He stressed the importance of the transportation system being done on a countywide basis.

Comm/Comm: Improvements to AATA

During public commentary, Ethel Potts commented on the general item of planning, saying that she used to attend AATA meetings in the past. Describing a 5-year improvement plan for 1990-1995, she said not everything had been implemented from that plan. Park-and-ride lots were one such item that had not been completely implemented, she said. She allowed that it is difficult to find land to establish park-and-ride lots. She acknowledged that the AATA had constructed a park-and-ride lot near US-23 and Plymouth Road, but contended that in order to provide bus service to the lot, the AATA had to remove other service.

Speaking to the proposed four-party agreement for countywide transit, Potts said she would prefer to “shape up” Ann Arbor’s system first. Ann Arbor’s transit system is very good, she allowed, but it’s still not good enough in light of the plans AATA has had in the past for a better system.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Eli Cooper, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: Jesse Bernstein

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

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

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, at the Ann Arbor planning commission's Jan. 10, 2012 working session. Behind her are students from Huron High School, who attended the meeting for a class assignment. (Photo by the writer.)

The forecast is used as a planning tool by local governments and regional organizations, and is updated every five years. A preliminary forecast from 2010-2020 has been distributed to communities in southeast Michigan, including Ann Arbor, to get feedback that will be used in making the final forecast through 2040. At a public forum in Ann Arbor last month, SEMCOG staff also presented an overview from its preliminary 2040 forecast for Washtenaw County.

For the county, the initial forecast shows the population growing from 344,791 in 2010 to 352,616 in 2020 – a 2.2% increase. By 2040, the county’s population is expected to reach 384,735, an increase of about 40,000 people from 2010.

The population in Ann Arbor is projected to stay essentially flat, while some of the county’s townships – including the townships of Augusta, Lima, Manchester, Saline and Superior – are expected to see double-digit growth.

Total employment for the county is expected to grow 20.6% through 2040, from 236,677 jobs in 2010 to 285,659 jobs in 2040. About 50% of all jobs in the county are located in Ann Arbor.

The forecast has implications for policy and planning decisions, including decisions related to transportation funding. For example, the forecast will form the basis for SEMCOG’s 2040 long-range transportation plan, which is expected to be released in June of 2013.

The transportation issue was highlighted during Tuesday’s planning commission meeting. And in a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, expressed concerns that the forecast might underestimate population and household figures.

Cooper said he’s trying to ensure that SEMCOG has all the data it needs to inform good decision-making. For example, a list of recent and pending developments that SEMCOG is using doesn’t include some major new residential projects, he said, such as The Varsity Ann Arbor. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG draft forecast]

This forecast comes in the context of several major transportation projects that are being discussed within the county. That  includes a possible countywide transportation system and a potential high-capacity transit corridor in Ann Arbor that would run from Plymouth Road at US-23 through downtown Ann Arbor to State Street and southward to I-94.

The discussion at Tuesday’s working session centered primarily on SEMCOG’s draft forecast for Ann Arbor through 2020. The meeting covered other topics, including an update on the planning staff’s 2012 work plan. This report focuses on the SEMCOG forecast.

SEMCOG Forecast

Wendy Rampson, who oversees planning operations at the city, introduced the SEMCOG forecast by saying that it’s a dry subject, but important – especially for transportation planning. The projections are fairly sophisticated, she said, starting at a macro level by making growth assumptions regionally, then sorting down to the jurisdictional level of counties, cities and townships.

At the same time, SEMCOG forecasters gather data from individual communities, such as site plan reviews for new developments, demolitions, tax assessment figures, and other information. For example, SEMCOG has compiled a list of current and proposed developments, including 33 in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG draft forecast] All of this data is factored into the forecast model, Rampson said, to derive the best possible projections of changes in population, the number of households, and employment. SEMCOG uses UrbanSim software to develop these forecasts.

SEMCOG Forecast: Employment

The new draft forecast reviewed by the planning commission projects that employment in Ann Arbor will grow 4.5% between 2010 and 2020, from 121,289 jobs in 2010 to 126,783 jobs in 2020. That’s a gain of 5,494 jobs.

However, Rampson said SEMCOG has backed off of its employment growth projections made five years ago for Ann Arbor. The previous employment forecast for Ann Arbor – posted on SEMCOG’s website – is for 134,191 jobs by 2020. The draft revision now projects 126,783 jobs by 2020, or 7,408 fewer jobs than previously forecast.

She said this revision seems reasonable, given the economic climate, but that it concerns Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, who felt the previous forecasts were already too conservative. Cooper is working with city staff to make sure SEMCOG has all the relevant data to make an accurate forecast, Rampson said, including potential development at the University of Michigan.

Rampson referred to a Dec. 14 email to city staff from SEMCOG lead planner Jeff Nutting, who outlined more details of how the forecast is developed. Nutting specifically described how UM data factors into the forecast:

Land owned by the University of Michigan is tax exempt, so there is not any building or land data contained in the tax assessment files for parcels they own. We obtained from U-M Planning their information on buildings owned or leased by U-M, including square footage, building activity and mail stops. U-M employment, as for all other establishments in the state, is obtained from the State Unemployment Insurance data that all establishments file on a monthly basis, reporting number of employees by location. These employment numbers were broken out to individual buildings owned or leased by U-M using mail stops, a method suggested by U-M Planning.

Of course, U-M has facilities outside the City of Ann Arbor, so not all jobs end up allocated to buildings in the city. The allocation is of course controlled by the number of jobs U-M is actually reporting. In addition, both the city and university master plans were input into the model in the form of future land use and density constraints. Updates to past announcements, such as U-M no longer moving all jobs in leased buildings into the old Pfizer buildings, were also input.

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs asked how accurate the SEMCOG forecasts have been in the past. Fairly accurate, Rampson said, and the forecasts are improving each cycle – although she noted that the forecasts didn’t predict the recent economic downturn. For example, a previous forecast had projected Ann Arbor employment at 125,340 jobs in 2010. Actual employment that year was 121,289 – 4,051 fewer jobs than projected.

Another employment-related factor in the forecast is how Ann Arbor’s job market is changing with respect to the rest of Washtenaw County, Rampson noted. In 2005, 53% of all jobs in Washtenaw County were located in Ann Arbor. That dropped to 51% in 2010, as a higher percentage of new jobs were located outside of the city. The new draft forecast projects a further drop, estimating that by 2020, only 50% of the county’s jobs will be located in Ann Arbor. It’s a change, but not a dramatic decrease, Rampson said. [.pdf of 2020 draft employment forecast for communities in Washtenaw County]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola clarified with Rampson that the figures for jobs refer only to the actual positions, not to the number of people who both work and live in the county.

SEMCOG Forecast: Population & Households

The number of households in Ann Arbor is expected to grow 3%  through 2020, from 47,060 to 48,449 – an increase of 1,389 households. [.pdf of 2020 draft forecast of households in Washtenaw County communities]

Rampson pointed out that while the forecast calls for more households, Ann Arbor’s population is expected to remain stable – growing only 0.4% to 114,367 people by 2020. [.pdf of 2020 draft forecast of population in Washtenaw County communities] What this means, she said, is that more housing units are being added and people are dispersing – the forecast indicates that there will be fewer people per household. The forecast likely reflects a demographic change: More older residents with no children at home, for example, as well as more younger, single residents.

The Dec. 14 email from SEMCOG’s Nutting stated that the new draft forecast of 48,449 Ann Arbor households in 2020 is more households than SEMCOG had previously projected for 2040 in its last forecast. The new forecast indicates more positive assumptions about Ann Arbor’s housing unit growth than SEMCOG analysts had five years ago, he wrote. The city is also expected to have stronger housing growth in the next decade than any other community in Washtenaw County.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona asked whether SEMCOG’s model takes into account zoning changes – the fact that the city now allows for greater density with mixed-use zoning. It’s difficult to project how much residential development will ultimately occur on parcels that have mixed-use zoning, Bona said.

Rampson replied that SEMCOG does consider factors like Ann Arbor’s relatively new A2D2 zoning and its downtown plan. She said she would follow-up with SEMCOG and ask how the forecast handles mixed-use zoning specifically.

Erica Briggs asked if her understanding was correct – that developers’ plans to build more housing factors into SEMCOG projections of household growth. Basically, she said, it sounds like if housing is being built, the assumption in the forecast is that those units will be filled. That’s right, Rampson said. And because the population is projected to grow only slightly, the forecast assumes that over time, there will be fewer people living in each unit.

That approach to the forecast seems questionable, Briggs said. It doesn’t address the fact that at some point, the city might simply have too many housing units. Rampson replied by saying she didn’t think the forecast model includes vacancy rates. However, the model does use historic patterns of population migration into and out of the region to make projections at the macro level. The model then disaggregates those projections to the local communities. ”None of this is predictive,” Rampson cautioned. “It’s just a planning tool for us.”

Bona said it would seem to make more sense to calculate job growth, and from that make projections about population, which would then inform housing needs.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal noted that University of Michigan students are a factor in population projections. For UM, a change of 1,000 people “is a rounding error,” he joked. [The university's Ann Arbor campus has an enrollment of about 42,000 students.]

Westphal noted that the number of housing units was projected to increase roughly 3.5 times more than the population. He indicated that he didn’t quite know what to make of that aspect of the forecast.

Rampson ventured that more young singles are staying in town after graduating from UM, and likely moving from group housing – like dorms or fraternities and sororities – into single-unit apartments. Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, said the trend in housing is away from large McMansions and toward smaller units, which might be driving the increase in the number of households in SEMCOG’s forecast.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods asked about infrastructure for services like municipal sewer and water. As the university grows, there’s less capacity for development elsewhere in the city, she said. Does SEMCOG’s model take that into consideration? Rampson replied that those kind of capacity issues are handled only in a very macro way. For example, the model would factor in whether an area has access to water and sewer, but it would not look at data such as the size of a water main, for example.

A chart showing SEMCOG's draft forecast of the Washtenaw County population change by age between 2010-2020. This information was presented by SEMCOG staff at a December public forum in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Woods also queried Eleanore Adenekan, a commissioner who’s also a local real estate agent, asking whether SEMCOG’s forecast for households aligns with what Adenekan sees in the market. “Absolutely,” Adenekan said.

But Rampson questioned some of the underlying data that Nutting cited in his email to city staff. Nutting wrote that SEMCOG’s forecasted growth of households is based in part on 2,000 net housing units that have been added in the city since the beginning of 2010. Rampson said that number seemed high to her. “Eli  [Cooper] won’t be happy with me,” she said, “but we’ll have to follow up.”

Briggs noted that SEMCOG’s forecasting model doesn’t seem to jibe with the sustainable community approach that Ann Arbor is trying to create. For example, the most household growth is forecast for the townships, she noted, adding that “it will be interesting to see how that plays out.”

Mahler asked whether data would be available regarding race and age of the city’s population. It would be helpful, for example, to know how many people are in their 20s, or are older than 65, because their needs for services like transportation might differ from the general population. He also wondered if data were available that might predict the size of K-12 school populations.

[A preliminary forecast showing population change by age in Washtenaw County through 2020 was part of a SEMCOG public forum in December, but was not presented at Tuesday's planning commission session. The forecast calls for population gains among all age groups over 55, as well as in age groups from 20-24 years old and 35-39 years old. All other age groups will see population losses, according to the forecast.]

Rampson said she’d follow up with SEMCOG to get more information on how the forecast includes mixed-use development, and whether the forecasting model accommodates the sustainable cities planning concept. She’d also ask for forecast data on school-age population, as well as general age, race and national origin demographics.

SEMCOG Forecast: Transportation

Tony Derezinski, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, had attended an outreach meeting held by SEMCOG in mid-December to discuss the draft forecast. He said that Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, had attended the meeting, too. Ford was extremely interested in the forecast, which has a direct relationship to what AATA is doing, Derezinski said. That’s especially true for population growth in the county’s townships, he said, given that AATA is looking to expand services outside of Ann Arbor.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, also attended the December SEMCOG meeting, Derezinski continued. Rampson noted that Cooper is looking for transportation funding sources for the future. An area’s employment, population and number of households have implications for federal transportation funding. Rampson said that given the economy, it will take time for growth in these areas to return to previous levels, assuming it ever does.

In a follow-up phone conversation with The Chronicle, Cooper elaborated on his concerns with the forecast. He said his concerns are based on an understanding of how these numbers are used by transportation planning agencies, and that he wants to provide SEMCOG with the best possible data to inform good decision-making.

For example, he noted that the list of residential developments used by SEMCOG doesn’t capture everything that’s being planned in the city. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG forecast] The Varsity Ann Arbor – a 13-story building at 425 E. Washington with 181 apartments and a total of 415 bedrooms – was recently approved by Ann Arbor city council and will begin construction soon, but it’s not on the list. Nor is the 618 S. Main development, with a proposed 180 apartments, that’s just now moving through the city’s approval process. A request for site plan approval is on the planning commission’s Jan. 19 meeting agenda.

Cooper also questioned whether the draft forecast takes into account the city’s zoning changes made in recent years – including changes in area, height and placement – that would accommodate more residential growth.

The forecast has implications for how investments are made in transportation infrastructure, Cooper said. For example, if SEMCOG forecasts that 15,000 jobs will be added in Ann Arbor through 2040, but the population forecast remains stable, then the city will expect to see an increase of “in-commuting,” Cooper said. And since most commuters use vehicles, that increase will result in traffic congestion and put pressure on the city’s parking system.

However, if the forecast assumes that a portion of those jobs will be held by people who live in Ann Arbor, he said, and that the population will increase as a result of the added employment, then there might be a stronger argument for investing in the Plymouth-State Street transit corridor, or in more frequent bus service within the city.

Cooper said he thought that SEMCOG analysts were open to additional input. He also noted that the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) has provided SEMCOG with its own forecast through 2040, which will help inform SEMCOG’s projections. [.xls spreadsheet of WATS forecast through 2040]

For background on local transportation issues, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA OKs Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Route Increases” and ”Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux.”

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor planning commission. 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!

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.

Outgoing AATA board member Sue McCormick receives the traditional token of appreciation from the AATA – a mailbox marked up to resemble an AATA bus. (Photos by the writer.)

Background for the meeting included a proposed four-party agreement between the AATA, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County that would set a stage to allow voters countywide to transition AATA into a countywide-funded transit authority. On Dec. 7, 2011, Ford presented the four-party agreement to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. The Ann Arbor city council also received a presentation on the proposed four-way agreement at a Dec. 12, 2011 working session.

The four-way agreement is in large part an if-then statement: If an adequate funding source can be identified for a countywide authority (likely through a voter-approved tax) then the assets of the AATA would be transfered to the new authority, along with the existing transit tax the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti currently levy. The county would file the articles of incorporation, but would not incur any liability.

Also in December, a subcommittee of the advisory group that is reviewing financial aspects of the countywide transit master plan (TMP) met to continue its work analyzing the proposed elements of expanded service. The intended early January finish date for the group’s white paper to be delivered to the AATA has slipped somewhat, because of legislation that may start moving through Michigan’s House of Representatives in January 2012.

Current AATA initiatives mentioned at the Dec. 15 board meeting include ongoing contract negotiations with Michigan Flyer to provide public transit service from Ann Arbor to Detroit Metro airport, the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center, and the development of a new website.

Other highlights from the board’s meeting included a discussion of the two-grocery-bag limit for AATA’s para-transit service, and public commentary on a pending lawsuit against the AATA over its decision to reject an advertisement for the sides of its buses that calls for a boycott of Israel.

Internal Organizational Review by Consultant

The board considered a resolution that would have authorized signing a contract with two consulting firms to review and make recommendations on the internal organization of the AATA.

The two consultants are Generator Group LLC and D. Kerry Laycock. After responding to an RFP (request for proposals) issued by the AATA for the work, the two were identified as the top firms among the 10 that responded, and were asked by the AATA to partner on a proposal. The partnership was meant to use the different strengths of the two firms. Generator Group, out of Portland, Oregon, has transit experience, while Laycock taps local talent.

Laycock has been previously hired by the city of Ann Arbor in various reorganizational efforts, including its recent approval of the outsourcing of police dispatching to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

The AATA’s approved FY 2012 operating budget allocates up to $250,000 for such a project. The contract with Generator Group and Laycock would have amounted to $247,000, but no amount was explicitly stated in the resolution the board was asked to approve – a source of concern eventually expressed during deliberations.

Sue McCormick led off the board discussion by noting that the planning and development committee minutes reflected a staff-estimated cost for the contract of $250,000. [Resolutions come to the full board after being vetted by the relevant board committee.] McCormick also noted that the meeting minutes reflected an objection from board member David Nacht, who said he didn’t want to commit more than $100,000. She wondered what the dollar amount was for the contract the board was being asked to approve – no dollar value was indicated in the resolution.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein told McCormick he’d talked with Nacht and with staff, and what they decided was that the staff had heard Nacht’s concern loud and clear. Monthly reports on the consultants’ work would be provided, so that the board would have an “audit procedure.” Coming back to the issue of the dollar figure, McCormick asked if there would be a dollar value when the contract was executed. AATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that the year’s budget called for $250,000 and the contract would be for $247,000. McCormick told Ford that if it’s a $247,000 contract, the resolution should specifically state that amount.

Left to right: AATA board members David Nacht, Anya Dale and Rich Robben.

Nacht then declared that he was going to vote no. He allowed that he did believe it’s important to get feedback on the AATA as an organization. He also had no problem with the process of the vendor selection. However, he did have a problem with how much was planned to be spent. He noted that the dilemma involves the fact that the AATA is undergoing significant changes as it prepares to make a possible transition to a countywide transit authority.

Nacht called it a “chicken and egg” question. An argument for having a broader consulting contract now to analyze the organization is that if the currently unincorporated U196 board becomes a fully-incorporated board with a funding mechanism, then that new board for a countywide authority would benefit from the consultant’s analysis, and that would help the new board to understand how the organization works. However, funding for the countywide authority does not yet exist. And if the countywide authority doesn’t come into being at all, or not at the level that might be anticipated, he would rather see the money spent on direct transit services.

Bernstein wondered if it might be a reasonable option to table the resolution. Responding to Bernstein, Ford noted that he and the board had talked about this consultant analysis through the process of its retreats. Ford said it’s important to make sure that internally the organization can withstand the stresses of a transition – whether that’s to a countywide or “countywide-lite,” authority. [Ford was alluding to the possibility that some municipalities throughout the county might opt out of participating in a new countywide authority.]

There are many factors the AATA is grappling with, Ford said. He noted that the union is very supportive of having the organizational analysis done. Ford characterized the analysis as “overdue.” With resources that he’s requesting, Ford said, he felt he could get the job done.

McCormick wanted to know what the time frame was: Is it a six-month effort or something longer? Ford indicated that it was a 12-month effort. The first phase is an assessment of the organization. From that point, it would be possible to focus on specific areas. McCormick wanted to know the cost for the first phase. Rich Robben, who chairs the committee that had reviewed the resolution, responded to McCormick by saying he’d reviewed the proposal with its various tasks and phases, and found it to be fairly comprehensive and broken down into a good level of detail. There was a good list of deliverables and hours for each consultant. The rates seemed reasonable to him – under $100 per hour. Robben concluded that it was a well thought-out game plan.

Responding to a request from McCormick, Robben said that in the first two months of 2012, the cost – for 180 hours of consultant time – was $14,680, which works out to $81.55/hour.

McCormick told Ford a lot of value could be gained from consultant work under the $100,000 cap for contracts that could be executed without board approval. She ventured that he could work within that cap.

Ford responded by saying that there are checks and balances built into the arrangement. To sign the contract, he said, it had to be for a specific dollar amount. He ventured that it might be possible to proceed with the understanding that he would not enter into the second phase of the organizational analysis without concurrence from the board.

Bernstein suggested that Ford could spend up to $100,000 and as he came close to that amount, he could come back to the board. Ford asked for clarification about whether the contract he’d execute would be for $100,000 or $240,000?Robben suggested that it would be done in multiple phases.

Nacht noted that it’s true that the money is budgeted, and stressed that Ford had not done anything incorrect. He was not questioning Ford’s judgement. But he wondered how much time a bright person needs to read some history, interview a bunch of people, and review previous work. When he did the rough math, Nacht said, it didn’t come close to $247,000.

Bernstein suggested that procedurally, the motion could be withdrawn, with the understanding that the board supports the first two phases, and that the expectation for the third phase is that the board would be inclined to look favorably on it.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize the execution of the consultant contract was withdrawn.

CEO Performance Review, Salary

Board member David Nacht introduced the motion on CEO Michael Ford’s salary and compensation. Board chair Jesse Bernstein asked Nacht to elucidate on the motion and what it contained. Nacht described a letter addressed to Ford, signed by the board chair and board member Sue McCormick in her capacity as treasurer.

The highlights of the provisions, said Nacht, include a base salary of $164,800 annually. [That's an increase of $4,800 from his previous base salary.] Other highlights were one $10,000 lump-sum payment into a 457 deferred compensation plan, and vesting in the AATA employee pension plan effective Oct. 1, 2011.

By way of background, Ford did not receive a raise last year, but was given a one-time additional payment equal to 4% of his annual salary. At the board’s May 19, 2011 meeting, the AATA board had approved a new employment contract with Ford, who was hired in the summer of 2009. [For a Chronicle report on Ford's April 2009 final interview, see: "AATA, CEO Candidate Start Talks"]

Ford’s personnel evaluation took place at a special meeting held Dec. 5, 2011 at the AATA headquarters, and was conducted in a closed session in accordance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. Closed sessions are permitted for a variety of reasons, including the regular performance review of personnel, if the employee requests a closed session. When asked by the board at the Dec. 5 meeting if he did request a closed session, Ford confirmed he did, making plain that the OMA requirement for closed sessions was met. The session lasted well over an hour, some of which was conducted with Ford present.

At the Dec. 15 meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein praised Ford’s work as one of the best experiences Bernstein had ever had in hiring someone. He said he’d been involved in many hirings over the years, both in his own companies and in the course of his service on other boards. Ford has done a great deal of good for the AATA and the community. Right now, Bernstein said, Ford is effectively running two boards – the AATA and the U196 organization that could be a precursor to a fully incorporated Act 196 transit authority. When you talk about herding cats, it’s two herds of cats, said Bernstein.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the compensation for Ford outlined in the letter.

Countywide Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

For its Dec. 15 meeting, the AATA had no items on its agenda that dealt explicitly with the countywide transportation master plan (TMP), which has been under development for nearly two years. However, the TMP and a possible transition of the AATA to a countywide transportation authority found its way into the board’s meeting in the form of the regular briefings that staff give the board, as well as during public commentary.

During public commentary at the Dec. 15 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board she’d been attending quite a few of the transportation master plan (TMP) meetings. She’s attended those of the financial advisory group, as well as meetings of the unincorporated U196 board. Armentrout thanked Michael Ford for making the meetings open, accessible and for providing information to the audience.

Armentrout said it appears that a new theme has emerged, namely: Maybe a countywide millage will not be necessary. She allowed that Gov. Rick Snyder had floated the idea of a vehicle registration fee that could be used to fund public transportation, but she’d called her state representative’s office and learned that there’s currently no bill in process to establish such a fee. [For additional background, see "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"]

Armentrout felt there was only a remote possibility that such a proposal would be enacted in time to affect local decision-making. She reported that the federal TIGER III funding grants have been announced and the north-south WALLY commuter rail line is not on the list. She told the board she’s waiting to hear if the AATA’s transit master plan will be adjusted to acknowledge that.

TMP: Four-Party Agreement – Ann Arbor City Council Reaction

During his verbal report to the board on Dec. 15, Ford highlighted his presentations to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners and the Ann Arbor city council, which he’d made earlier in the month. He told the board he will be circling back in the next month to ask those two bodies to sign off on the “four-party agreement.” [The Ann Arbor city council is expected to have the item on its Jan. 9, 2012 agenda. It's expected to be on the agenda for one of the county board's meetings in January as well.]

The four-party agreement – between the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti and the city of Ann Arbor – is a key stage-setting step for any decision that might be made to transition AATA to a countywide transportation authority. Highlights of the four-party agreement as currently drafted include the role of Washtenaw County – it would approve, sign and file the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority, under Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963.

Under the draft four-party agreement, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would pledge their existing transit taxes to the new Act 196 authority, instead of to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. [At the Ann Arbor city council working session when Ford made a presentation, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stressed that the charter millage is actually for 2.5 mills, but has dropped due to the Headlee amendment. ]

The Ann Arbor city council's Dec. 12, 2011 working session included a presentation about the local development finance authority (LDFA). From right to left: Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor Spark, which has a contract with the LDFA to operate a business accelerator), Skip Simms (vice president, entrepreneurial business development, at Ann Arbor SPARK), and councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Krutko is serving on the financial advisory group that is assessing funding options for the AATA's planned expansion of services countywide.

For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of its tax (approved in November 2010) to fund a 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.] The city millage proceeds would only go to the new transit authority after a dedicated countywide funding source for that authority is identified.

Also under the terms of the draft four-party agreement, AATA’s assets (land, buses, facilities, etc.) would be turned over to the new Act 196 authority, but only after a countywide funding source is identified. The draft four-party accord specifies a voter-approved funding source, to be passed no later than Dec. 31, 2014, as a contingency for the transfer of assets to the new Act 196 authority.

Under scenarios currently being discussed, if voters countywide are asked to support a millage, Ann Arbor’s existing transit tax would also remain in place. The time frame 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 tax: in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Recent discussions at the state level 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. If that is the scenario that unfolds – i.e., no voter referendum is held, but a countywide funding source is identified – it’s not clear whether the conditions of the draft four-party agreement would be met. [link to annotated .pdf file of four-way draft agreement]

At the Ann Arbor city council’s working session on Dec. 12, 2011, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned how the transit service benefits to Ann Arbor taxpayers would be guaranteed. They wanted to ensure that the burden on Ann Arbor taxpayers would be equitably shared with Washtenaw County taxpayers outside of the city.

At that 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 new countywide millage were to gain a plurality of votes within the city of Ann Arbor. That stipulation would guard against the possibility that a countywide millage failed among Ann Arbor voters, but was approved by a wide enough plurality in other jurisdictions that the countywide millage passed.

TMP: Financial Advisory Group – Politics of a Millage

Compared to the scenario that Taylor is concerned about, most observers see the opposite scenario as far more likely: a countywide millage would likely fail among voters outside of Ann Arbor, but the plurality that the proposal might win inside the city would give it enough votes to pass countywide. That’s the view that state representative Mark Ouimet (R-District 52) expressed at a Dec. 16 meeting of the TMP financial advisory committee.

The group that met on Dec. 16 is a committee of a larger group that is reviewing the financial viability of the expanded services outlined in the AATA’s TMP. Their starting point was a two-volume document on funding options. [.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 plan itself is laid out in two other volumes. [.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

State Rep. Rick Olson (R-District 55) sat in the audience of a Dec. 16 meeting of a financial advisory committee that is looking at funding options for the AATA's planned expansion of services in and outside of Ann Arbor.

The Act 196 legislation – under which the countywide transportation authority would be incorporated – provides an opportunity for an individual municipality to opt out of the authority. In a municipality that opts out, no millage would be levied, and correspondingly no transit service would be offered.

At a Dec. 7 meeting of that same financial advisory committee, Paul Krutko – who’s CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK – ventured that one way to attract Ann Arbor votes for a countywide millage would be to at least incrementally reduce the transit tax that Ann Arbor residents already pay. Terri Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), responded to Krutko by saying she felt that if Ann Arbor’s tax were reduced, such a move would reduce support outside the city for a countywide millage.

Jonathan Levine, professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan, commented on the research he’d done to try to discover which voter attitudes lead to positive votes on transit millages. While some people talked about the need to pitch transit millages to drivers, on the idea that they would get a benefit from reduced traffic on the roads they use, he said that’s not what correlates most strongly with yes votes on a millage.

Instead, he said, the strongest predictor for yes votes on a transit millage was being generally supportive of other government services like libraries and schools. If you basically support the government as a provider of services, then you are also inclined to support transit, he said. Outside of Ann Arbor there are more “small government” types, he said, while inside of Ann Arbor, there are more “big government” types.

Jonathan Levine, professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan, during the Dec. 7, 2011 meeting of a financial advisory committee. In the background are Jim Kosteva, director of community relations for UM, and Ric Devore, regional president of PNC Financial Services Group Inc.

Levine said that if he voted for the countywide millage, as a “softhearted, bleeding-heart liberal” his working assumption would be that there’s a cross-subsidy for areas outside of Ann Arbor. That is, Ann Arborites will get more service than they do now, if they vote for an additional millage, but that additional service may not match exactly the extra they’ll pay in a countywide tax. He said he felt as a voter, he’d need to give non-city residents slightly more service than what they were paying for, because those residents fundamentally might not perceive the benefit of public transit.

Part of the audience at the Dec. 16 meeting of the financial advisory committee was state representative Rick Olson (R-District 55), who was there to help educate himself further on transportation issues. He told The Chronicle that sometime in January or February 2012, he thought that enabling legislation for a regional transit authority and for the ability of local jurisdictions to assess vehicle registration fees might start moving through the House. If it turns out that vehicle registration fees can be tapped as an alternative funding source, it might not be necessary to ask voters in Washtenaw County to approve a new transit millage.

TMP: Airport Service

One of the themes that has emerged in many of the financial advisory group’s discussions is the idea of public-private partnerships. Not everyone in the group supports every possible such partnership. As the committee worked its way through the list of expanded services planned by the AATA, some members questioned the idea that the AATA would provide transportation service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport.

For example, Paul Krutko has expressed a reluctance to have the AATA compete with existing private companies that currently provide the service. [At the city council's Dec. 12 working session, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed a similar concern, contending that airport transportation is an already well-developed market.] Countering Krutko was Jonathan Levine, who argued that the existence of a service provided by the private sector did not necessarily mean that the service is adequate.

The AATA continues to move ahead with its plans to offer airport service through a private contractor. At the AATA board’s Dec. 15 meeting, CEO Michael Ford reported that the AATA is still working with Michigan Flyer, continuing to negotiate the Ann Arbor-to-Detroit Metro airport service contract, working out different aspects of the deal – including parking, fares, and the connection to other regional transit.

Ford reported he had received conflicting information about airport vehicle entrance fees. He had previously reported there would not be a fee charged to Michigan Flyer to enter the airport, operating as AATA’s contractor, therefore qualifying as public transit. Ford had specifically been told that wouldn’t be an issue, he said, but he had just found out that it might actually be an issue after all.

Blake Transit Center: DDA Partnerships Committee

As part of his report to the board at the AATA’s Dec. 15 meeting, CEO Michael Ford included the fact that AATA’s manager of maintenance, Terry Black, had presented the latest concepts for the Blake Transit Center to the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That committee held its regular monthly meeting the previous day, on Dec. 14.

At the DDA’s committee meeting, Black began his presentation by saying the AATA is excited about the project and that it’s long overdue. The existing center is inadequate for the AATA’s current operation, he said, let alone the kind of expansion of service that the AATA is contemplating. The design has been under development for over a year, he said, and a lot of community involvement has been included. There will be additional community involvement as well, he said.

Black didn’t have exact numbers, but said thousands of riders come in and out of the BTC every day. Some routes are in and out in five minutes, so it’s an active center currently, he said. Responding to a question from Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, Black said the center operates seven days a week. On weekdays, the first bus arrives just before 6 a.m. and the last bus out leaves around 10:30 p.m. at night.

Black ticked through who’s doing the work: the architect is DLZ and the construction manager is Spence Brothers. The design should be finalized soon. It’s expected to be a LEED-certified building. The anticipated construction start date is April or May of 2012.

The design of the floor plan is 95% complete, Black reported. It had helped the project for AATA to acquire an additional 6-foot-wide strip of land to the south of the AATA’s midblock parcel from the city of Ann Arbor. [This was a land sale authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting]. The AATA is now working with representatives from the adjacent Federal Building to obtain a 10-foot easement of land to the north of the center. This would create a mid-block green space walkway that connects Fourth and Fifth avenues, running between the new BTC and the Federal Building, Black said.

This AATA-owned parcel, where Blake Transit Center is located, sits in the middle of the block bounded by Fourth and Fifth avenues on the west and east, and by Liberty and William streets on the north and south. The 6-foot-wide strip that runs along the southern edge of the parcel's western half was sold to the AATA from the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to higher resolution view. Parcel map and aerial photo from Washtenaw County's website: gisweb.ewashtenaw.org/website/mapwashtenaw/)

Black described how the AATA had hosted stakeholder advisor committee meetings, and held design committee meetings within the AATA. The AATA had gone before Ann Arbor’s design review board to talk about the process, Black said. The AATA had also done rider surveys before starting the project, asking riders what they’d like to see in a new transit center. In January 2012, the AATA will go back with design drawings and proposed signage to check that what they’ve done is consistent with what riders wanted. The week of Jan. 9 is scheduled for those follow-up surveys. Black mentioned that the AATA is looking to get some credits from DTE for using more efficient HVAC equipment in the new building.

Black said there were two reasons for locating the new building on the other end of the block, instead of building it on BTC’s current footprint. First, this approach will allow for continuous operation of the current BTC during construction. Second, by locating the BTC on the south side of the parcel instead of the north, depending on how the former YMCA lot is developed, the immediately-adjacent location of the new BTC will provide an opportunity for some kind of transit mall. [The site of the former YMCA – located on the north side of William, between Fourth and Fifth avenues – is owned by the city and now used as a surface parking lot.]

Speaking to BTC’s new floor plan, Black described three entry points. He pointed out the bathrooms for the drivers and the ticket lobby. There will be space for three customer reps, as well as for the equipment needed for making photo ids for various kinds of ticketing. Currently, the photo ID service is offered only at the AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway.

At the AATA headquarters on South Industrial Highway, the carpet is marked with the exact location where people should stand to get their photo IDs taken for various kinds of fare media. The planned new Blake Transit Center downtown will have similar facilities. The current BTC does not offer that service.

The layout of the seating in the waiting lobby is currently being finalized. Part of that includes decisions on how to display real-time sign information about bus arrivals and departures. The total square footage, with the first and second stories, is 7,500 square feet. Black characterized it as “not that big.” The AATA is building it to the maximum footprint for the site it has, he said.

The second story will include a remote dispatch area and the AATA’s emergency operation – the agency is required to have a contingency for its headquarters on South Industrial Highway, in case that facility goes down. Also on the second floor will be a supervisor’s office, an IT room, bathrooms, and a driver break room. Black explained that only some drivers pull out of the station with their bus and do an 8-hour shift. Others will drive a four-hour shift, have two or four hours off, then go back and drive four more hours. The second floor would also include a small meeting room, an employee training area, and an office for the getDowntown program.

Pollay noted that the flow of bus traffic will change when the new BTC is constructed – buses will come into the BTC from Fourth Avenue and exit onto Fifth Avenue. She said one of the benefits is that buses will not need to make a left turn across traffic, as they do now. [Fifth Avenue is one-way southbound, the direction of the turn that buses will make.] DDA board member Sandi Smith noted that with an entrance to the new underground parking garage located just upstream from the BTC entrance onto Fifth Avenue, that lane is likely not to have traffic.

DDA board member John Mouat asked Black about the implications of the AATA’s planned countywide service expansion for the role of Ann Arbor’s downtown transit center. Is there enough space? Black said it would be nice to have some space to the south as well. Zipcars, for example, could be stationed there, as well as other types of service. The current plan for BTC addresses the AATA’s needs today and in the future to a certain extent. The adequacy of the new center will depend in part on how the countywide program grows and develops, Black said.

Chair of the AATA board, Jesse Bernstein – who also attended the DDA’s committee meeting – noted that adding more frequent service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – which will start in January 2012 – will already have some impact. The facility will have its limitations at some point, he said. The north-south rail connector, WALLY, may also have an impact, Bernstein said, if it is eventually funded. If 500 people arrive on a train at one time, that’s 10 buses that need to take them somewhere. From his standpoint, Bernstein said, BTC will always be needed. Black supported Bernstein’s comments by noting that in response to a survey, over 50% of riders indicated that for them BTC is a destination.

The DDA committee also discussed the fact that the design plans for the new BTC include footings that would support a taller structure, if there was interest in building something on top of the planned two stories. Black and Bernstein indicated that the design of the structure would accommodate future development to the south on the former YMCA lot as well. For example, although there is not an entry point from the south, there’s a southern wall that’s designed as not load-bearing, so that the new BTC could be opened up from that side sometime in the future.

This view is from the southwest to the northeast, and shows how AATA's new transit center will sit on the Fifth Avenue side of the block. In the foreground is the former YMCA lot, now used for surface parking.

This view is looking from the northwest to the southeast (across Fourth Avenue and the parking lot of the federal building). The reddish building shown behind the new BTC is the Ann Arbor District Library.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Dec. 15 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: A-Ride – Safety, Two-Bag Policy

During his verbal report to the board, Ford responded to continued criticism from resident Thomas Partridge, made during public commentary at several board meetings, that the SelectRide vehicles are unsafe. SelectRide is the contractor for AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service. Previously, Ford had conducted an investigation of the maintenance procedures and found that there was not a problem. Now, he reported, he will personally ride some of the higher-milage vehicles used by SelectRide to check out the situation for himself.

Ford also reported that he is looking into obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to bags that riders of the AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service can bring with them. He reported that he’d spoken with the AATA’s contractor, SelectRide, about the issue. Ford noted that it’s a “shared ride,” so there’s a limit of two bags to make sure there’s enough room for other passengers.

Ford’s remarks came in the context of public commentary from the board’s Nov. 17, 2011 meeting.

Speaking during public commentary at that meeting, Christopher Harris described his experience riding the AATA’s paratransit service, A-Ride, on 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 disease – he’s legally blind.

Harris described being denied a ride because of the number of grocery bags he had – he allowed that in the past he had been told that might happen. At that board meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein told Harris that he wanted to follow up with him 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 AATA's 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]

During question time at the Dec. 15 meeting, board member Charles Griffith asked for more information on the two-bag limit and wondered whether that’s appropriate. The rider who addressed the board at its Nov. 17 board meeting had a concern that seemed reasonable, Griffith said. So Griffith wanted to know if the two-bag limit is reasonable.

Ford responded by saying he would need to check on the size of the vehicle. From AATA staff seated in the audience, the clarification came that the vehicle in question was a sedan. Ford told Griffith that it’s a shared ride. SelectRide had made exceptions on a periodic basis, but indicated that apparently on the day the rider complained about, no exception was made. Ford said he was willing to take another look at it. The AATA is trying to maintain a consistent policy, and two bags, he thinks, is reasonable.

Griffith told Ford he was glad Ford is going to take a ride in the SelectRide vehicles himself. Griffith felt that most sedan trunks can handle the number of bags that the rider had described. He noted that people on limited incomes can only take so many trips. The two-bag limit seemed arbitrary to him.

Rich Robben expressed some surprise that the limit was on two grocery bags.

David Nacht then spoke at length, saying he would like to express that when the AATA provides services for the disabled, it’s critically important the riders don’t feel like they’re second-class citizens. Nacht said there was something incredibly compelling about a visually-impaired person leaving his house with his young child, to get groceries for that child who was helping him. “The idea that our agency would allow our contractor to effectively deprive that person of dignity in the name of enforcing a policy, I think, goes against our values,” Nacht said.

Ford responded to Nacht by saying that the AATA does not want to make anyone feel like a second-class citizen. He would take another look at the issue. Sue McCormick inquired whether the passenger was attempting to carry bags in the trunk or in the passenger area – AATA staff in the audience indicated that it was within the vehicle.

Dawn Gabay, deputy director of the AATA, noted that the trunk area also needs to be available for folding wheelchairs. She noted that the two-bag policy is a long-standing policy. McCormick wanted to know if the two-bag policy is consistent with other transit agencies. Ford replied that he had not looked at that, but could. Gabay added that the two-bag policy has been reviewed by the local advisory council (LAC), which advises AATA on policies related to its service to disabled and senior riders.

Comm/Comm: Bus Advertisement Lawsuit

By way of background, the AATA currently faces a lawsuit over its rejection of a proposed advertisement that included the text, “Boycott ‘Israel’ Boycott Apartheid.” [For a detailed account, see Chronicle coverage: "Bus Ad Rejection Affirmed"]

Before approaching the podium, Henry Herskovitz asked if it was appropriate to speak to the lawsuit that had been filed against the AATA about the rejection of a bus advertisement. Herskovitz noted that public speaking at the start of the meeting is intended to be limited to agenda items, and while the lawsuit was not an agenda item, it was included as part of the meeting minutes that were in the board’s information packet for that evening’s meeting. Board chair Jesse Bernstein told Herskovitz it was fine for him to speak on that topic.

Herskovitz introduced himself as a taxpaying supporter of AATA and a frequent rider. Three board members had conflicts of interest, he contended, in making a decision to reject the advertisement. He emphasized that he supported the right of anyone to join any group they like. However, he said it merits pointing out that Bernstein is a board member of Michigan Israel Business Bridge. MIBB is a nonprofit created “to facilitate business and investment opportunities between Michigan and Israel for their mutual economic benefit.”

Herskovitz contended that a second conflict was the fact that Jerry Lax is legal counsel for the AATA and also a member of the Jewish Federation of Ann Arbor. Board member David Nacht is member and supporter of the Anti-Defamation League, he said. [Nacht's profile on Linked In also lists membership in the American Civil Liberties Union, the group that is providing legal counsel for the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the AATA over the bus advertisement.]

The three men, Herskovitz said, support the State of Israel – they’re free to do that. But they had a conflict of interest when polled for their vote on the ad – an ad that was critical of the state of Israel, which they support, he said.

Comm/Comm: New AATA Website

Mary Stasiak, AATA’s manager of community relations, updated the board on progress in designing the new AATA website. They’re looking at the graphic design, making sure it includes everything it’s supposed to, she said. Surveys have been completed at the Ypsilanti Transit Center, the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor and at Busch’s grocery store. Internal staff at the AATA have been asked for input.

A survey was also done at a meeting of LA2M, which is described on its website as ” a non-profit educational organization dedicated to teaching about all things marketing – especially topics related to new media, digital marketing, social media, and web design.” Requests to complete an online survey were sent to the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living email list, all AATA Twitter followers, Facebook fans, and MyRide subscribers.

Stasiak said one thing she’s happy about is that the AATA has a final design contract. That means that by the end of January, the AATA should be able to begin content integration. In response to a question from board chair Jesse Bernstein, Stasiak clarified that the “usability study” phase would not come until there is a “live site” that people can test out.

Comm/Comm: Sue McCormick’s Departure

Through Dec. 16, Sue McCormick was public services area administrator for the city of Ann Arbor. She left that position to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. She also resigned her position on the AATA board.

AATA's CEO Michael Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein work as a team to prep Sue McCormick's parting token of appreciation on the occasion of her last board meeting.

In acknowledging McCormick’s service to the board, David Nacht said he’d learned a tremendous amount from her. He’d become a better public servant because of her membership on the board, he said.

Rich Robben said he was doubly sad because he would not be working with McCormick any longer in two separate venues. As the city’s public services area administrator, McCormick interacted with Robben in his capacity as executive director for plant operations at the University of Michigan. He allowed that sometimes they banged heads, but said she’d be missed in both venues. Board chair Jesse Bernstein wished McCormick the best of luck and said the AATA would miss her.

On the occasion of McCormick’s last meeting as an AATA board member, she was presented with a parting gift that has become a traditional token of appreciation from the AATA to outgoing board members – a mailbox adorned with AATA markings to resemble a bus.

The Ann Arbor city council voted on Dec. 19 to confirm the nomination of the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to replace McCormick on the board. Two councilmembers voted against the confirmation, based on Cooper’s employment with the city. Cooper served previously on the AATA board, from 2005 to 2008. When asked by The Chronicle if he’d received a traditional mailbox for his previous stint on the board, Cooper said he’d not received one.

At the conclusion of the AATA’s Dec. 15 meeting, board chair Bernstein gave McCormick the privilege of making the motion for adjournment.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During the first opportunity for public comment at the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County and recent candidate for state senate. He advocated for expansion of the AATA’s service countywide, but called for all townships to be a part of the system. He opposes the ability to opt out of the system.

Partridge also spoke at the second opportunity for commentary, toward the end of the meeting. He said he was an advocate for all of those who deserve and need AATA’s services in Washenaw County. He called for an end to the glitz and glamor of PowerPoint presentations and full-color printouts of plans that might end up being “pie in the sky.”

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

Absent: Roger Kerson.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

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

A key part of the transition to countywide service is a four-party agreement to be struck between the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti and the city of Ann Arbor. Highlights of the four-party agreement include the role of Washtenaw County – it would approve, sign and file the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority, under Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963.

Under the draft four-party agreement, cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would pledge their existing transit taxes to the new Act 196 authority, instead of 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 taxable value of a property.] The city millage proceeds would only go to the new transit authority, after a dedicated countywide funding source for that authority is identified.

Also under the terms of the draft four-party agreement, AATA’s assets (land, buses, facilities, etc.) would be turned over to the new Act 196 authority, but only after a countywide funding source is identified. The draft four-party accord specifies a voter-approved funding source, to be passed no later than Dec. 31, 2014, as a contingency for the transfer of assets to the new Act 196 authority. At the 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.

Under scenarios currently being discussed, if voters countywide are asked to support a millage, Ann Arbor’s current transit tax would also remain in place. The time frame 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 tax: in 2012, 2013 and 2014. At the working session, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned how the transit service benefits to city of Ann Arbor taxpayers would be guaranteed. They wanted to ensure that the burden on Ann Arbor taxpayers would be equitably shared with Washtenaw County taxpayers outside of the city.

Recent discussions at the state level 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. If that is the scenario that unfolds – i.e., no voter referendum is held, but a countywide funding source is identified – it’s not clear whether the conditions of the draft four-party agreement would be met. [link to annotated .pdf file of four-way draft agreement]

The city council is expected to consider its vote on the four-party agreement at its second meeting in December (Dec. 19) or in January 2012.