From left: DDA board members Bob Guenzel, Sandi Smith, John Mouat. Smith officiated her last meeting as chair on July 2, and Mouat was elected to serve as chair for fiscal 2015, which began on July 1. (Photos by the writer.)

The board approved a $390,000 grant related to an extended-stay hotel project on the downtown’s west side. The development is by First Martin Corp. at 116-120 W. Huron – the intersection of Huron and Ashley streets. The grant will be used to pay for a new 12-inch water main, sidewalk improvements along Ashley, and landscape maintenance in the public right-of-way.

This was the first grant awarded after the board adopted a grant policy earlier this year.

The board also gave a one-year extension to a previously-awarded $650,000 brownfield grant for the 618 S. Main apartment complex. It was originally awarded in 2012, but the project is not yet completed – in part because of the recent harsh winter. The funds would help pay for upsizing a water main to 12 inches, as well as streetscape improvements and a rain garden for stormwater management.

Also related to infrastructure, the board established a project budget of $100,000 for tree maintenance and sidewalk repairs in downtown Ann Arbor in fiscal 2015.

Related to personnel issues, the board held a closed session to evaluate Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director. After about 15 minutes, the board emerged and voted to give Pollay a 5% raise, increasing her salary from $109,119 to $114,570.

In describing the rationale for the raise, Roger Hewitt noted that Pollay had received “good raises” in the last two years, but for the six years before that she had not received a raise because of the difficult economy. Her position as a city employee is in the Level 2 category, which has a salary range from $95,000 to $157,000. Several board members indicated a desire to move Pollay toward the midpoint of that range over the next few years. Sandi Smith characterized it as “catch up” to compensate for the years when Pollay didn’t get a raise. Hewitt said the intent is to bring her up to that midpoint salary of $126,000 “within a fairly short time period.”

Casting the sole vote against the 5% increase was city administrator Steve Powers, who said he’d be more comfortable with a 3% raise, and hoped there would be a more robust evaluation process in the future.

Immediately after its regular monthly meeting, the board held its annual meeting to elect officers for the coming fiscal year. John Mouat was unanimously elected to serve as chair of the board. Other officers are Roger Hewitt (vice chair), Rishi Narayan (treasurer), and Keith Orr (secretary). Outgoing chair Sandi Smith was thanked for her service, and received a gift from staff – a small pin from the former Selo/Shevel Gallery, which Pollay indicated evoked a cityscape of tall buildings. Pollay said it was inspired by a trip that several DDA staff and board members took last year to New York City for the International Downtown Association conference.

Also at the July 2 meeting, the board dissolved its two existing committees and created four new committees: (1) marketing, (2) partnerships/economic development, (3) finance, and (4) operations (parking/transportation/construction).

In supporting the idea of a separate marketing committee, Narayan noted that if a staff member is hired to focus on marketing and communications, “this area might become more fleshed out very quickly.” Previously, a marketing subcommittee had been part of the partnerships committee. The new finance committee was created in part in anticipation of the DDA’s growing budget, and a desire for more financial oversight.

During updates, Hewitt reported that work continues on a possible north/south commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell known as WALLY – the Washtenaw and Livingston Line. A recommendation will be coming soon to locate a stop on the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets, opposite of the former city maintenance yard. He stressed that this transportation service is probably a significant way off from being offered. If the project moves forward, the recommended stop wouldn’t be a full station – it would simply be a platform with canopies, and would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way. Hewitt plans to make a short formal presentation about the recommendation at a future DDA board meeting.

Also related to transportation, Orr reported that the new Greyhound ticket office at the Fourth & William structure will be opening next week – ahead of schedule. Next week also will be the grand opening of the nearby Blake Transit Center, operated by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

In other updates, Hewitt noted that members of the DDA’s operations committee continue to work on a downtown ambassadors program, and are likely to bring two potential service providers in for interviews by the end of this summer.

Grants

Grants for two projects appeared on the DDA board’s July 2 agenda: a one-year extension for a previous brownfield grant to the 618 S. Main Street project, and a new grant to the 116-120 W. Huron Street hotel project.

Grants: 618 S. Main

The 618 S. Main project is an apartment complex that Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co. intends to market to young professionals. The 7-story building, between Mosley and Madison, would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

The original $650,000 brownfield grant to the 618 S. Main project was approved by the DDA board at its June 6, 2012 meeting, a week before the city council gave its approval to the project on June 18, 2012.

The $650,000 total breaks down as follows:

 $85,000 Streetscape costs (sidewalk adjacent to project on Mosley/Main)
$384,500 Streetscape costs (sidewalk on west side of Main north of project)
$100,000 Rain garden to infiltrate stormwater, rather than detain and release
$ 80,500 Upsizing the water main under Ashley Street to a 12” pipe

$650,000 TOTAL

-

That total is to be disbursed over four years in the following amounts: $100,000, $225,000, $225,000, and $175,000. None of the money is to be awarded before the taxes are paid each year. The DDA will use the tax increment finance capture from the project to make the grant payments.

In introducing the resolution on July 2, Joan Lowenstein noting that there’s sunsetting language in the DDA’s grant policy:

The DDA’s grant will automatically expire by June 30th at the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year the grant was approved by the DDA if a developer has not requested and received all necessary City construction permits, and the project footings/foundations are not completely installed. The DDA grant will automatically expire by June 30th at the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year the grant was approved by the DDA if construction has not been completed and a CO issued for the project.

The project is underway, Lowenstein said, but it has been delayed by the harsh winter. Without an extension of the grant, it would expire automatically. The length of the extension, to receive all construction permits and to complete the project, is one year. The partnerships committee reviewed the extension and recommended that it be granted.

John Mouat said he’d read that the site next to 618 S. Main, where Happy’s Pizza had been located, is going to be redeveloped. The building where Happy’s Pizza was housed had been destroyed by fire earlier this year. The site is at the southwest corner of Main and Madison.

Mouat said that’s a great sign, because the DDA had hoped that the whole area along South Main “would start to rise.” He called the changes at the Happy’s Pizza site a “fortuitous happenstance, in some ways.”

Keith Orr joked that it was rising from its ashes.

There was no other discussion.

Outcome: The vote on the 618 S. Main grant one-year extension was unanimous.

Grants: First Martin Hotel Project

John Mouat brought forward a proposal for a $390,000 grant related to an extended-stay hotel project. The development is by First Martin Corp. at 116-120 W. Huron, at the intersection of Huron and Ashley streets.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The new building will be an 88,570-square-foot structure with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space. The extended-stay hotel will occupy the upper five levels and will be operated by Marriott. The city council gave approval to the site plan at its June 16, 2014 meeting. The project also had been reviewed and recommended for approval by the city’s planning commission on May 20, 2014.

The grant was recommended by the DDA’s partnerships committee.

Mouat said that First Martin had been very patient while the partnerships committee developed its grant policy over the past few months. The First Martin project will be used as a kind of test for the new policy, he added.

The $390,000 breaks down like this:

$340,000 New 12” water main on Ashley Street, and related hardscape 
$ 10,000 Sidewalk enhancements on Ashley Street 
$ 40,000 Right-of-way landscape maintenance (20-year commitment) 

$390,000 TOTAL

-

The $390,000 amount is to be distributed over three years – $100,000 (Year 1); $145,000 (Year 2); and $145,000 (Year 3).

The maximum amount that can be awarded to a project under the DDA grant policy – adopted by the DDA board at its June 2, 2014 meeting – is 25% of the tax increment capture due to the project that the DDA receives for the first 10 years after the project is built. That amount is about $390,000, according to First Martin Corp. based on an annual figure of $156,515. But the DDA’s resolution indicates the figure has not yet been verified by the city assessor. Grants are not awarded until after the taxes are paid.

Grants: First Martin Hotel Project – Board Discussion

Mouat reported that the partnerships committee had focused on two factors in considering the grant. The first was whether this was an area where the DDA would like to promote development. The committee felt that the area had been lacking, so the project met that criteria, he said. The second factor was whether the grant would result in benefits for the community, he said, such as opportunities for other sites to be developed, or for the street to be improved. It met that criteria, too, he said.

Mike Martin of First Martin Corp.

The public benefits are the new 12-inch water main on Ashley, sidewalk enhancements on Ashley, and right-of-way landscape maintenance for 20 years. Mouat said the bulk of the grant – $340,000 for the water main – isn’t very sexy, but it would help future development in that block.

Regarding the landscape maintenance contract, Mouat said that street trees in Ann Arbor suffer. They aren’t always cared for, and sometimes they die and are unsightly, he said. So the owners of the site will be responsible for those trees and landscape features. Mouat hoped it would serve as a nice precedent for projects in the future.

Board chair Sandi Smith invited First Martin’s Mike Martin and Darren McKinnon to the podium. Martin described the location where improvements are proposed along the street and alley. He highlighted the minimum amount of work that would have been required, compared to what First Martin is actually doing.

Roger Hewitt agreed that the water main and sidewalk improvements are clear public benefits. He expressed caution about the right-of-way landscape maintenance commitment. In this case, he said, he had no concern – because First Martin has a superb reputation for maintaining its properties. But for future grants, unless the DDA has a way to monitor and enforce the agreement, he would be less interested in doing it.

Martin replied that it’s his understanding that there would be an agreement to cover those details and allay Hewitt’s concerns. Hewitt again stressed that he wasn’t worried about First Martin, but “I just don’t know if other developers will be as conscientious.” Smith said she assumed there’d be a remedy for default, if the developer didn’t follow through on maintenance.

Steve Powers said it was a great example of the DDA being part of a public/private partnership that will help improve downtown. He assumed that the partnerships committee was satisfied that the grant meets the criteria that the DDA spent several months developing.

Smith passed out copies of the grant policy. It states that the project should address significant elements of these 12 criteria:

1. Addresses a documented gap in the marketplace or underserved markets of commerce within this sector of downtown.

2. Demonstrated that the project will act as a catalyst for additional revitalization of the area in which it is located which will trigger the creation of additional new tax revenue.

3. Is “connected” to the adjacent sidewalk with uses on the first floor that are showcased using large transparent windows and doorways to give pedestrians a point of interest to look at as they walk by the project.

4. Creates a large office floor plate.

5. Will facilitate the creation of a large number of new permanent jobs.

6. Is a mixed use development, that will encourage activity in the daytime, evening, and weekend, such as a development with a mix of commercial and residential.

7. Adds to downtown’s residential density.

8. Reuses vacant buildings, reuses historical buildings, and/or redevelops blighted property.

9. Number of affordable housing units created on site or funded by the project elsewhere in the community, which are beyond what is required by the City.

10. Environmental design is at or above a Gold LEED certification, or an equivalent environmental assessment.

11. Architecturally significant building or project design.

12. Strengthens Ann Arbor’s national visibility.

Smith said she wanted to review the grant process at the partnerships committee’s July 9 meeting, to make sure everyone is comfortable with it after this first grant has been awarded using the new policy. They wouldn’t change the grant itself, she noted, but they might recommend tweaks to the guidelines.

Bob Guenzel and Keith Orr also supported the grant, saying it benefited that area and the entire downtown. Orr said he was thrilled that the DDA is again awarding partnership grants, saying it’s what the DDA’s mission is about, especially related to infrastructure.

Mouat noted that the project meets all the elements outlined for eligible improvements in the grant policy. The policy states:

To be eligible, the public improvements should include elements that extend beyond the public ROW directly adjacent to the site; this may include streetscape enhancements (and on-going maintenance), street and crosswalk resurfacing, crosswalk and bike lane pavement marking upgrades, innovative public stormwater treatments, and upsizing water, storm or sewer mains. Inclusion of any of the above elements may then allow site adjacent public improvements to be eligible as well.

Mouat also highlighted the fact that the project met 8 out of the 12 elements mentioned in the policy, which he called “quite extraordinary.” Smith said there were two additional elements – adding to the downtown’s residential density, and strengthening Ann Arbor’s national visibility – that could have easily been considered as benefits that the project brought. The partnerships committee discussed whether having a national hotel chain located downtown raises the city’s visibility, she said. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

Martin reported that a lot of people locally are excited about the project. Raising the site’s visibility within the community isn’t part of the DDA’s list, he said, but people locally are excited about having another hotel option for out-of-town guests.

Outcome: On a 9-0 vote, the board awarded the grant to First Martin’s hotel project. Al McWilliams abstained on the vote, but did not indicate why. Russ Collins and Cyndi Clark were absent.

Funds for Sidewalks, Trees

The July 2 agenda included a resolution to establish a project budget of $100,000 for tree maintenance and sidewalk repairs in downtown Ann Arbor in fiscal 2015. The item was introduced by Roger Hewitt, and had been recommended by the DDA’s operations committee.

This list of DDA board priorities is now posted on the boardroom wall.

The work will include repairs like displaced bricks and uneven sidewalk flags, as well as pruning of trees. The money to pay for the work will be drawn from tax increment finance (TIF) revenue, which the DDA is authorized to capture under state statue.

Hewitt noted that traditionally, the DDA has done sidewalk maintenance – things like repairing cracks and replacing slabs. There are numerous trip hazards and other minor maintenance issues for the sidewalks, especially after such a harsh winter, he said. Many of the thousand or so trees downtown are not in good shape, he added, and haven’t been pruned in many years. Some trees are dead and need to be replaced.

There’s money set aside in the DDA’s FY 2015 budget for sidewalk work, Hewitt noted. This $100,000 would be specifically designated for sidewalk repairs and tree maintenance or replacement.

Sandi Smith pointed out that a list of projects generated from DDA board retreats is posted on the boardroom wall, to remind them about their priorities. She said the resolution clearly aligns with some of the priorities that the DDA board has identified.

Al McWilliams stressed that by doing the work now, it will save money in the future – because the problems will only get worse if left unaddressed.

John Mouat asked whether the board could consider approving a budget for a three-year period – $100,000 for each year. Hewitt said the intention is that the DDA will spend at least this much every year. But since they haven’t approved the budgets beyond fiscal 2015, it’s better just to designate the amount for this year. He noted that in the somewhat distant past, the DDA budget had a separate fund for this kind of work, but eliminated it because it was cumbersome from a reporting standpoint, he said.

Mouat observed that one-year timeframes are tight, if the DDA is coordinating with the city for this kind of work. Hewitt again stated that it was the intent to spend money on this kind of thing in the future, and that the $100,000 for FY 2015 wouldn’t address all the problems, because maintenance has been deferred for years. “This will be a first step,” he said.

Outcome: The board vote was unanimous in support of the allocation.

Executive Director Raise

The July 2 agenda included a closed session for “a periodic personnel evaluation.” The agenda also included a resolution regarding compensation for the DDA executive director, Susan Pollay. The resolution for a salary adjustment was drafted prior to the closed session, and included this whereas clause: “Whereas, The DDA Executive Committee recommends that Ms. Pollay be provided with a salary adjustment beginning July 1, 2014 to increase her salary from $109,119 to $XXX,XXX; …”

The executive committee members are Sandi Smith (chair), John Mouat (vice chair), Keith Orr (secretary) and Roger Hewitt (treasurer). Pollay serves as a non-voting ex officio member.

Susan Pollay, Mike Martin, Darren McKinnon

Before going into closed session, board member Keith Orr noted that a closed session isn’t required unless the person being reviewed requests it. He said the review was being conducted in closed session at Pollay’s request. The closed session was held in Pollay’s office.

The board emerged after about 15 minutes and Roger Hewitt brought forward the resolution for her salary adjustment. Board chair Sandi Smith said the evaluation of Pollay was extremely positive, saying that Pollay worked well with board members, general community entities, and is “a wonderful ambassador for the city.”

Hewitt noted that Pollay’s current salary is $109,119. He said she had received “good raises” in each of the last two years. However, she did not take a raise during the six years before that, he added, and that had been at her request because of the difficult economy. Hewitt said her eight-year average raise comes out to about 1.9% annually, which he said is below the rate of inflation. “It’s actually a losing position versus the cost of living,” he said.

Pollay is a Level 2 in the city’s pay range, Hewitt reported, which has a salary range from $95,000 to $157,000. The midpoint is $126,000 annually, he noted. Given her evaluations, he added, Pollay should be receiving a salary that’s closer to the midpoint.

However, even though Ann Arbor is doing well, the state is still not doing very well, Hewitt said. So he suggested giving her a 5% raise, which would be about $5,456 – bringing her total salary to $114,570. About half of the raise would cover cost of living increases, he said, and the other half would be to move her more toward the midpoint of the Level 2 pay range.

Board chair Sandi Smith said she hoped that future executive committee members would keep that record in mind when they evaluate Pollay’s salary in the coming years, saying there’s some “make up” that needs to happen.

Bob Guenzel asked if there was any consideration given to doing a longer-term look at her salary, for the next two or three years. Hewitt replied that the executive committee didn’t discuss it, but “the intention is that there will be continued raises above the cost of living to bring her up to a level that is appropriate for her responsibilities.” Guenzel said it would be nice to see Pollay reach the midpoint. Hewitt replied that the intention is to bring her up to that midpoint salary of $126,000 “within a fairly short time period.”

From left: DDA board members Steve Powers and Rishi Narayan.

Steve Powers said he would not support a 5% raise. He understood the reasons given for it. He thought the movement of Pollay’s salary to a midpoint level, which is being tied to her performance, needs to be part of a more robust evaluation process. Also, according to a University of Michigan economic report, he noted, inflation has been between 1.7% to 1.9%. Powers said he was more comfortable with a 3% raise.

Smith replied that Pollay hadn’t received a raise in 8 of the past 10 years, “and I think there’s some opportunity for some catch-up.” She characterized a 5% raise as “extremely modest.”

Al McWilliams asked Powers if there were precedent for this raise compared to other positions within the city. Powers replied that the management employees of the city received a 3% increase this year. Last year they also got 3%. Prior to that there’d been a one-time adjustment, he said, and salary freezes during the recession.

The resolution regarding the increase states that “a number of important DDA projects were undertaken in FY 2014 under Ms. Pollay’s leadership, including opening the new First and Washington parking structure, creating a Street Framework planning initiative in partnership with the City, and working with the City Council to approve amendments to the DDA ordinance.”

The resolution also states that board members provided reviews of Pollay’s work in FY 2014, and the reviews “noted how effectively she works with the DDA Board to support board member involvement and effectiveness, how effectively DDA programs and projects are managed, and that Ms. Pollay serves as a vital resource for downtown stakeholders, and the community at large…”

Pollay has served as the DDA’s executive director since 1996.

Outcome: On a 9-1 vote, the board approved a 5% increase to Pollay’s salary, over dissent from Steve Powers. Russ Collins and Cyndi Clark were absent.

Annual Meeting

Immediately after its regular monthly meeting on July 2, the DDA board held its annual meeting to elect officers and form committees.

Annual Meeting: Election of Officers

John Mouat was nominated to serve as chair of the board for the coming fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2014. The nomination of Mouat as chair was made in accordance with the custom of the DDA board over the last several years – to elect the vice chair from the preceding year as chair. Mouat is a partner in the downtown firm of Mitchell & Mouat Architects.

Mouat’s term on the DDA board runs through Sept. 6, 2015. He was first appointed in 2007.

Other officers nominated by the board included Roger Hewitt as vice chair, Rishi Narayan as treasurer, and Keith Orr as secretary. Outgoing chair Sandi Smith was thanked for her service. She presided over the annual meeting until the end, as Mouat’s term began at the conclusion of the meeting.

There were no competing nominations.

Outcome: All officers were elected unanimously.

The executive committee consists of these four officers: chair, vice chair, treasurer and secretary. They serve in those positions for one-year terms. Given the custom of the board, Hewitt is now in a position to become the next chair. He has served on the DDA board since 2004 and his current term runs through Aug. 19, 2016. He owns two businesses in downtown Ann Arbor – Red Hawk restaurant, and Revive + Replenish shop.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure

In other business at the annual meeting, the board discussed what committees it wanted to create or continue in the coming year.

The board’s bylaws state that committees can be created to advise the board. From the bylaws:

Committee members shall be members of the Board, any board member may serve on any committee of the Board. The Chair of the Board shall appoint the members and select the chair of the Board committees and will solicit volunteers to chair the standing committees. The committees may be terminated by vote of the Board. At the annual meeting, the committees will be evaluated and reappointed or dissolved.

Sandi Smith noted that for the last several years, all members of the board served on every committee. That way, she said, everyone got the meeting notices and packets. “I don’t know whether that’s a good practice or a bad practice, but it’s time that we bring that forward,” she said. Smith added that she believed she got the opportunity to appoint the committee chairs, as board chair.

The two existing committees were (1) partnerships/economic development/communications, and (2) operations. The partnerships committee includes a subcommittee on marketing. The board first considered whether to dissolve these committees.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Partnerships, Marketing

Keith Orr advocated for keeping the partnerships/economic development/communications committee as is, with its marketing subcommittee working as needed. He didn’t think there needed to be a separate marketing committee.

Al McWilliams said he tended to agree with Orr. While marketing and communications activity is “picking up steam,” he didn’t think it was mature enough yet to need its own full committee.

The Ann Arbor DDA board.

Rishi Narayan pointed out that the partnerships meetings are getting unwieldy, so it might be better to pull out marketing and communications. If it turns out that a separate marketing/communications committee eventually isn’t needed, the board could dissolve it, he noted. This would allow there to be two separate meetings, each one shorter than the current combined committee.

Orr advocated for keeping it unchanged, and noted that the board can create a separate marketing committee during the year, if they feel they need it.

Joan Lowenstein agreed with Orr, saying she didn’t think the partnerships meeting was unwieldy. She noted that the board members are volunteers, and creating new committees requires yet another block of time to devote to the work. She thought it worked better for people’s schedules to consolidate as much as possible.

McWilliams then suggested creating separate committees, but holding back-to-back meetings.

Narayan said that in the future, if there’s a staff member focused on marketing and communications, “this area might become more fleshed out very quickly.” He noted that there’s been talk about hiring another employee for that purpose in the future, although he characterized that possibility as a “fantasy” at this point.

Smith picked up on McWilliams’ suggestion – having the partnerships meeting run from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., then a marketing committee could meet as needed at 12:30 p.m. People attending the partnerships meeting could stay for marketing if they’re interested, she said.

Mouat encouraged board members to arrive at committee meetings on time, saying it would help save time and make the meetings more efficient.

Steve Powers asked that the DDA board chair or executive director remind the partnerships committee members who represent other taxing jurisdictions about the purpose of the committee and the changes that are being made, “so that their expectations are in line with the DDA board’s expectations for that committee.”

Smith said it sounded like there was consensus for a new marketing committee. She asked that McWilliams serve as chair. She asked anyone who was interested in serving on the committee to raise their hand. She, McWilliams and Narayan raised their hands.

At this point, DDA executive director Susan Pollay asked whether the board was going to vote to dissolve the existing partnerships/economic development/communications committee, and vote to create the marketing committee.

Orr repeated his preference to keep the current committee structure.

Outcome: The board voted to dissolve the partnerships/economic development/communications committee.

Roger Hewitt then moved to create a partnerships committee and a marketing committee. As a friendly amendment, Keith Orr suggested that the partnerships committee be named partnerships/economic development.

Outcome: The board voted to create a partnerships/economic development committee and a marketing committee.

Sandi Smith asked Joan Lowenstein and Al McWilliams to serve as co-chairs of the partnerships/economic development committee. Other board members who volunteered to serve on the committee are Bob Guenzel, John Mouat, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Sandi Smith, John Splitt.

Smith noted that “committee participants” of the partnerships/economic development committee are: Ken Clein (city planning commission); Jane Lumm and Margie Teall (Ann Arbor city council); Charles Griffith (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority); and Jason Morgan (Washtenaw Community College). Based on an emailed response to a Chronicle query to Pollay, the DDA’s position appears to be that historically, membership on the partnerships committee was always restricted to DDA board members – because it has been a “board committee” under the DDA bylaws.

By way of background, however, the DDA bylaws provide for a second committee type – “advisory committees” – that do not have a requirement that members be DDA board members. It’s been assumed by at least some city councilmembers that those who are now being described as “committee participants” have been actual “members” of the partnerships committee and that the partnerships committee has been an “advisory committee” under the bylaws. To the extent that the DDA board committees function without taking formal votes or observing rules on quorum, the issue of committee membership as compared to “participation” could be considered moot.

At the July 2 meeting, Smith added that there was an “ongoing invitation” for representatives from Washtenaw County government and the Ann Arbor District Library to participate. “They know that they’ve been invited to come and share during the update time” during the partnerships meetings, she said.

By way of background, the DDA captures taxes from the following jurisdictions that collect taxes in the DDA district: the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor District Library. The partnerships committee includes representatives from each of those entities, with the exception of the AADL and Washtenaw County. Until last year, county commissioner Leah Gunn was a DDA board member and served on the partnerships committee. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel is on the DDA board and the partnerships committee.

When queried by The Chronicle via email, AADL director Josie Parker stated that she hadn’t been formally invited to join the committee. She said she did participate on the partnerships committee several years ago, but hasn’t been part of it at all in the last few years. That was her choice, she said.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Operations, Finance

Roger Hewitt noted that the DDA has a budget of about $24 million. During the operations committee meetings, there’s a lot going on, he said, and the financial piece tends to not get the attention that it needs, given the size of the budget. Having a separate committee that focuses strictly on the financial aspects of the organization would be beneficial, he said.

DDA board members Roger Hewitt and John Splitt.

So Hewitt preferred two separate committees. He suggested that operations could continue to meet at 11 a.m., then would break for lunch and continue with a meeting of the finance committee. Anyone who’s on operations could attend the finance committee meeting, he said, but it would focus in more detail on the organization’s financial records and reports.

Keith Orr said he thought it made sense to have separate committees for operations and finance. Finance is an important enough subject to warrant its own committee, especially as the DDA’s budget continues to grow, he said. It’s important to develop people on the DDA board who are comfortable with the financial oversight role – especially since there are now term limits, he said. [The city council voted last year to impose a limit of three terms for DDA board members, which amount to 12 years.]

Hewitt then brought forward one resolution to: (1) dissolve the existing operations committee, and (2) form two new committees: the finance committee, and the operations (parking/transportation/construction) committee.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Smith appointed the new board treasurer, Rishi Narayan, as chair of the finance committee. Other board members who volunteered for the committee were Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Splitt and Keith Orr.

Smith then appointed John Splitt as chair of the operations committee. Other board members who volunteered to serve on the operations committee are Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Executive

Sandi Smith noted that the executive committee consists of the board officers: chair John Mouat, vice chair Roger Hewitt, secretary Keith Orr, and treasurer Rishi Narayan. Smith, as the most recent former board chair, is a non-voting member. The DDA’s executive director, Susan Pollay, is a non-voting ex officio member.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Membership

Committee membership was determined by board members volunteering for the committees on which they wanted to serve. The committee chairs were appointed by outgoing DDA board chair Sandi Smith. The four new committees have the following membership:

• Marketing committee: Al McWilliams (chair), Rishi Narayan and Sandi Smith.
• Partnerships/economic development committee: Joan Lowenstein and Al McWilliams (co-chairs), Bob Guenzel, John Mouat, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Sandi Smith, John Splitt. Listed as “committee participants” of the partnerships/economic development committee on the agenda are: Ken Clein (city planning commission); Jane Lumm and Margie Teall (Ann Arbor city council); Charles Griffith (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority); and Jason Morgan (Washtenaw Community College).
• Finance committee: Rishi Narayan (chair), Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Splitt and Keith Orr.
• Operations (parking/transportation/construction) committee: John Splitt (chair), Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr.

Two board members – Cyndi Clark and Russ Collins – were absent, and will likely be joining one or more of the committees.

Steve Powers noted that he hadn’t volunteered for any of the committees, but he’d try to attend meetings if assistance is needed. He encouraged the committee members to make sure that the purpose of the committees is clearly understood by committee members, staff and the public. It’s important to be aligned regarding the role of the committees, he said, and to maintain the positive relationship between the DDA board, staff, and the other jurisdictions.

Smith agreed, saying that in September each committee should kick off their meeting with a re-introduction of members, and a discussion of purpose.

Powers said he appreciated that the board priorities were posted on the DDA boardroom wall, saying that it’s a powerful reminder about why the DDA is here and what they’re focusing on. He suggested doing something similar for the committees. Smith joked that “it’s easy to be swayed by shiny objects.”

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Coda, Future Meetings

The board discussed the possibility of canceling its committee meetings for July. Roger Hewitt indicated a possible need to meet to discuss renovations at the Fourth & William parking structure, but that might be handled by a subcommittee. Sandi Smith wanted to have a partnerships meeting in July but not August. She wanted to evaluate the partnerships grant policy, after awarding its first grant under the new policy. She thought the committee should review the policy while the action was still fresh, rather than waiting until August or September.

After further discussion, the board decided to leave the July committee meetings in place.

According to the DDA’s website, upcoming committee meetings will take place at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth, Suite 301:

• Partnerships & Economic Development: Wednesday, July 9 at 9 a.m.
• Marketing: Wednesday, July 9 at 10:30 a.m.
• Operations: Wednesday, July 9 at 1 p.m. and Wednesday, July 30 at 11 a.m.
• Finance: Wednesday, July 30 at 12:30 p.m.

In addition, the board has scheduled a meeting on Wednesday, July 9 at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the design of the Fourth & William stair tower & elevator tower. All committee meetings are open to the public.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s July 2 meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter said the group recently welcomed two potential new members who live and work downtown. He said the advisory council would welcome the participation of others who live or work in the downtown area and who are interested in shaping developments downtown. There are three more membership openings. The group meets on the first Tuesday of every month except August at 7 p.m. in city hall.

He noted that by next fall, new developments will open that bring hundreds of residential units to the downtown, and “amazingly, our group is in full support of most of them.” Those developments that avoid having a negative impact are being undertaken by local developers, he noted.

But most of the advisory council’s July 1 meeting had been focused on the future of the Library Lane site, Detter reported, where a current surface parking lot is located atop the underground parking structure there. He noted that the city council provided direction to the city administrator to hire a broker to explore selling the development rights for that site, while reserving a portion of the property for a downtown park.

Members of the advisory council strongly support a significantly sized public plaza on the Fifth Avenue side of that location, Detter said. They also support pedestrian walkways to Liberty Plaza, and believe that all future development should take into consideration the needs of the Ann Arbor District Library and possible connections to the Blake Transit Center as well as nearby historic properties, and businesses. They encourage the possibility of a new tax-generating private or public development on the major part of that Library Lane property, he said.

Detter noted that the issue of improving Liberty Plaza has apparently been moved to the city’s park advisory commission. He said most of the citizens advisory council believe that changes to Liberty Plaza should be part of a larger plan for the entire block. The city about a decade ago spent $250,000 on redesigning Liberty Plaza – with $50,000 from the city’s parks department, and the rest provided by the DDA, he said. It’s a beautiful park, Detter added, and he hoped it would be part of a larger plan for the block.

Comm/Comm: Streetscape Framework Project

John Mouat noted that there was no agenda item for an update on the DDA’s streetscape framework project. He asked Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning and research specialist, to provide an update.

Miller said the staff and consultants had done some on-the-ground outreach, getting feedback from people who were using the streets downtown. They heard from over 200 people and got a lot of good feedback. She said they’ve also pulled in an “economics team” that focuses on retail and ground-floor uses, to make sure that any streetscape improvements would benefit those active uses. That team made its visit on July 1 and July 2, she said, meeting with some DDA board members and walking around the downtown district. More information would be provided at the project’s next advisory committee meeting, Miller said.

The next advisory committee meeting is Tuesday, July 8 at 9 a.m. at the DDA’s office, 150 S. Fifth, Suite 301. The meeting is open to the public.

By way of background, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the DDA board authorized the consulting contract SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard to manage the project. According to the project’s website, a “comprehensive set of design, construction, and maintenance standards can enhance and maintain the high quality experience provided by some streets and improve the identity and functionality of others. A framework plan will be a tool to ensure downtown streets provide a high quality of place for all users, while also meeting broader community goals.”

Feedback is also being collected via an online survey and a wiki mapping tool.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt reported on the status of the connector study. [By way of background, an alternatives analysis is currently being conducted by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.]

The technical oversight committee met last week, Hewitt said, and are very close to wrapping up its preliminary conclusions. A public meeting is planned for Sept. 17, he reported. That will take place in the evening at the Ann Arbor District Library to bring the public up to date, with two sessions – at 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.

Hewitt described it as a long and arduous process, going through reams of data. They’re close to making recommendations, depending on public input, he said.

Comm/Comm: WALLY

Roger Hewitt also gave an update on the federally funded study regarding a railroad station for a north/south commuter rail running between Ann Arbor and Howell. [The project is known as WALLY – the Washtenaw and Livingston Line.]

View looking south toward Liberty along the railroad tracks between Washington and Liberty. If the commuter rail project known as WALLY moves forward, a proposed train stop might be located here, in the railroad right-of-way east of the tracks – on the left side of this photo.

Hewitt said this service is probably a significant way off from being offered, but there had been funding for a study to recommend station locations. The consultants evaluated “every possible location” between North Main Street south to where Fingerle Lumber is located, he said.

The final site recommendation for a stop is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets, Hewitt reported – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located [at 415 W. Washington]. He said it wouldn’t be a full station – it would simply be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty.

The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way, he explained – there would be no taking of public or private property.

Hewitt said he’d like to make a short formal presentation about the recommendation at a future DDA board meeting.

Comm/Comm: Communications & Marketing

Rishi Narayan reported that the marketing/communications subcommittee was still collecting data to determine what the DDA’s place might be in marketing the downtown. Traditionally, marketing hasn’t been part of the DDA’s role, he noted, so if they decide to do it, they need to make sure it’s efficient in time, money and staff energy.

Narayan said they’re working with a company, at no cost to the DDA, to develop a plan that would give the DDA some macro-economic data. They’ve also started talking with Republic Parking, which oversees the city’s parking system under contract with the DDA, to see if there’s a way to extract information from Republic’s data.

Because the art fairs are approaching, people don’t have a lot of time to talk about this, Narayan noted. He hoped to come back with recommendations in the coming months. It might mean partnering with the downtown area associations and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau to do more, such as grants for events.

Al McWilliams noted that the CVB is doing data collection during the art fairs, to show what the impact of those events are. The CVB will be sharing that data with the DDA.

Comm/Comm: Fourth & William Renovations

John Splitt reported that the subcommittee for renovations at the Fourth & William parking structure had met with the design team. Construction drawings for the elevator and stair tower are moving forward. By way of background, the board had approved the $5 million project budget at its May 2, 2014 meeting, with Carl Walker Inc. handling the design.

Image from preliminary drawings by the Carl Walker Inc. design team for renovated southwest elevator and stair tower for the Fourth & William parking structure.

The subcommittee is still fleshing out general concepts about the rest of the potential build-out along Fourth and Williams, Splitt said. They want to be as flexible as possible, and would like to see wheelchair access, awnings and ways to break up the horizontal surfaces. Architect Carl Luckenbach has come up with some different concepts that the subcommittee is considering.

They haven’t decided where bathrooms might be installed, and aren’t certain how much space they can build out without triggering city code issues for ventilation and fire suppression, Splitt reported. The subcommittee is meeting with the design team again in the next week, and might emerge with answers to some of these questions.

John Mouat said they’d be reaching out to “our realtor friends” to get advice about what the “white box” might be for this build-out, to make sure that it’s viable for potential tenants.

Roger Hewitt reported that the subcommittee already had one meeting with real estate professionals. The feedback was that there’s big demand for business incubator start-up space, he said.

Keith Orr told the board that construction of the Greyhound ticket office at the Fourth & William structure is underway, and the bus company will be relocating there next week – ahead of schedule. The office was previously located at the site on West Huron where First Martin is now constructing an extended-stay hotel.

Comm/Comm: Ambassadors

Reporting out from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that a meeting had been held with several representatives of local social service agencies, as well as Ann Arbor police chief John Seto and Mary Kerr from the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. They discussed how an ambassador program might be integrated into existing efforts, and complement those efforts.

Now they’re trying to figure out how to frame an RFP (request for proposals), Hewitt said. They’d like to bring the two potential providers here for interviews, he added. A meeting is set for Wednesday, July 9 at 1 p.m. to discuss exactly how to structure the interview process.

Hewitt expected to set up interviews sometime before the end of this summer.

Comm/Comm: Parking Update

Roger Hewitt said there was nothing new to report, other than the monthly permit data that was provided in the board packet.

Comm/Comm: City Updates

City administrator Steve Powers gave a couple of updates that related to the DDA district. The city council, as part of its approval of the fiscal 2015 budget, has authorized hiring three new police officers. Two of the three positions will be community engagement officers who’ll be starting by the end of July, he said. Downtown will be a priority area for their work over the summer.

Sandi Smith asked Powers to elaborate on the nature of the community engagement work. Powers described it as an initiative that police chief John Seto has been advocating since he took that position. Currently there is one officer doing community engagement – Sgt. Tom Hickey. The additional officers will help Hickey engage with three areas of emphasis: downtown businesses, neighborhoods and public schools. Their work will contrast with patrol activity or calls for service, Powers said, in that they’ll be more pro-active.

Powers also noted that during this year’s art fairs, the city’s police, fire and emergency management staff will be using Liberty Plaza – on the southwest corner of Liberty and Division – as staging area and a cooling station for the public. There will be misting and water available, as well as shade, he said. Red Cross will be participating, as will the city’s volunteer community emergency response team (CERT).

Comm/Comm: Real-Time Parking Data

During public commentary, Ed Vielmetti noted that in 2009, he’d approached the board with ideas and a prototype of a system to monitor and provide real-time information about the city parking system. At the time, the DDA board was not interested in supporting it, he said, and the DDA removed access to the real-time information. He said he’s recently spoken to staff at Republic Parking, which manages the city’s parking system under contract with the DDA, and showed them some prototypes. They’d been receptive to some of the ideas, he said, but had made it clear that a good first step would be to talk with the DDA board.

Vielmetti said his system could provide real-time alerts when parking structures are full, for example, among other features. He said he’s built all of this on his own, mostly as a demonstration project. He’d be happy to share the results of the prototype with board members. He’s doing a similar project for a solar energy-monitoring system.

Sandi Smith suggested that Vielmetti talk with DDA executive director Susan Pollay, as well as the board’s operations committee.

Comm/Comm: TiniLite

Changmin Fan introduced himself as the owner of TiniLite World. He said the company is registered in Ann Arbor, and he has a factory in China that’s building a prototype. He’d like to manufacture the product here, however. He said all four mayoral candidates are great, but noted that Sally Petersen has pointed out the city’s economic development needs. The economic ecosystem isn’t very good for him, Fan said. Small businesses and people – not just the University of Michigan – are the engine for economic development in this city. Communications are also important, he added, and there needs to be smart signs on the street. The DDA can take a leadership position on this, he concluded.

Comm/Comm: BTC Open House

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, invited board members to the Blake Transit Center grand opening on Monday, July 7 at 10 a.m. There will be tours, food and “dignitaries aplenty,” she said. The getDowntown office is located on the second floor, and she urged them to drop by.

Shore also reported that there is a community space within that facility where meetings can take place. It might be a nice location for a retreat, she said.

The Blake Transit Center is the downtown hub for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. It’s located north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Comm/Comm: Bill’s Beer Garden

Board chair Sandi Smith noted that the DDA board would be gathering that night at Bill’s Beer Garden at 6 p.m. She joked that the purpose was “to have some very serious discussions about Original Gravity, IBUs and things like that.” She said it would be open to the public, and is a celebration of hard work by a lot of volunteers.

Comm/Comm: Staff Thank You to Board Members

At the end of the annual meeting, executive director Susan Pollay made a presentation to the board, saying it was the staff’s chance to thank the board. DDA board members are volunteers, she said. “I don’t know that that’s widely understood out in the community.” She thanked the board for their service.

Pollay also said that it’s a tradition for the staff to present a small gift to the outgoing board chair. This year, the gift was inspired by a trip to New York, she said. “It was a wonderful moment for many of us to actually be in one of the most fabulous cities in the world.” [The trip was for the International Downtown Association conference in October 2013.] The gift comes from Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street in Ann Arbor, which closed earlier this year. It’s a pin that evokes a cityscape of tall buildings, Pollay said.

Smith received a round of applause from staff and the board.

Present: Al McWilliams, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Russ Collins, Cyndi Clark.

Next board meeting: The board does not meet in August. The next board meeting is at noon on Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The increase, which was recommended by the board’s executive committee, takes effect as of July 1, 2014. Before going into closed session, board member Keith Orr noted that the review was being conducted in closed session at Pollay’s request.

In describing the rational for the raise, Roger Hewitt noted that in 8 of the past 10 years, Pollay received no raise because of the difficult economy. Her position as a city employee is in the Level 2 category, which has a salary range from $95,000 to $157,000. Several board members indicated a desire to move Pollay toward the midpoint of that range over the next few years. Sandi Smith characterized it as “catch up” to compensate for the years when Pollay didn’t get a raise.

Casting the sole vote against the 5% increase was city administrator Steve Powers, who said he’d be more comfortable with a 3% raise, and hoped there would be a more robust evaluation process in the future.

The resolution regarding the increase states that “a number of important DDA projects were undertaken in FY 2014 under Ms. Pollay’s leadership, including opening the new First and Washington parking structure, creating a Street Framework planning initiative in partnership with the City, and working with the City Council to approve amendments to the DDA ordinance.”

The resolution also states that board members provided reviews of Pollay’s work in FY 2014, and the reviews “noted how effectively she works with the DDA Board to support board member involvement and effectiveness, how effectively DDA programs and projects are managed, and that Ms. Pollay serves as a vital resource for downtown stakeholders, and the community at large…”

Pollay has served as the DDA’s executive director since 1996.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings.

Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions, which the council approved on separate votes: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Common to all the contracts are a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed the membership differently, as follows: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

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]

The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

Related to the FY 2013 budget adjustment to account for 15th District Court indigent representation were two other agenda items regarding the law firm that provides that kind of representation. [The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.]

The council approved a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely. Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders. So for the previous year, the council was asked at its June 3 meeting to cover $203,000 of fees that accrued due to the delayed billing practice used by MCLS.

In addition to approving the city’s FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council approved next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approved $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

The Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance for Dawn Farm to provide its counseling services. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

On June 17, the council ultimately voted to approve the Dawn Farm grant over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – based on the living wage issue.

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]

According to a staff memo, the majority of union workers and all non-union employees took 10 banked leave days in 2012, or the equivalent of a 3.85% salary decrease. Banked leave days are unpaid, but don’t affect retirement calculations. Most of the unions representing county employees had agreed to cuts during previous contract negotiations, as the county worked to eliminate a budget deficit caused in large part by declining property tax revenues.

However, decreases in property tax revenues were not as dire as originally projected – a decline of 0.77%, compared to a projected 5% decrease.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

As she’s done in the past, Coleman told the board that she planned to donate the increase to student scholarships for studying abroad. Taylor joked that regents should try doubling her salary, since she ends up giving increases back to the university.

This brief was filed from the Michigan Union’s Anderson Room on the Ann Arbor campus, where regents held their September meeting.

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!

Brought forward by superintendent Patricia Green, the amendments raised the salary of deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen by 7%, and that of assistant superintendent of human resource and legal services Dave Comsa by 12%. The board also reclassified Comsa’s position, bringing him up to the executive level of the superintendent’s cabinet, and changing his title to “deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel.”

From left: Ann Arbor Public Schools administrators Dawn Linden, Liz Margolis, Alesia Flye, Dave Comsa, and Robert Allen. At its Dec. 14 meeting, the AAPS board voted on contracts for all of these administrators, with the exception of Margolis. (Photo by the writer.)

The board initially voted to consider the contracts as a first briefing, which meant the item would return to the board’s next meeting for a final vote, allowing more time for public input. But later in the meeting – about 1:30 a.m. – board president Deb Mexicotte moved to reconsider that initial vote, which it did, and the item was then classified as a special briefing, allowing the board to take a final vote that night. Trustee Simone Lightfoot called the move a “bait and switch.”

Mexicotte defended her decision, saying that she is elected to make decisions like these on behalf of the district. Other trustees backed that view. Irene Patalan said she often explains her vote to constituents after the fact, and this time would be no different.

In the end, concerns over transparency and equity for other employees were outweighed by the belief that salary adjustments were needed to retain Comsa and Allen, and to reflect their value to the district.

Also at the Dec. 14 meeting, on a 6-1 vote, the board ratified contracts for two new administrators hired by Green to complete her cabinet: deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

The set of contract ratifications reflect Green’s desire to reorganize her executive cabinet to contain three deputy superintendents – Allen, Comsa, and Flye – at an equivalent salary of $140,000.

This report will cover in detail the discussions and procedure regarding the administrative contract ratifications. Additional coverage of the remainder of the Dec. 14 board of education meeting will be forthcoming in a separate report.

Agenda Approval

Near the beginning of the Dec. 14 meeting, the board engaged in a review of the meeting’s agenda, which it typically does with a simple assent. What made the Dec. 14 meeting agenda review atypical was an extended repertoire of parliamentary procedures: a motion, a friendly amendment, a calling of the question, and two roll call votes.

Part of the agenda included an item on ratifications for four administrator contracts: deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen; assistant superintendent of human resource and legal services Dave Comsa; deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

The item was included on the original agenda as a “special briefing.” Such items are briefed only once and voted on at the same meeting, usually because they are of a time-sensitive nature. A somewhat more common process is for the board to give an item an initial review as a “first briefing” and then, at a subsequent meeting, vote on it as a “second briefing” item.

Agenda Approval: Motion to Reclassify to First Briefing

Trustee Simone Lightfoot argued that the public should have a chance to give feedback on the ratification of administrative contracts before they are approved. So she made a motion to change the administrative contract ratification agenda item from a special briefing to a first briefing item. That meant it would be discussed at the Dec. 14 meeting, but would then return to the board for a second briefing and vote at its next regular meeting.

Trustee Andy Thomas asked superintendent Patricia Green if there was anything time-sensitive about the contracts that would make it problematic to postpone a vote on them. Green responded that she was concerned about waiting any longer to ratify the contracts for Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent of instruction, and Dawn Linden, assistant superintendent of elementary education, who were hired on Sept. 1 and Oct. 18, respectively.

Agenda Approval: Board Policy on Contract Ratification

Green explained her impetus for bringing the four contracts to the board for review. She reported that when she was in the process of extending offers to Flye and Linden, who were hired to fill vacancies due to retirements, she thought she had the authority to offer contracts to administrators without board approval. As such, Green explained, contracts for Flye and Linden were signed by Green and board president Deb Mexicotte without coming before the board.

Green stated that it wasn’t until she started to do research on contracts for Comsa and Allen, in order to bring them forward for possible amendment, that she found “deeply embedded” in board policy 2120 – Superintendent Contracting Authority – that cabinet-level employment contracts require board approval. Though it had not been established practice to do so, Green consulted Comsa, who counseled that indeed Green should present the contracts to the board for ratification.

Agenda Approval: Discussion on Board Policy 2120

Lightfoot asked what sort of predicament the board would be in if trustees voted down contracts for Flye and Linden, even though they had already been signed. Green responded that, though the contracts should have been brought to the board first, they were signed in good faith and the district should honor them.

Lightfoot expressed frustration that the board was being asked to ratify contracts “after the fact.” Mexicotte and trustee Susan Baskett each stated that they remembered administrative contracts coming before the board in years past, but that this practice had become out of compliance with board policy in recent years.

Green pointed out that she was trying to change past practice to comply with board policy and asserted, “The buck does stop with me.”

Lightfoot thanked Green for highlighting where the district needs to improve. Thomas also thanked Green for rectifying the policy variance and increasing the district’s transparency on this issue.

Trustee Glenn Nelson commented that the governance group of the seven trustees and the superintendent need to help each other out if any of them notices inconsistent application of board policies, and he acknowledged “sharing the responsibility for this procedural snafu.”

Agenda Approval: Motion to Reclassify to First Briefing – Discussion

Based on Green’s explanation, Thomas requested that Lightfoot (and Baskett, who had seconded her motion) consider a friendly amendment to split the administrative contract ratification agenda item into two parts – retaining the discussion and approval of contracts for Flye and Linden as a special briefing, but moving discussion of contracts for Comsa and Allen to first briefing.

After some additional clarification, Lightfoot and Baskett agreed to the friendly amendment suggested by Thomas.

Baskett asked when the second briefing and vote would take place, because the next board meeting – on Jan. 18, 2012 – is its annual organizational meeting, when board officers and committee appointments are set, and the board reviews its processes and procedures. Mexicotte answered that the organizational meeting is not usually for doing work, but noted that because it now occurs in the middle of the school year [it was previously held over the summer, when board elections were held in May], perhaps the board will need to take up some of its regular work at that meeting as well.

Baskett then echoed Lightfoot’s concern that putting the contract ratifications on the board agenda as a special briefing was “not fair to the community,” especially in light of how the district “[has] been preaching to the community that we are resource-constrained.”

Thomas called the question on Lightfoot’s motion to a vote, and Christine Stead seconded. The parliamentary move of calling the question is intended to end debate and force a vote on the item.

Outcome on calling the question: The roll call vote on whether to close discussion on Lightfoot’s motion passed 5-2, with Mexicotte and Patalan dissenting.

Outcome on main item: The roll call vote on Lightfoot’s motion, as amended, to shift the ratification of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen from special briefing to first briefing passed 4-3, with Baskett, Lightfoot, Mexicotte, and Thomas voting yes, and Nelson, Patalan and Stead dissenting.

First Briefing: Current Administrators

Green opened the discussion of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen by reminding the board that after taking the job as superintendent, she had wanted to spend some time assessing AAPS operations and organization before making any changes, and she had said she “did not want to make change just for change’s sake.” Saying she would not be bringing forward the contract amendments without reason, Green then outlined her rationale for the proposed changes.

First Briefing: Current Administrators – Green’s Rationale

Green began by explaining her thoughts behind suggesting the reclassification of Comsa’s position from assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services to deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel, saying that the title shift would allow AAPS to use Comsa to attract revenue in the future. Green suggested, “The WISD [Washtenaw Intermediate School District] might want to use Mr. Comsa … There are [also] some smaller districts that do not have the kind of resources we have here.”

Green also said she has been very impressed with the legal services Comsa provides to the district. “There are very few folks of his stature in the entire state,” she asserted. “He is very marketable and could very easily be marketed right out of AAPS.” Green argued that, in her review of Comsa’s work, she could see that he has saved the district at least $500,000 a year in legal fees, and gave two examples.

Just this week, Green said, Comsa saved the district $55,000 “by reviewing some billings and saying ‘we don’t think this is appropriate.’” She also noted that AAPS recently fielded an Office of Civil Rights complaint [regarding the effect of athletics budget reductions on Title IX requirements], and that Comsa was able to get it dismissed by providing excellent leadership during the review process. “If it had not been dismissed, the legal fees could have continued to multiply,” she asserted. “The risk management function is something very significant. This is something we should not take lightly.”

In terms of her proposed raise for Comsa, which would take him from $124,542 to $140,000, Green argued that there was precedence in the district for having the head of human resources be a deputy-level position, and for all three deputies having the same compensation package. Finally, she offered some comparable salary ranges for the board to consider: Wayne-Westland is paying over $160,000; Warren and Utica are each paying over $140,000; and Troy is paying $151,900. Green noted that if Comsa chose to leave the district, the district would not be able to attract a good replacement without significantly raising the compensation level.

Regarding Allen’s proposed contract amendment, which took his salary from $130,556 to $140,000, Green said he has worked closely with her to make the Medicaid reimbursement happen. [This will be discussed further in Part 2 of this meeting report. In brief, Green’s comment refers to $1.4 million in AAPS special education reimbursements currently being held by the WISD that Green is working to get returned to AAPS.] Green also noted that Allen worked diligently to be certain AAPS qualified for best practices incentives offered by the state of Michigan. Finally, she reiterated that the three deputy superintendent positions should be at the same compensation level.

First Briefing: Current Administrators – Board Discussion

Thomas said he was torn about this issue. On one hand, he noted, his previous professional experience as a chief administrative officer of a large medical practice makes him sensitive to the fact that salaries should keep pace with market conditions. He argued that Allen had done an admirable job taking the lead on high-profile, high-controversy issues, and that Comsa has also been an exceptional leader behind-the-scenes. In this vein, Thomas said, “Frankly, I think both of them without question deserve a salary increase.”

However, Thomas said, the district has a lot of good people – including principals, teachers, paraprofessionals and others – who have not received pay raises. “I am very concerned about the message we are sending to our rank and file that we recognize inequities among cabinet and will rectify them, but not the rank-and-file salaries.” Thomas said he recognizes that the money in this situation is “a drop in the bucket,” but argued that it does “move the needle in the wrong direction” while the district grapples with another $14 million in budget reductions.

Finally, Thomas said he feels a little better about approving a salary increase in Comsa’s position because it would be based in part on a reclassification of his position. He asked Green if her rationale for raising Allen’s salary was primarily to equalize salaries among administrators of the same rank. Green answered that it’s possible that Allen could be used to consult with other districts in the future too, but that is not part of what she is proposing currently.

Stead asserted that the salary increases being proposed for Allen and Comsa are small relative to the savings they have brought, and will continue to bring the district. She reminded her colleagues that in the past five years alone, AAPS has had to cut $50 million out of its budget, and that Allen and Comsa have done that work. She also pointed out that former superintendent Todd Roberts left AAPS to manage a much smaller group of students for significantly more pay. She argued that the district especially needs good leaders during these times when the state is not valuing education.

Patalan said she is willing to support an excellent team, and noted that Green is using her experience to bring new ideas to the district and look at things differently.

Nelson said Comsa and Allen have performed admirably under very stressful conditions. Like Patalan, Nelson pointed out that Green’s fresh perspective confirms that these are really excellent, important people to the district. Saying he supports Green’s recommended contract amendments in part because of the stresses the district is under, Nelson noted that Allen and Comsa will be with the district longer than any short-term pushback from the community.

Lightfoot asked whether Green was aiming to give all cabinet members parity in compensation, and Green answered, no, just the deputies. Lightfoot then argued that AAPS cannot be compared to other places because it has other amenities. She also suggested tying Comsa’s salary to a percentage of whatever he brings to the district in terms of additional revenue, instead of giving him a raise preemptively. Green countered that Comsa has already saved the district $500,000 in legal fees.

Baskett said that AAPS cannot compete on price, but offers employees a great quality of life. She said she has a concern about bringing all the deputies up to the $140,000 level at which Flye was hired. Baskett asserted that new employees coming in will always “negotiate high,” and argued that the district should not continually ask to realign top salaries every time someone leaves and a new person comes in. Finally, Baskett noted that the district has communicated to the community the need to sacrifice everywhere, and that the board needs to be cautious about proceeding with these proposed raises.

Mexicotte simply noted, “At this time I am in support of these amended administrative contracts as presented by [Green].”

Outcome: Votes are not taken on first briefing items. So as a first briefing item, these proposed contract amendments would usually have been brought back for a second briefing and vote at the next regular meeting. However, later in the Dec. 14 meeting, the items were eventually returned to special briefing status and approved.

Special Briefing: New Administrators

After holding the first briefing on proposed amendments to contracts for Comsa and Allen, board members returned to the discussion they had begun during the agenda approval, and discussed the ratification of the two new administrative contracts the district recently signed.

Deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye was extended an annual contract for $140,000 on Sept. 1, 2011, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden was extended an annual contract for $117,900 on Oct. 18, 2011. Both contracts were signed by Green and Mexicotte, but not brought before the board as required in board policy 2120.

Special Briefing: New Administrators – What Is a Raise?

Lightfoot contended that giving $140,000 to Flye when that is more than the salary of her predecessor was essentially giving Flye a raise before she had even started working for the district. [Former interim deputy superintendent of instruction Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley’s salary was set at $132,000.]

Green countered that it’s not considered a raise for an individual who hasn’t been here. She argued that the market is such that if AAPS paid less than that, they would not be able to get a “top quality” person, and pointed out that the range for Flye’s position goes up to $169,000 in comparable districts.

Lightfoot asserted that there is no shortage of people wanting to work for AAPS. In response, Mexicotte and Green pointed out that the Flye did not accept the first offer made by AAPS, but negotiated a higher salary before accepting the position.

Nelson thanked Flye and Linden for bringing their “considerable talents” to the district.

Special Briefing: New Administrators – Incentive Compensation

Baskett asked for clarification about the “incentive compensation” section of the contracts being considered. [.pdf of contracts. See section 9 of Appendix 1 – Fringe Benefits within each contract.] Incentive pay is offered to top administrators based on the percentage of their performance objectives they reach each year. On top of their regular salaries, they are paid an additional $4,500 for reaching 100% of their performance objectives; $4,000 for reaching more than 90% but less than 100% of their performance objectives; and $3,500 for reaching more than 80% but less than 90% of their performance objectives.

“Is this consistent with other contracts?” Baskett asked Green. “How did you come up with these numbers?”

Green answered that the incentive compensation section is a standard part of AAPS contracts. Comsa clarified that incentive compensation was only offered to employees in Class 1, which consists of Green, the deputy superintendents, the assistant superintendents, and the executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent.

Baskett clarified that the district had budgeted for the high end of the salary range for each individual, so that in case the highest level of incentive pay is reached, it will not cause a deficit. Allen confirmed this is the case.

Lightfoot said she was “challenged by the standard practice” of offering incentive pay to staff who are already highly paid, while the district continues to cut services and raise class sizes. “This type of contract is not sensitive to current realities,” she argued, but clarified, “This is not a slight against the individuals in these positions.”

Nelson asserted that excellent people make an enormous difference in an organization, and that AAPS needs that kind of excellent leadership. He noted that salaries for comparable positions at the University of Michigan are higher, and said that if he had any doubt, it was whether AAPS was offering high enough salaries to the kind of excellent people it has in these positions.

Thomas noted that it would not be fair or appropriate to eliminate the incentive pay section of the contracts without raising the base salaries of the people currently in those positions, since they took their jobs with the expectation of being able to earn that additional money.

Baskett questioned how much AAPS has paid out in incentive pay over the last year, and Mexicotte suggested that could be answered outside the context of the contract question.

Outcome: The ratification of AAPS administrative contracts with deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden were removed from the consent agenda, and approved by a 6-1 vote, with trustee Lightfoot dissenting.

Current Administrators: Reconsideration

After the approval of the consent agenda, but before the board action items, Mexicotte made a motion to reconsider the decision the board had already made to treat the ratification of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen as a first briefing item instead of a special briefing item. Her intent was to then bring the contracts to a vote that night, which is possible for special briefing items.

Current Administrators: Reconsideration – First or Special Briefing?

Mexicotte noted that she had voted in favor of Lightfoot’s original motion to change this item from a special briefing to a first briefing item, so she was entitled to make a motion to reconsider the board’s decision on this issue – she had voted with the prevailing side. [Only someone who votes with the prevailing side is allowed to move for reconsideration.]

Nelson seconded Mexicotte’s motion, and the board engaged in a heated discussion about the issue.

Lightfoot argued that this “comes across as a ‘bait and switch’ to me,” and told Mexicotte she was “disappointed that you have opted to maneuver in this manner.”

Thomas noted the time [1:38 a.m.], said he was “a little on the frazzled side” himself, and said he did not believe that moving forward on this proposal at this time would be in anyone’s best interest.

Nelson disagreed, saying he did not sense that there would be any movement around the table on this issue, and that the board might as well vote now “because we’ve got two excellent people who shall receive the word on how this is going to be resolved.”

Patalan added that she often explains her vote to constituents after the fact and that this time it would be no different.

Baskett argued, “I don’t think this is the best move. Perception says a lot. People will question why we waited until almost 2 a.m. to do this. I don’t get a sense of the timeliness of this. I don’t think these two employees are going to leave us any time soon.”

Lightfoot said she wanted to make a last-ditch effort to her colleagues to “walk the talk … We tell people we want them involved and that we care and then pull this at almost 2 in the morning. This is about knowing we are not doing the right thing or we wouldn’t be doing it at 1:45 in the morning.”

Mexicotte noted that this item came late to the Dec 14 agenda, and that many of the other agenda items also required a great deal of time to discuss as well. She then responded to a number of her colleagues comments.

Saying she was a trustee of the district, Mexicotte noted that she values input, but has also been elected to make judgments on any number of things – including contracts. “People expect that I’m going to try to do the right thing,” she said, “I feel pretty strongly about this being the right thing.” She argued that she was acting in the best interest of the district by supporting Green’s recommendation and that her belief was due in part to what she knows of Comsa’s and Allen’s work in the district, how much money they have found and saved for AAPS, and about the stability and excellence required in the district.

She countered Thomas’ earlier assertion that raising salaries for Comsa and Allen “moves the needle in the wrong direction,” saying that even though these are difficult economic times, the district still needs to figure out how to cut $14 million while doing right by their employees. She said she does not support cutting other employee salaries.

Finally, Mexicotte took issue with the suggestion that this action should not be taken because of what it might mean to the community symbolically. “We have a lot of hard decisions to make, and we have to galvanize the community about what’s important, not just what seems symbolically important – our funding model, the retirement rate, that students and teachers are starting to feel the squeeze – what we get so caught up in are these proxy fights.”

Saying she “bristle[d] at the suggestion” that this was any sort of maneuvering on her part, Mexicotte said simply that she had voted earlier, and then reconsidered as she thought about it throughout the meeting.

Outcome: The motion to reconsider the board’s earlier vote passed 4-3, with Nelson, Stead, Patalan, and Mexicotte voting yes, and Baskett, Thomas, and Lightfoot dissenting. When the board reconsidered its earlier decision, the outcome mirrored the vote on reconsideration – the board voted 4-3 (with Baskett, Thomas, and Lightfoot dissenting) to take up the contracts for the two current administrators, Comsa and Allen, as a special briefing action item.

Contract Administrators: Reconsideration – Board Action

After addressing one other piece of business, the board returned for a final time to its discussion on contract amendments for Comsa and Allen – this time as an action item.

Thomas repeated that he felt more comfortable raising Comsa’s salary because his job responsibilities will be increasing. Thomas felt it was less compelling to give Allen a raise to achieve compensation parity among the deputy superintendents.

Lightfoot asserted that she was “quite convinced” that this is not in the best interest of the district. “I think holy heck is going to be raised about the way this has been done, and this will get in the way of the tech bond … We’ve pulled the ‘okie doke’ on this one. It’s bigger than the politics … This is not acceptable to me.”

Nelson said he wanted to encourage his colleagues to use “I statements,” and then argued that he was supporting Green’s recommendations because it’s the best thing for the children and young people of Ann Arbor. He added, “I hope people listen to my ‘I statements’ rather than other statements about me.”

Patalan said she absolutely thought this was the best thing to do for the school district, and that she believed in Green’s vision and experience.

Stead said she also thought it’s the best thing to do for AAPS. She argued that the risk of losing the leadership of Comsa and Allen as the district tries to cut 8% of its budget is a bigger risk than any other cut that needs to be made in terms of balance.

Mexicotte said she voted the way she did early in the meeting so she could think about it, and then she did think about it, and brought a different motion. She said she looked forward to a very robust discussion about board process at the organizational meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

Outcome: The approval of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen passed 4-3 with Stead, Patalan, Mexicotte, and Nelson voting yes, and Lightfoot, Thomas, and Baskett dissenting. The contract amendments reclassify Comsa as a deputy superintendent, and bring salaries for both Comsa and Allen in line with Flye’s at $140,000.

[This was Part 1 of the Dec. 14, 2011 meeting report. Part 2 of the meeting report is forthcoming.]

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson and Christine Stead.

Next regular meeting/annual organizational meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. 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!

AATA board member David Nacht presses his microphone button. (Photos by the writer.)

That business included the approval of its fiscal year 2011 budget, which starts Oct. 1, 2010 and goes through Sept. 30, 2011. The FY 2011 budget calls for a total of $27,030,407 in expenses, among them a provision for a 2% merit-based increase in non-union staff compensation, with an additional 1% bonus pool for the organization’s top performers.

The board also approved another five-year MRide agreement with the University of Michigan to provide transportation for UM faculty, students and staff. Under the agreement, which runs from 2010-2015, UM affiliates will continue to board without paying a fare, with UM paying the AATA $1 per boarding.

When added to the per-boarding payment, $800,000-$900,000 of federal funds – received by UM and included as part of the MRide deal – will result in an estimated $2.37 million payment by UM to the AATA in FY 2011, the first year of the new agreement.

The board also voted to award a three-year contract to RideConnect – a partnership of WATS, Washtenaw County, WAVE and People’s Express – valued at $200,000 per year. The contract will be paid by federal and state funds designated specifically to aid the coordination between public transit and human services transportation needs.

The board’s meeting also included, for the first time, literal buttons. The board convened a meeting for the first time at its new meeting location – the Ann Arbor District Library’s board room – which is equipped with video recording equipment, including buttons used by meeting participants to turn their microphones on and off.

And some remarks by a public speaker pushed the wrong button for David Nacht, who responded to the speaker’s remarks by saying that attitudes reflecting age-based discrimination were not appropriate.

FY 2011 Budget

Before the board for consideration was the organization’s operations budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, 2010 and goes through Sept. 30, 2011.

Budget: Merit Increases

During his report to the board, Rich Robben, chair of the planning and development committee, described how the Sept. 14, 2010 meeting of the PDC had included significant discussion about the inclusion of merit pay increases for non-union staff at the AATA. [AATA union employees will receive a 3.5% increase effective Jan. 1, 2011.]

The budget that was being brought forward to the board, Robben said, includes a provision of 2% in merit increases plus an additional 1% as a bonus pool for high performers. The initial budget proposal brought to the committee included no merit increases for non-union employees, while the second version included a 3% merit pay allocation. The 2%-1% split was a compromise. From the Sept. 14, 2010 PDC meeting minutes:

Mr. Robben raised questions about staff merit increases in the second version of the FY2011 budget that had been prepared. Michael Ford indicated that up to 3% was included in that budget version. He noted that the budget document currently under review included monies for a lump sum bonus for management employees, but restated other Board members’ concerns over legacy costs and political implications associated with making merit increases permanent.

Mr. Robben and Ms. Dale discussed merit increases, with input from staff. It was noted that the rate of increase for comparable raises in the Southeast Michigan region had been identified by AATA’s salary administration consultant. The average salary increase in our area for FY2011 is 2.9%. Ms. Dale objected to not providing merit increases for staff based merely on some other entities having to face salary freezes or reductions – especially if the denial of raises is not necessary to balance AATA’s budget.

Mr. Robben also objected to zeroing out merit increases indicating that it is appropriate to reward good, hard working employees. He stated that withholding raises is the wrong message to send to the organization. Ms. Dale added that people are more likely to look at how the organization is spending large amounts of money in the community versus the $70,000 or less that would go toward employee raises. The committee took a position objecting to withholding merit increases for staff, and settled upon a compromise recommendation to present to the full Board.

This compromise recommendation would budget 2% for merit increases, and place another 1% into a bonus pool to reward high performers. Michael Ford was directed to identify the terms of such a reward plan.

During deliberations at the Sept. 16 meeting, board treasurer Sue McCormick said that as she’d gone through the budget, one of the items that had given her pause was the increase in personnel expenses as a percentage of the budget. A contributing factor, she said, was that the AATA provides its services through its employees, and is therefore a staff-intensive organization. She concluded that she was satisfied that the increase was appropriate.

Another issue she wanted to draw attention to, said McCormick, was the strategy they had in place to increase the use of part-time motor coach operators (MCOs) as a way to manage bus driver operator costs. In this budget, however, the number of part-time MCOs was staying relatively constant, and full-time MCOs were being added. It’s important, she said, to recognize the increased costs associated with that – benefits, for example. She said she’d be asking staff to explain why they seemed to be moving in a direction different from the policy they’d put in place a year ago.

David Nacht spoke to the issue of preventive maintenance for which the AATA was showing an increase in its FY 2011 budget. The use of federal funds for preventive maintenance is a topic that Nacht has paid particular attention to over the last few years. From The Chronicle’s report of the AATA’s May 12, 2010 board meeting:

[Jesse] Bernstein asked for some additional clarification on how the federal Section 5307 formula funds are used by AATA as compared to the peer systems. Brian McCollom fielded that question. He explained that such funds can be used on two main categories of items: (i) capital expenses – like buses, shelters, and terminals, and (ii) preventive maintenance on capital assets. The Section 5307 funds pay 80% of the costs, he said, with a 20% local match expected.

In the peer systems, McCollom said, about 11% of operating budgets were paid out of Section 5307 funds, compared to 10% for the AATA. Looking at the balance between capital expenses and preventive maintenance in the Section 5307 funds, the AATA has a 60-40 split, whereas peer systems show an average of a 33-67 split for capital expenses and preventive maintenance.

The analysis of AATA’s use of 40% of its Section 5307 dollars on preventive maintenance, compared to a 67% portion by peer systems, may have given board member David Nacht some comfort. Nacht has often expressed concern about the use of preventive maintenance dollars. Most recently, at the board’s March 24, 2010 meeting, he had cautioned against using preventive maintenance dollars for budget fixes:

Nacht concurred, saying that financial direction was especially important, given how easy it is to use preventive maintenance dollars for temporary budget fixes.

At the Sept. 16 meeting during deliberations on the FY 2011 budget, Nacht returned to the same theme, saying that he’d never before been part of an organization that seemed to have a “ready pot of cash” that you can throw into your operating budget “to make everything okay.” However, he said he’d satisfied himself that the AATA was in line with peer organizations with respect to preventive maintenance funds, and that the AATA’s use of these federal preventive maintenance funds is consistent with Congressional intent. He cautioned, however, that it allows for a casualness and sloppiness – something he had not seen in the AATA, he stressed.

Nacht asked the board to bear in mind the broader community and context in which the budget was being formulated – people are being laid off and these are difficult economic times. He said he was trying to continue the work that former board member Ted Annis had done to try to make the organization more efficient. [Annis was  not reappointed to the board this summer when his term ended.]

Budget: Where Does AATA Get Its Money, How Is It Spent?

The major categories of budget revenues and expenses are as follows:

FY2011 AATA Budget (Oct. 1, 2010 -- Sept. 30, 2011)
REVENUES:

Local Tax Revenues           $  9,414,574
Purch. of Svc Agr.(Urban)*        716,935
Purch. of Svc Agr.(Nonurban)*     434,545
Passenger Revenue               4,737,615
State Operating Assist.         7,533,996
Federal Operating Assist.       3,545,109
Interest and Other                735,688
TOTAL REVENUES               $ 27,118,462

*Purchase of Service Agreement

EXPENSES:

Operations Wages             $  6,223,959
Maintenance Wages               1,355,383
Management Wages                3,278,046
Fringe Benefits                 4,589,092
SUBTOTAL                       15,446,480 

Purchased Services              2,622,649
Diesel Fuel and Gasoline        1,424,000
Materials & Supplies            1,506,603
Utilities                         456,447
Casualty & Liability Costs        440,200
Purchased Transportation        4,391,628
Other Expenses                    532,400
Local Depreciation                210,000

TOTAL EXPENSES               $ 27,030,407 

OPERATING SURPLUS (DEFICIT)     $  88,055

-
Outcome: The FY 2011 operating budget was unanimously approved.

MRide: UM-AATA Partnership

Before the board was a new five-year agreement with the University of Michigan to provide transportation to UM students, faculty and staff. Around 41% of all rides on AATA buses are taken by UM affiliates. Ridership numbers for both UM affiliates and non-UM riders was a subject of board discussion at the Sept. 16 meeting.

MRide: Ridership

Charles Griffith reported that ridership is down compared to last year by around 6% – half of that decline, he said, staff thought might be attributable to the discontinuation of the LINK service, which was a downtown circulator bus that did not charge a fare. Demand-response service, reported Griffith, was down about 10%, which was attributed partly to the fare increase and partly to the overall downward trend in the economy.

During question time, Jesse Bernstein asked if the downward ridership trend was reflected nationally. Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, told Bernstein that the short answer is yes. To look at the impact on ridership of the fare increase implemented by the AATA in two increments over the last two years [from $1 per ride to $1.25, then to $1.50], White said, they looked to UM riders as a control group. White concluded that the decrease in ridership is attributable to external factors.

The fare increase was implemented starting in May 2009, so any impact on ridership would be seen in the difference between 2008-09 and 2009-10. Among UM riders there was a 2.6% decrease, while among non-UM riders there was a 7.2% decrease, suggesting that there are external factors at play, but that fares also may have played a role in decreasing the numbers of AATA riders.

AATA RIDES

Acad Yr  UM Riders         Total Riders      Non-UM Riders

2003-04  1,374,000         4,188,064         2,814,064

(MRide commences)

2004-05  1,697,859  23.6%  4,493,117   7.3%  2,795,258  -0.7%
2005-06  2,040,282  20.2%  5,212,039  16.0%  3,171,757  13.5%
2006-07  2,103,611   3.1%  5,320,811   2.1%  3,217,200   1.4%
2007-08  2,254,026   7.2%  5,738,828   7.9%  3,484,802   8.3%
2008-09  2,368,474   5.1%  5,948,024   3.6%  3,579,550   2.7%
2009-10  2,306,942  -2.6%  5,630,030  -5.3%  3,323,088  -7.2%

Cumulative change since 2003-04 

           932,942  67.9%  1,441,966  34.4%    509,024  18.1%

-

MRide: New Contract

During his report on the PDC committee meeting, Rich Robben gave a description of the MRide agreement that the committee was recommending to the board for its approval. The MRide agreement has been in place between the AATA and the University of Michigan since 2004, and provides a program under which UM students, faculty and staff can board AATA buses without paying a fare – the cost of providing their transportation is arranged through the MRide agreement. The agreement considered by the board on Sept. 16 is a five-year deal retroactive from Aug. 1, 2010 to July 31, 2015.

Robben said he’d abstained from voting and also would abstain from voting during the board meeting – Robben is a UM employee [executive director for plant operations].

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

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

While the federal grant is still a component of the new MRide arrangement, the boarding payment is now explicitly tied to the number of rides taken by UM riders. The agreement is for UM to pay AATA $1 per ride. According to Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, the previous arrangement worked out to around $0.80 per ride, though it was not defined that way in the contract.

The staff analysis of this deal notes that the boarding payment is higher than the average fare paid by people who purchase a 30‐day AATA pass. The total estimated UM payment for FY 2011 is $2.37 million, of which federal formula funds earned by UM bus operation are expected to provide $800,000‐$900,000.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen noted that there are considerations for Title 6 (civil rights) that arise from the analysis of the federal grant money passed through from UM as part of the MRide agreement – it’s not technically fare revenue. Mogensen cited the official minutes of the June 23, 2010 AATA board meeting [emphasis added]:

Roger Kerson noted that the operating cost per passenger is $3.24 and the fare $1.50. Phil Webb explained that many passengers do not pay $1.50 as a significant portion of fares are paid by a third party making the average fare less. Chris White noted that a portion of the money AATA receives from the MRide comes from federal funds and is not technically fare revenue.

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

At the Sept. 16 board meeting, Chris White indicated that the count of UM riders is achieved by UM riders swiping their MCards through the AATA fareboxes. However, the usage data is provided to UM, and AATA does not have access to statistics on who is riding the buses – faculty, staff, or students. That information can be analyzed by UM, however.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the new MRide agreement.

RideConnect

In his report out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER), Charles Griffith described a proposed contract with RideConnect – a partnership of WATS (the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study), Washtenaw County, WAVE (the Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express) and People’s Express – valued at $200,000 per year. The contract will be paid by federal and state funds designated specifically to aid the coordination between public transit and human services transportation needs as a “mobility management” initiative.

During board deliberations on the item, Chris White described “mobility management” as a term of art that the Federal Transit Administration had come up with. Essentially it had to do with coordination of transportation, he said. There was a saying White said he liked to use addressing the notion of coordination: “If coordination were easy, it would already be done.”

The coordination that would be addressed in this contract would be between nursing homes, senior centers, churches, human services organizations and various transportation providers, White said. RideConnect, he explained, is a 501(c)(3) organization that had bid on the contract. AATA staff had inquired with United Way’s 211 program, but neither they nor any other organization submitted a bid.

What RideConnect would do would include referral of services as well as “trip brokering,” White said.

David Nacht asked why AATA did not do this in house. White said that the AATA did not have the kind of countywide view a few years ago that the AATA does now. At that time it had been People’s Express that had really pushed it forward, White said. Nacht asked who the “human being” is who is the head of RideConnect – he wondered if she used to work for one of the local transit agencies.

White told Nacht that Vanessa Hansel is the head of RideConnect and that she did not formerly work with any of the local transit agencies. Nacht confirmed with White that Hansel did not have any personal or business relationships that could create an appearance of a conflict of interest. White explained to Nacht that Hansel had been vetted by the county and by WATS.

Nacht said that his concern was based on the fact that it is a single-bid contract for an entity the AATA had helped to create – and now they were funneling funds to it. Nacht asked that as federal funds are passed through to RideConnect, the appropriate budgetary data could be looked at in RideConnect’s records.

Charles Griffith indicated that PMER had looked at the issue and had requested some additional reporting from RideConnect as part of the contract. Sue McCormick characterized the venture as a “strategic partnership” for the AATA – nonprofits generally ran at lower cost-per-unit of delivery than the public sector.

Outcome: The contract with RideConnect was unanimously approved by the board.

Auditing Services: Rotating

In his report out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith related a discussion they’d had about the AATA’s auditing services. It had been brought to their attention by Sue McCormick – an AATA board member who is the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator – that it was important to rotate the contract for their auditing services in order to get a wider range of opinion about their operations.

They’d determined that they would grant the contract to the firm with the highest score, which is their current provider, but the contract would be only for one year instead of five years. They could then use the year to discuss how they would achieve some kind of rotation.

The performance monitoring and external relation committee minutes of Sept. 15, 2010 are consistent with Griffith’s summary:

Michael Ford reported that a Request for Proposals for Auditing Services was issued to 20 auditing firms, and three responses were received. The incumbent firm, Rehmann Robson who has been under contract for ten years, received the highest score.

However, Sue McCormick found the process problematic as the reviewers came back with split views on the three proposers. Ms. McCormick reported on previous discussions at the Board level about implementing a policy to rotate auditors to insure a high level of scrutiny and avoid the situation of having one long‐term auditor which can lead to complacency.

Phil Webb outlined three options for next steps: re‐let the bid and get new proposals, hire the incumbent firm for the three year term, or hire the incumbent firm for a one year term and establish an audit rotation policy and issue a request for proposals for five years starting next fiscal year. Sue McCormick moved that the committee recommends that the Board authorize execution of a contract with Rehmann Robson based on the terms of the Request for Proposals, and report back to the committee within four months with a recommendation for an auditor rotation policy. Roger Kerson supported the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

During deliberations at the Sept. 16 board meeting on the award of a one-year contract to Rehmann Robson, David Nacht asked for clarification about the bidding. Sue McCormick reported that there were only three bidders and that the evaluation – based 60% on technical ability and 40% on cost – was somewhat inconclusive. If the evaluation had been only technical, she said, the choice would have tended in a different direction.

It gave her a reason to review the general policy on the awarding of auditing contracts, McCormick said, which was to award them for no more than five years. Rehmann Robson has been under contract for auditing services for the AATA for the last 10 years. There’s no policy in place, she said, to ensure a variety of perspectives from different auditors – no term limit on auditors, she said. But because the current firm is very familiar with the AATA, they are able to offer their services more cost effectively, McCormick said – they’re familiar with the AATA chart of accounts, for example. She said that for the time being the recommendation is to move ahead with a one-year contract and use the time to review the auditing policy.

Nacht concluded that this approach sounded reasonable. Bernstein also said he welcomed the process of reviewing the audit, but noted that every time they’d double-checked they’d always found they’d been in compliance. Nacht suggested that it might be worth it for PMER to take a look a specialist firms with experience in transit auditing.

Outcome: The resolution to award the one-year auditing contract to Rehmann Robson was unanimously approved.

Officers Elected (Redux)

The AATA had in July held an election of officers in the wake of the departure of Paul Ajegba and Ted Annis from the board. Ajegba had served as chair and Annis had served as treasurer. At July’s meeting, Jesse Bernstein was elected chair and Sue McCormick was elected treasurer.

Charles Griffith, the board secretary, served as the nominations committee for the election of officers for the 2010-2011 year and reported during the Sept. 16 meeting that the same three individuals were interested in continuing to serve. There were elected unanimously by acclimation: Bernstein as chair; McCormick as treasurer; and Griffith as secretary.

The committee structure would continue as before, said Bernstein. The planning and development committee (PDC) will be chaired by Rich Robben – he’ll be joined on that committee by David Nacht and Anya Dale. The performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER) will be chaired by Griffith, and he’ll be joined by McCormick and Roger Kerson. The board’s governance committee consists of the board chair, plus the chairs of PDC and PMER: Bernstein, Robben, Griffith.

Communications and Comments

As it typically does, the board heard reports from committee chairs and its CEO, along with various public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Countywide Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

Board chair Jesse Bernstein thanked the staff for all the work they’d been doing to educate the community about the countywide transportation master plan (TMP) that AATA has been developing over the last several months. That work will continue through the end of the year and into early 2011. As an example, he cited a presentation that AATA staff had given to a Willow Run neighborhood group, which had been so well received that the neighbors wanted the staff to return and tell them more.

At the meeting, the board also heard an update on the development of the TMP from Michael Benham. For a detailed description of the process of community engagement, which began several months ago, see previous Chronicle coverage: “AATA Moves Engagement Process into Gear.”

From The Chronicle’s previous coverage, here’s what the time line looks like:

• July 2010: Develop vision objectives for short, medium and long-term goals – 30 years into the future in very general terms. What do people want to see in terms of public safety, economic vitality, urban sprawl, and health. From understanding that, it would be possible that transit helps realize goals. Audit the existing situation and how it meets community needs. Look at the forecast for the next 30 years and see how those needs can be met.
• July-August 2010: Look at the current transit system and develop a needs assessment.
• September-November 2010: Develop a list of options – some of which already exist – and evaluate those against the community’s values. Sift and package the options into different scenarios. Hypothetical examples of the kind of scenarios that could be produced are a paratransit-intensive scenario, a rail-intensive scenario, a low-funding scenario or a high-funding scenario.
• November-December 2010: From the set of packaged scenarios, develop the preferred scenario.
• January-February 2011: Develop a Transit Master Plan, review of funding opportunities and implementation of plan.

The process is thus now in its “scenario building” phase. During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen reminded the board to make sure that the scenarios are subjected to an appropriate Title 6 (civil rights) analysis.

At the Sept. 16 meeting, the board expressed concerns about the process for development of the TMP centered on the board’s role – at what point will they be asked to weigh in? This was a question that Charles Griffith had conveyed from the performance monitoring and external relations committee before the TMP presentation.

The issue was taken up in slightly different form by David Nacht at the conclusion of Benham’s presentation, when he asked for details about how the technical recommendations from the consultant Steer Davies Gleeve would be integrated into the feedback from the community about what people say they want. Nacht wanted a way for the board to come to a consensus about what they’d found out from the first phase of the process. For example, he said, maybe they learn that the transit experts are recommending A, B, and C as options but that there is support in the community only for A and B. Nacht wanted a specific and concrete way of identifying that, not something vague.

Bernstein followed up on Nacht’s remarks by saying that as he spoke with various leaders throughout the county, he was struck by the need for education about what transit is and what the AATA already does. Sue McCormick noted that one of the challenges that is inherent in asking people what they need is that people sometimes don’t realize even what the range of options is. She suggested that the first kind of thinking needs to be broader, not narrower.

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council Report

Rebecca Burke gave the report from the local advisory council, which is the AATA body that provides advocacy for senior and disabled riders. She reported that the executive council of that body had appointed six members, the first three of which are re-appointments: Cheryl Weber, Mary Wells, John Kuchinski, Lena Ricks, Eleanor Chang, and Stephen McNutt.

Burke reported that she would be stepping down as the chair, with Karen Wanza taking her place.

Burke told the board that it had been a pleasure to work with them and said she’d been encouraged that the board had been open to working with the LAC. Board chair Jesse Bernstein thanked Burke for her work.

Comm/Comm: CEO’s Activity Report – Blake Transit Center

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, submits a written report of his monthly activities, which is included in the board’s information packet for each meeting. [.pdf of September 2010 CEO report] He typically reviews some of the highlights orally at the board meeting.

Michael Ford, AATA's CEO, before the meeting started is actually pointing out The Chronicle's reporter to an AATA staffer, not calling board chair Jesse Bernstein out at the plate.

At the board meeting, Ford expressed appreciation for the staff work on the budget. He mentioned that the Blake Transit Center (BTC) had been a focus of discussion by a Stakeholder Action Group (SAG) looking at the future of BTC. In May, the AATA hired an architect for the design of a new transit center at the existing location. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Hires Architect for Transit Center"]

The SAG includes representatives of the Ann Arbor District Library and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as well as the city of Ann Arbor. The redesign and reconstruction of BTC has been the subject of a conversation with the DDA about site planning for the entire block  between Fourth and Fifth avenues, north of William Street, for  several months. [See Chronicle coverage: "DDA Floats Idea for Fourth Avenue"]

The CEO report for September indicates that the previous plan to re-build the BTC exactly on the footprint of the existing facility may now be open for discussion:

The Stakeholder Action Group (SAG) held its second meeting in late August. At that time, the announcement was made that the City informed AATA that the surface lot to the south of the site is not available for additional on‐site bus parking capacity.

There is a prospective new look to the project; however. Consideration is being given for relocating the structure on the existing footprint, which would make possible expansion of the facility easier, should a portion of the adjacent surface lot become available in the future. The SAG reviewed the new site design option where the BTC would be positioned along the south property line and “centered” on the site. This would result in bus circulation directed toward Fifth Avenue, as opposed to away from Fifth, which is currently the case. The project team is studying the revised site proposal to make certain that the proposed design would not affect pedestrian and vehicular circulation for Library patrons.

The CEO report does not mention any connection between the new underground parking garage – currently being constructed on the Library Lot north of BTC – and a newly constructed BTC. When the city council approved the bonds for the underground parking structure at their Feb. 19, 2009 meeting, they also reduced the planned scope of the project. From Chronicle coverage:

Hohnke then proposed an amendment that would slightly reduce the scope of the project, by whittling around 100 spaces off the total through eliminating the Fifth Avenue extension all the way to William Street. Even the reduced number of spaces would represent roughly a 10% increase in the 5,000 spaces currently in the city’s off-street parking inventory, Hohnke said.

Queried by Mayor John Hieftje, Hohnke said that cost savings of removing the 100 spaces would be around $6 million.

By way of background, the Fifth Avenue extension of the underground parking garage was originally conceived as providing flexibility to connect under the street from the parking garage to whatever new building might be developed on the Fifth & William [aka Old Y lot] parcel. That same extension, which is not currently planned to be built, could connect to a newly constructed Blake Transit Center.

Comm/Comm: CEO’s Report – Public Forum

At the Sept. 16 board meeting, Ford also announced a forum for all AATA riders, including fixed-route service riders [i.e., the regular bus service] – which is scheduled for Oct. 21 at the Ann Arbor downtown library at 5:30 p.m. [In recent months, Tim Hull, during his public commentary, has called for some kind of regular mechanism for input from riders of the regular bus service that would be parallel to the local advisory council, which provides advocacy for the senior and disabled community.]

Charles Griffith also brought up the idea of additional rider forums, with the possibility of designating a time before regular board meetings. Staff will look into a variety of options, Griffith said.

Comm/Comm: New Board Meeting Venue

Jesse Bernstein opened the meeting by thanking the director of the Ann Arbor District Library, Josie Parker, and the downtown library itself for allowing the AATA to meet at that location, as well as the staff at CTN for providing the audio-visual technical assistance necessary for broadcast and taping. He concluded his remarks of appreciation by quipping that it would now be possible for the board to watch the meeting again and “find out what we did.” Video of the first meeting and all subsequent AATA board meetings will be available streamed on the web via CTN’s Video on Demand feature.

Comm/Comm: Roger Kerson’s Business Relationship

Board chair Jesse Bernstein noted that the AATA’s newest board member, Roger Kerson, had provided a communication to the effect of his businessmen relationship with the national transit workers union organization, and if there are any conflicts of interest there, Kerson will be recused from voting.

Comm/Comm: Ypsilanti Service, WALLY

Lawrence Krieg, founder of Wake Up, Washtenaw!, is a member of the Ypsilanti Township planning commission as well as the technical committee that is studying the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. He addressed the board at the start of the Sept. 16 meeting on the topic of proposed improvements to service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which they had considered at their August retreat. About the idea of increasing frequency of service during peak hours to every 10 minutes, Krieg said it was “excellent – go for it!”

As for the idea of increasing frequency of local Ypsilanti service, Krieg noted that most of the routes are loops, making them unattractive for choice riders, so he suggested a simpler two-way service instead. Express service during peak hours between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, he said, was a good idea but unlikely to succeed as proposed. The largest employment centers for Ypsilanti workers are north campus and the VA hospital, St. Joe’s, and Eastern Michigan University, so Krieg suggested that a better strategy would indicate a greater frequency on Route #3.

Krieg continued his remarks during the time allotted for public comment at the conclusion of the meeting. He said he was a frequent rider of the Michigan Flyer service to the airport and said that he’d welcome better coordination between AATA routes and the Michigan Flyer. Current service is quite good, he said, and he didn’t think AATA needed to operate an airport service itself.

Krieg also called for coordination with the UM College of Architecture and Urban Planning and the Ross Business School to help make the business case to private entities for investment in WALLY, the proposed Washtenaw-Livingston commuter rail line. He said the current down economy had put the brakes on WALLY, but that it would be an enhancement to the economy when things turned around.

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

Elizabeth Donahue Colvin told the board that she’d grown up riding Detroit buses and now rode the Ann Arbor buses – she appreciates having time to read on the bus. She also complimented the helpfulness of the AATA bus drivers. She said she lived in the Wall Street neighborhood and – with some of the condo associations, like Nielsen Square and Riverside Park Place – had written a letter to the UM board of regents expressing support of the Fuller Road Station project. UM had previously contemplated constructing two parking structures right in the Wall Street neighborhood – Colvin told the board they much preferred the location proposed for Fuller Road Station for those facilities. She asked the board to call on them, if there is anything they can do to help move that project forward.

Comm/Comm: Call for More Youth

Thomas Partridge, during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, said he’d reminded people for years that John F. Kennedy had visited Ann Arbor to move America forward. He called on the AATA to move the community forward with respect to transportation, focusing on modest goals. Among those goals, said Partridge, should be to put a friendly, more youthful face on management – not to be disrespectful of the long service of current managers.

David Nacht responded to Partridge’s comments by saying that he did not think Partridge meant to be discriminatory in his remarks, but that if someone stood at the podium and called on the board to get rid of all the females or all the people of a particular color or religion, it would jump out as discriminatory. Nacht said that he found the idea of replacing older staff with more youthful staff equally offensive.

Comm/Comm: More Notice, No Quorum

Tim Hull addressed the board on the topic of fall service changes, saying that they’d been put in place with little notice, one of which included the elimination of some stops on Briarwood Circle. He called for broader involvement in those decisions. Hull also told the board that he’d shown up in August at the library expecting to see the board meet, but they’d failed to achieve a quorum – he was surprised and disappointed.

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

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]