However, the one “resolved” clause requires that funds allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget ($50,000) cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board.

At the meeting, the board received a status report on the WALLY project from Michael Benham, a special assistant for strategic planning at AATA. Benham was hired in 2009 to handle the WALLY project. Since then, he’s become responsible for directing the development of the countywide transit master plan, which the AATA has developed over the course of the last year.

Highlights from Benham’s report included the fact that starting in 2008, AATA has spent a total of $102,853 on the WALLY project, while other partners have spent a total of $225,000. That money has been spent primarily on a study and public education efforts. As a part of the AATA FY 2012 budget, the AATA has included another $50,000 for the project, which requires the explicit approval of the board before it is spent. That money would be put towards station design.

Benham’s report identifies $16 million already invested by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation in track improvements, with $19 million worth of work still needed. Another $6 million in optional capital improvements is also identified.

Benham’s report projects that after the necessary capital improvements are completed to operate the commuter service, annual operating costs would amount to $5.4 million. Fares would be expected to cover $2.1 million of that, with another $1.4 million coming from the state’s Comprehensive Transportation Fund. That would leave another $1.9 million of local funding still to be identified.

[.pdf of WALLY status report (to reduce file size, does not include scans of letters of support)]

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

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein at the board's four-hour retreat held on Aug. 10 at Weber's Inn. He was, at the time, stressing the importance of setting some kind of time frame for progress on the WALLY north-south commuter rail project. (Photos by the writer.)

But at a special board meeting and retreat held on Tuesday at Weber’s Inn on Jackson Road, the board discussed a variety of specific strategic initiatives that have a somewhat shorter time frame for implementation.

In a four-hour session stretching from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., the board discussed and passed resolutions aimed to improve transportation between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, to the University of Michigan East Medical Center, and between the Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Ann Arbor.

In addition, the board authorized a lowering of the fare for the express commuter service between Canton and Ann Arbor. That fare change includes a decision to move the service in-house, instead of contracting the service out to Indian Trails. A similar change was made earlier this year for the Chelsea-Ann Arbor express bus service. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA on Chelsea Bus: Cut Fares, Add Wifi"]

Two resolutions that were not moved or voted on by the board – but which received animated discussion – involved the possible provision of vanpool services in the county by the AATA and the future of the Washtenaw-Livingston Line (WALLY) rail project.

In the area of capital improvements, the board also authorized a contract with DLZ Michigan to address a variety of infrastructure projects at the AATA headquarters on South Industrial Highway: installation and in-ground bus hoist; re-landscaping of the detention pond; expansion of the bus storage area; upgrades to the training room. The RFP for the contract also covered a potential park-and-ride lot at Glencoe Crossing Shopping Center on Washtenaw Avenue.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein also announced a Blake Transit Center advisory committee – which will include other community members – to provide input on the redesign and reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor transit center, located on Fourth Avenue south of Liberty. Bernstein will represent the board on the committee.

The various strategic initiatives will need to be explored in the context of the next budget year, which begins Oct. 1. So the board also received a budget overview at Tuesday’s meeting. They’ll sign off on the budget in September.

Against the Background of the TMP

The AATA is currently engaged in an extensive public engagement process to determine some kind of countywide community consensus for the kind of public transit residents would like to have in the long term – 30 years or more.  The result of that process is expected to be a transportation master plan (TMP), which should be completed in early 2011. The AATA board was briefed on the status of that initiative at its June 23 meeting. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Moves Engagement Process into Gear"]

At a June 23, 2010 media roundtable, AATA CEO Michael Ford addressed the issue of a risk that other shorter-term initiatives might be paused while the TMP is being developed. From The Chronicle’s report of that roundtable [emphasis added]:

Michael Ford indicated that the question of Ypsilanti service was on the agenda for the board retreat coming up in July. [Editor's note: The retreat/meeting was subsequently re-scheduled for Aug. 10] They’d be looking at options for Ypsilanti, he said, but not in a vacuum – the topic would be considered in the context of the city, county, and the DDA. The idea was not, Ford stressed, to put everything on hold until the TMP was complete.

The various initiatives addressed at Tuesday’s retreat/meeting at Weber’s Inn can be seen as the kinds of shorter-term efforts that will not be put on hold until the TMP is completed.

Service to East Ann Arbor Health Center

The question of service to the University of Michigan Health System’s East Ann Arbor Health Center, located on Plymouth Road, as well as to Domino’s Farms, has received comments at public meetings by residents for over a year.

From The Chronicle’s report of the  July 16, 2009 University of Michigan Regents meeting:

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen said that the transportation report had been a “Cliffs Notes” version, and doesn’t give a full representation of the community’s transportation picture. [...] He noted that it’s difficult to get bus service to UM’s medical campus on Plymouth Road in northeast Ann Arbor, and he urged the university to make sure they provide basic transportation access to their health facilities when they renegotiate their M-Ride contract with AATA later this year.

From The Chronicle’s report of the July 21, 2009 AATA board meeting:

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen spoke to the issue of the M-Ride contract extension. He stated that it was exciting that options were being explored like having the University of Michigan Medical Center participate in paying for M-Ride. He said that he hoped that the future negotiations will include public transit access to the UM East Medical Campus on Plymouth Road near Dixboro Road.

More recently, at the March 24, 2010 AATA board meeting, Sandra Holley and Carolyn Grawi both commented on service to Domino’s Farms, where the UM currently also has medical facilities.

Sandra Holley said she wanted to draw the board’s attention to the new Plymouth Road park-and-ride lot and the impact it had on routes. To get from the north side of town to Domino’s Farms on a public route – which should be a 15-minute trip – took two hours. First you have to go down Pontiac Trail to downtown Ann Arbor, transfer at the Blake Transit Center, ride to the UM hospital, then take the shuttle. She also noted that A-Ride, the AATA paratransit service, does not consider Domino’s Farms to be inside Ann Arbor, so the fare was $9 each way, not the $2.50 fare inside the city.

In support of Holley’s depiction, Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, said it took a good hour spread over three routes to get from CIL to Domino’s. [...]

At Tuesday’s retreat, Mogensen suggested that UMHS really should have planned for patient transportation when the facility was built. Putting the costs in perspective, he said the UMHS had an operating budget of roughly $1 billion a year, or  around $3 million every day. In three days, he said the UMHS spent as much money as the AATA collected for the year in its city transportation millage [roughly $9 million]. He would later characterize the amount it would take for the UMHS to provide public transit to EAAHC as so much “budget dust” for UMHS.

East Ann Arbor Health Center: Staff Presentation

The issue considered by the AATA board on Tuesday was phrased as a question:

Should The Ride pursue a partnership with UM to improve public transportation between Ann Arbor and the East Ann Arbor Health Center (EAAHC)/Domino’s Farms located north and south of Plymouth Road, just east of US‐23 in Ann Arbor Township?

The presentation to the board was given by Chris White, who is the AATA manager of service development. By the numbers, EAAHC has four separate entrances, 54 clinical units, and had 250,000 patient visits in 2009. Domino’s Farms has three separate entrances, 19 clinical units, and had 145,000 patient visits in 2009.

The patient visit numbers reflect a 33% increase in patient visits since last year and a 234% increase since 2005, White said. The University of Michigan bus route serving the EAAHC, operated by UM transportation services, is called the UM Intercampus Route. It’s a long, circuitous trip, he said. He explained that this was due in part to the fact that the route was originally designed as a circulator route for the central medical campus and the Wall Street/Maiden Lane area. It includes stops at Arbor Lakes, which is an administrative facility with 300 staff, but it’s not a location where patients are treated. That reflects the original conception of the Intercampus Route as primarily for staff transportation.

UM’s Intercampus Route currently serves a stop at EAAHC and three stops at Domino’s Farms. UM doesn’t keep records, but ridership is low. Service is every 20 minutes from 6:55 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. It requires four buses and costs UMHS about $700,000 a year. The stops and service level are determined by UMHS, not UM Transportation.

On the paratransit side, UM provides no service to EAAHC. The AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service – a demand-response service where riders need to call to make an appointment to be picked up – ends at the city limits. That’s one of the challenges, White explained – and a point made by Sandra Holley at the March 24, 2010 board meeting.

Since 2007, AATA has allowed A-Ride service to continue to Turner Geriatric Clinic within EAAHC, with UM paying cab fare for the portion of the trip east of US-23. Last year there were 1,980 A-Ride trips to Turner, 1,080 of them by a person with a disability. Of those, 340 required a non-taxi accessible vehicle. A-Ride trips are increasing in frequency to Turner Geriatric Clinic.

White said that UMHS didn’t consider patient transportation when designing the EAAHC. Why is there A-Ride service to Turner – within the EAAHC – but not to the rest of  EAAHC? It’s because Turner Geriatric Center was previously located in the city of Ann Arbor. When it was moved to EAAHC, that created concerns among seniors over the loss of A-Ride service, and at that time UMHS simply wanted a solution for Turner Geriatric, not the rest of the complex.

East Ann Arbor Health Center: Staff Presentation – Options

One option not recommended by AATA staff would be to end A-Ride trips to the Turner clinic and move an A-Ride transfer point to the Green Road park-and-ride lot, where the A-Ride service could connect with the Intercampus Route. That approach would provide no access for wheelchair users, though it would reflect a cost reduction to AATA of $15,ooo to $20,000 a year.

A second option also not recommended would be to extend A-Ride service to the entire EAAHC complex instead of limiting it to Turner Geriatric. UMHS would pay for the cost of the trip beyond the city limits. That would cost the AATA about $120,000 in the first year.

The third option, which was recommended by AATA staff, is to work with UMHS leadership to make a business case that they have a financial stake in transporting patients efficiently to EAAHC. That business case is based on the cost of missed appointments, the cost of the taxi portion of A-Ride trips, and the cost of operating the Intercampus Route.  The idea would be to negotiate a comprehensive solution that includes demand-response and fixed-route service, with UMHS shouldering the additional cost. The approach would include joint promotion of the use of fixed-route service as the main way that patients reach the center who don’t drive.

White indicated that St. Joseph Mercy Hospital had estimated the cost of missed appointments last year at $1 million.

East Ann Arbor Health Center: Board Deliberations

Roger Kerson, a recently appointed board member attending just his second full board meeting, asked for more specifics about what the business case for UMHS is. He noted that with almost 0.5 million patient visits, only a couple thousand patients use the service. White indicated that if you’re talking about 2% of the patients, that itself is significant.

AATA board member Roger Kerson at the Aug. 10 board retreat at Weber's Inn.

Kerson wanted to know if the idea was to create a direct AATA route from downtown Ann Arbor to EAAHC. White said that this was not necessarily the solution, but noted that there is significant overlap between the UMHS Intercampus Route and the AATA fixed-route service.

Charles Griffith wondered if it might still be necessary to operate a circulator service. White allowed that it would be inefficient to try to hit each entrance of the EAAHC facility, but that UMHS might take responsibility for a circulator.

Sue McCormick characterized the approach as a worthwhile endeavor to forge a partnership to look at the situation now, while the trip traffic is still building. She stated that there are “two bus companies in town” – AATA and UM. It was appropriate that they look at ways to cooperate, she said.

Jesse Bernstein wanted to know what the relationship was of this initiative to the connector study. That study, currently underway, contemplates enhanced transit service in the Plymouth-State street corridors. White said that it hadn’t been determined on which side of US-23 that potential signature corridor connector service would end.

McCormick asked if the local unit of government outside of the city had been engaged – that’s Ann Arbor Township. Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, indicated that he’d met with Michael Moran, the township supervisor.

The board considered a resolution that essentially answered the question, framing the issue in the affirmative.

Outcome: The board voted to approve the resolution expressing an intention to develop a partnership with the University of Michigan to expand transportation service to the EAAHC and to check for consistency with the transportation master plan (TMP) as that work is completed. Rich Robben, who’s employed by UM, abstained from the vote.

Vanpool Services

At the University of Michigan regent’s meeting on Dec. 17, 2009, Terry Alexander, executive director of the university’s office of campus sustainability, reported that more than 3,000 people have signed up to use the university’s GreenRide program, a system to help people find others interested in using carpools or vanpools. There are 86 UM vanpools, he reported, used by 527 people.

The van pools are operated by VPSI Inc. via a series of contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) through the MichiVan program. On Oct. 1, 2010 the state of Michigan is discontinuing its funding for MichiVan, but is providing an additional buffer period through September 2011. The state funding had depended on federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds, which will no longer be available.

Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, gave the presentation on vanpools.

The MichiVan vanpool program allows 7-15 people who live in a close enough cluster to share a ride to work in a vehicle provided by MichiVan, stored and driven by one of the commuters. UM pays 80% of the cost of the fare for its employees, so the actual cost to employees is $25 per month.

With the expiration of the MDOT contract with VPSI, the AATA sees an opportunity to get into the vanpool business and provide that as an additional mode in its transportation offerings. AATA is looking at RapidVan in Grand Rapids as a possible model, which has operated outside of the MichiVan program at a lower cost than MichiVan.

Vanpool: Staff Presentation

The staff presentation on vanpooling was made by Mary Stasiak, AATA’s manager of community relations. The framing question was this:

Should The Ride begin to incorporate vanpool services for Washtenaw County into AATA operations in FY2011?

The existing market for the vanpools is one key argument for AATA to take over the service. The 88 total vanpools currently operated by MichiVan carry 538 passengers, with origins all through southeastern Michigan and northern Ohio. What’s common to all of the vanpools geographically is that their destination is inside Washtenaw County.  Compared to a scenario where all 538 passengers drive their own car, vanpooling takes 450 cars off the road every day.

The estimated cost of operation, based on the RapidVan model, is $7,912 per van or a total of $696,228. Stasiak estimated the cost to purchase 88 vehicles at $23,800 per vehicle or $2.094 million total. The estimated operating revenues, assuming the existing vanpools and UM subsidies continue, would be $696,228. Based on National Transit Database formula funds, the operation of the 88 vans would yield an additional $400,000 per year in federal funds, due to the additional passenger service miles provided by the vans.

As part of the initiative, the AATA is contemplating the hire of a full-time vanpool coordinator at a salary of around $70,000.

Vanpool: Board Deliberations

Jesse Bernstein clarified several of the particulars of this scenario. He wanted to know if the vans would be leased or bought. The answer from AATA controller Phil Webb was they’d be bought. Bernstein also wanted to know what the average service life of a vehicle would be. The answer he got was around 4-5 years, based on the accumulation of around 100,000 miles.

Sue McCormick picked up on the 4-5 year lifespan of the vehicles, the roughly $2 million capital start-up costs to purchase them, and the $400,000 additional NTD formula funds, and concluded that the additional federal funds would roughly cover the cost of the van fleet replacement, meaning that vehicle cost to the AATA would be “a wash,” leaving just the $70,000 for the vanpool coordinator.

David Nacht wondered if it was a risk that the NTD formula funds might be discontinued. Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, indicated that the formulas have been in place for more than 25 years and he didn’t anticipate they’d be discontinued.

Rich Robben wanted to know if the current provider of vanpool services, VPSI, would become a competitor to AATA. Stasiak indicated that VPSI’s costs haven’t changed – for them to drop their costs down as low as RapidVan in Grand Rapids would be unusual, she said. AATA is looking at the RapidVan model as the key to its implementation. Throughout the state, she said, transit agencies are looking at operating vanpools themselves.

Michael Ford, AATA's CEO (left), chats with board member Charles Griffith before the start of the Aug. 10 retreat.

Stasiak clarified that VPSI would have a sole-source contract with MDOT from October 2010 through September 2011. Charles Griffith wanted to know why AATA would transition before October 2011. The idea seemed to be that AATA would use the coming year to position itself and to have people lined up.

Roger Kerson sought to understand what competitive advantage AATA had versus other potential suppliers of vanpool services. The answer was that AATA, as the local transit authority, has eligibility for NTD forumula funds. Kerson clarified that the NTD formula funds represent “money on the table” that VPSI is currently not capturing.

Jesse Bernstein wanted staff to explore the question of possibly buying the current vans that are in use. He also asked if the current fleet was accessible for wheelchairs – the answer was no. During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living thanked Bernstein for his awareness of that as an issue and encouraged the board to make its vanpool services accessible to those with disabilities.

McCormick indicated that she wanted the staff to look at cost efficiencies  related to coordination, but she thought vanpool services were appropriate for the AATA to consider as “the transit provider” in Washentaw County.

Kerson wanted to know if it was possible to brand the vans as AATA vehicles – the answer was yes.

Rich Robben expressed some concern about the assumption that AATA would be able to operate vanpools as inexpensively as Grand Rapids – AATA costs were typical not as low as in Grand Rapids. Stasiak indicated that one possibility was that AATA could join Grand Rapids’ contracts.

Kerson returned to the question of competition – would the AATA be the only game in town? The answer seemed to be yes. Bernstein indicated that part of the negotiation would be for the vanpool to have a dedicated parking spot at the destination.

David Nacht indicated that he’d feel more comfortable seeing a real financial calculation and to run the proposal through the board’s planning and development committee before spending $2 million.

Kerson also suggested fleshing out what it means to take 450 vehicles off the road in terms of carbon footprint. McCormick asked when the vanpool coordinator needed to be brought on board – the answer seemed to be way sooner than October 2011. Bernstein also asked staff to provide some additional information on what kind of qualifications a vanpool coordinator needs.

Outcome: No resolution on vanpool services was moved by the board or considered at the Tuesday meeting. The matter will be reviewed by the board’s planning and development committee.

Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Service

The idea of improving service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti has received increasing discussion in the community, including by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. DDA board members Newcombe Clark and Sandi Smith have both spoken recently about the need for better Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti service.

The topic was also addressed at a Friday, July 30, 2010 meeting among the DDA’s transportation committee and representatives from the AATA. In attendance were AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein, AATA board member Charles Griffith and CEO Michael Ford, along with executive director of the Ann Arbor DDA, Susan Pollay, and DDA board members Newcombe Clark, Sandi Smith, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat and Roger Hewitt.

Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Service: Staff Presentation

The staff presentation on Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti service was made by Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, who described it as “the main event!”

The framing question for the presentation was:

Should AATA pursue partnerships to fund improvements to worker transportation between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor? If so, does AATA have priorities for the type of service improvements?

White reminded the board of the fiscal constraints faced by Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township that have prevented AATA from making improvements to bus service between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. [Chronicle coverage: "Buses for Ypsi and a Budget for AATA." A non-binding proposal for a transit millage for Ypsilanti received approval from 70%  of voters on Aug. 3, 2010.]

White reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had indicated a willingness to consider providing funding for improved service and that other employers and organizations had also expressed a willingness to discuss funding.

The current routes serving the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti connection are routes #3, #4, #5, and #6. Ypsilanti local service is provided by routes #10, #11, and #20. During his presentation, White drew out the relationship between the local Ypsilanti service and the connector service to Ann Arbor. Improvements on the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti corridor might not realize their full potential without corresponding improvements to Ypsilanti’s local service.

Ridership on existing routes are as follows:

A2-Ypsi Routes     Avg Daily Pssngrs/
                   Boardings Srvc Hr

#3 Huron River     352        29
#4 Washtenaw       842        60
#5 Packard         333        30
#6 Ellsworth       334        28

Local Ypsi Routes

#10 Ypsi NE        472        39
#11 Ypsi S         331        39
#20 Ypsi Grv-Ecrs  558        51

-

The current “productivity” of the Ypsilanti routes, said White, is actually very good compared to the system-wide average of around 30 riders per service hour.

The main focus of the improvement to Ypsilanti service is Ann Arbor workers who live in the Ypsilanti area. Numbers of Ann Arbor workers who reside in areas that might be served by better Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti service are distributed among key surrounding areas as follows (2008 data): Ypsilanti, 2,015; Ypsilanti Township, 5,122; Superior Township, 1,319. That’s a total of 8,459 workers, or about 8.5% of Ann Arbor’s workforce.

White then walked the board through various scenarios for improvements to Ypsilanti service, with estimates of the increase in riders, based on computer modeling using data from the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS).

For example, by increasing the weekday service on Route #4 from once every 15 minutes to once every 10 minutes, it’s estimated that there would be 1,566 more daily rides at an annual cost to the AATA of $125,460 or $0.31 per rider. Another example of an option is to create a peak-hour express service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with an estimated travel time of 30 minutes – compared to the current 45 minutes. That express service would operated every 15 minutes. That would cost the AATA an additional $734,400 annually to operate, plus six new buses. That express service would generate an estimated 1,088 additional daily rides, which works out to $2.65 per rider.

White also presented evening and weekend options. For example, the extension of evening service on Route #4 to include an additional eastbound trip at 11:45 p.m. could be accomplished with an AATA annual investment of $28,560, projected to increase daily rides by 35, or a cost of $3.25 per rider.

Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Service: Board Deliberations

Roger Kerson wanted to know whether the additional riders reflected people getting out of their cars and into a bus, or if they reflected people just deciding to travel at all. White said that the numbers could include both – availability of transit, he said, can also induce people to travel.

About the estimated additional riders, White allowed that he would “not take the numbers to the bank” but that they were useful for comparing various options.

Charles Griffith wanted to know why the focus was on the Washtenaw Avenue routes as opposed to the local Ypsilanti routes. White explained that these routes were already the most productive, and it’s been identified as a signature corridor.

Sue McCormick was interested in managing expectations of when these route changes might be implemented. She asked that the board be provided periodic updates on them.

Jesse Bernstein recalled the express trains from his youth that were not simply point A to point B with literally no stops in between, but rather with a limited number of stops. White explained that this kind of express service was possible to implement but there is always pressure to add just one more stop. Against that, White allowed that there was a lot of frustration for a rider who is standing at a bus stop waiting for a bus and the express bus rolls by without stopping. Bernstein suggested that the express buses be clearly marked as such.

Chris White, manager of service development for the AATA (left), chats with AATA board member Anya Dale before the Aug.10 board retreat.

White explained that there were some time savings that come from eliminating stops, but the real time savings comes from skipping the area of the UM medical center. Anya Dale indicated that if 10 minutes could be saved off the trip from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti by omitting stops at the medical center, then it is important to know how relevant that destination is to people riding that route.

David Nacht wanted to know if it would be possible to charge an extra 50 cents for the express.

Roger Kerson reiterated a point he’d made earlier in connection with vanpooling – it would be useful to express the benefit from the route changes not just in terms of additional riders, but also to express it in terms of improvement to the carbon footprint as a result of those riders not driving a car.

With respect to the few numbers of extra riders involved with extending service to the later hours, Griffith said it might involve fewer people, but that the need was stronger – and that’s a policy issue, he said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a resolution to explore partnerships that could lead to improved service to Ypsilanti that is flexible enough to accommodate the eventual transportation master plan (TMP).

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metropolitan Airport

There’s been some frustration expressed by board members, in particular by David Nacht, that the AATA does not offer service to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. From the Feb. 18, 2009 Chronicle report of the AATA board meeting:

Part of what had prompted the east-west rail conversation was Nacht’s introduction of the topic of AATA service to the Detroit airport. In response to a query from Nacht, [Dawn] Gabay said that in 2002-03, they had approached the airport for consideration of east-west service and determined that it was at that time not feasible. Nacht asked if it had to do with a charge for entry to the airport facility. Gabay said there would be no charge for entry. What was the barrier then, wondered Nacht. Gabay said there was a possible lack of a state match, because operating east-west service to the airport might be taking business from a private operator already providing that service.

Nacht then noted that AATA routes had been altered to support a private service, and Gabay confirmed that the AATA routes had been changed to go closer to Wolverine Tower.

Nacht then declared that he would like to have active consideration of providing the Ann Arbor community with bus service to the airport. He said that he didn’t want to hear back simply, “It’s too expensive,” which prompted [Paul] Ajegba to observe that this seemed contradictory to the mission statement to provide service in a cost-effective manner. Griffith said Nacht wasn’t saying the cost doesn’t matter, which [Rich] Robben agreed with, saying  that it was a question of not wanting to dismiss it out of hand. Gabay said that the timing of such a service needed to be coordinated with east-west rail that might be going in.

Airport Service: Staff Presentation

The staff presentation was delivered to the board by Ed Robertson, AATA’s head of human resources. The framing question for the discussion was this:

Should The Ride provide regularly scheduled bus service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport?

In discussions with the airport, Robertson said, they’d been told that AATA would be assigned to the same drop-off spaces as SMART, which is Detroit’s public transit system. Although the airport charges a per-vehicle entry fee, as a public transportation authority, he said, AATA would be exempt from that charge. If AATA were to subcontract for the airport service, it’s not clear whether that same charge would be applied.

In sketching out the history of the AATA’s exploration of the issue, Robertson noted that the alternatives [to simply driving oneself or getting dropped off by a friend or family member] for travel between Ann Arbor and the airport consists of taxis and limos or rides on Michigan Flyer, which operates a regularly scheduled service between Lansing and the airport. Michigan Flyer had extended its service to include one stop in Ann Arbor – at the Sheraton Hotel at 3200 Boardwalk – and had also added extra trips just between the airport and Ann Arbor.

Much of the data from a previous carrier, Robertson said, is not useful because it predates the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York City, which led to increased airport security measures and different protocols, as well as predating the Detroit airport reconstruction and the current economic downtown.

Certain key facts, however, are the 70-mile round trip. Current fares are: Michigan Flyer, $20, or $30 round trip; SelectRide taxi, $29.50, or $49 round trip; Metro Cars limousine service, $50 each way.

Service that is not door-to-door almost always includes a parking component, and Robertson reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has offered reduced-cost long-term parking at the Fourth & William parking structure. When that topic was brought up at the Friday, July 30 meeting between AATA board members and members of the DDA board, a point of emphasis was the fact that if parking were anything but nominal, people would simply drive to the airport and pay for parking at the airport.

According to Michigan Flyer, about 27.5 passengers a day ride the service between Ann Arbor and the airport. AATA estimates that it would need three buses to operate hourly service from 2 a.m. through 10 p.m. – two on the road plus one spare. Robertson’s math was as follows: There would be 44 service hours per day, 365 days a year at $105 per service hour for an annual operating cost of $1.686 million a year. Subtracting $0.506 million in state operating assistance would leave $1.180 million.

Charging $15 per passenger, they’d need 78,700 passengers to break even. Dividing that total number of passengers by the 7,665 trips gives 11 passengers per trip, or 230 passengers a day to break even.

AATA would thus need to increase the ridership that Michigan Flyer currently enjoys – 27.5 per day – by 20-fold, in order to break even.

Airport Service: Board Deliberations

David Nacht said he appreciated the work that had been done. He noted that part of the problem in ridership might be the need to pay to park at the Sheraton – riders might feel like they might as well just drive to the airport where they can also pay for parking.

Nacht’s main theme during deliberations was not just getting people who live and work around Ann Arbor to the airport. He wanted to focus on getting people into Ann Arbor who were flying into Detroit. When you land at the airport, everybody learns you can gamble in Detroit, he said, but nobody knows Ann Arbor. He stressed the importance of forging partnerships with the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Nacht stressed that in thinking about costs for AATA to provide the airport service, it is important to note that the AATA collective bargaining agreement explicitly stipulates that the AATA would not need to use union drivers for that kind of service.

Sue McCormick observed that a popular way to provide door-to-door service in other communities is to provide collector-van-shuttle services.

Nacht declared that he was a little frustrated. He said he was willing to spend a little money on things that Ann Arborites might actually use. Airport service, he said, is one thing that people might actually use, but what he gets, he said, is constantly such “pushback” with proposals that are slow and unimaginative. “I can’t begin to express my frustration!”

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, assured Nacht that staff were, in fact, pursuing other partnerships. He allowed that the resolution language was perhaps not as clear as it could be.

Rich Robben said he agreed with Nacht, but wondered if the market was being satisfied with the current combination of methods, why does AATA need to enter the market? He wondered if a $5 savings was really going to move someone to switch their service option.

Nacht said he wanted the resolution to address the development of partnerships on the demand side.

Roger Kerson noted that in order to break even, there would need to be huge increase in ridership over Michigan Flyer’s numbers. He agreed that there needed to be a bigger marketing effort – he flies frequently yet had never heard of Michigan Flyer. He also agreed on the importance of parking being provided essentially free – otherwise, people will just drive to the airport and pay for parking there.

Kerson also suggested that the AATA tap into UM’s frequent booking of flights – every time someone books a flight, they could get a coupon for the AATA airport service, he suggested.

A general consensus seemed to be that it might make the most sense to partner with Michigan Flyer to help expand and promote its provision of service, instead of the AATA trying to provide its own direct service to the airport.

Jesse Bersnstein, noting that the resolution before the board did not require any actual expenditures at that moment, suggested it could do no harm to pass it.

Nacht wanted the resolution amended so that the kind of partnerships to be developed were not restricted to those providing transportation and could include partners that could increase demand.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a resolution to develop partnerships to expand the frequency and coverage of airport service.

Washtenaw Livingston Rail (WALLY)

On Oct. 28, 2008 at a special meeting, the board adopted a resolution stating that AATA would take a leadership role for the Washtenaw Livingston Line (WALLY) project. Staff member Tom Cornillie was assigned to the project, which envisions commuter rail service from Howell to Ann Arbor along existing tracks owned mostly by Great Lakes Central Railroad. Cornillie left the organization to take on different employment, and Michael Benham was hired to replace him.

WALLY: Staff Presentation

The framing question for the staff presentation was this:

Under what conditions do we continue our support for WALLY Commuter Rail?

Benham began by ticking through some of the improvements that had already been funded by MDOT: track work and train layover facilities, $5.5 million; rehab of 15 railcars, $4 million; lease of railcars and locomotives – responses to RFP under review with costs not yet known. Grade crossing and signal improvements have been engineered by MDOT staff, but the funding and source of that funding have not yet been determined.

Michael Benham of the AATA talks about the need to have a connector service between Fuller Road Station and stations on the WALLY line.

Funding for stations – platforms, parking, linkages – is still needed. Total cost for that, which is expected to be the responsibility of local communities, is estimated at around $4.3 million.

Annual operating cost for WALLY is estimated at $7.1 million, with $1.5 million of that to come from the Michigan Comprehensive Transportation Fund, $2.1 in passenger fares (assuming 1,300 riders a day), and $1.3 million in railcar and locomotive lease covered by MDOT. An annual operating subsidy has not yet been identified to cover the unfunded $2.2 million balance.

Among the risks identified by Benham were the possibility that other local communities might not want to take on responsibility of building stations, and that MDOT would identify other priorities. He also identified a political risk – if there is diminished public support for the WALLY project, it might have a negative effect on support for an eventual countywide transit millage.

The major risk, however, is that Ann Arbor Railroad might not cooperate. Ann Arbor Railroad owns the key piece of track, from mile marker 47.5 near Barton Drive to points south. Even to end the WALLY service at that point, Benham said, it would require use of 500 feet of track past the 47.5 mile post. What they’d like ideally is to be able to go further south two more miles to the football stadium, and even better would be to go all the way to Toledo.

He noted that the tracks in question do cross those planned for the east-west commuter rail, but that it’s not possible to engineer a direct transfer for passengers.

WALLY: Board Deliberations

After getting clarification from AATA controller Phil Webb that AATA had spent $50,000 per year for the last three years on the project, David Nacht noted that the AATA had previously passed a resolution accepting a leadership role for WALLY and said he saw no reason to go on record today about it. He said he didn’t think they had any new information.

Sue McCormick noted that what was missing from the resolution was any “carrot” that would provide anyone with an incentive to keep AATA on board with the project. The proposed language read in part “AATA will continue its support of the WALLY project as long as MDOT is supportive and as long as there continues to be a reasonable level of support from the WALLY host communities.” She expressed that staff might feel hamstrung if the resolution were not passed.

Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, indicated that they would love to see the resolution passed, which expressed qualified support.

Jesse Bernstein picked up on Nacht’s comment that there was no new information by saying that no more information is actually information. It’s only verbal support, he said, and it is important to put a time limit on this – if in six months these things haven’t happened, “we’re done!” Bernstein said he’d heard that Ann Arbor Railroad might now be interested in talking – their freight business wasn’t what it used to be, with cement plants closing and the like. There is some interest in offloading shipping containers in Toledo, he reported, and moving them by rail northwards.

“It feels to me like we’re stymied,” Bernstein said. “We’re not moving forward … We need to have an end in sight or it will just drag on and on.” He allowed that he was just one person and didn’t speak for the whole board, but “we just have to say…” – however, instead of finishing the sentence, Bernstein concluded by saying, “I can’t say what I just thought!”

Roger Kerson responded to Bernstein by saying that he understood the frustration, but noted how important a project WALLY could become if it were a success. So he did not want to pull the plug on it, he said. The lead agency should not convey that it’s ready to give up on the project, he said.

Board member Sue McCormick was seated between board member Roger Kerson (on her right) and CEO Michael Ford (on her left.)

McCormick concurred with Kerson, saying it was a matter of phrasing the resolution so that it expressed as milestones what the AATA’s partners need to accomplish in order for AATA to continue with its efforts.

Rich Robben also advised against “drawing a line in the sand,” saying that it overlooked the work that its partners had already done. That approach would give strength to people who don’t want to participate, he cautioned.

Nacht said it was helpful that Bernstein had made his statement and that others had made their statements, and that he didn’t see the need for the board as a group to make a statement that day. He acknowledged the work done by the staff and recalled that he’d sat at the same table with Congressman John Dingell when he’d served as chair of the AATA board [two years ago] and he’d told Dingell that the AATA would move the project forward. He concluded that the project makes sense and that he hopes the project will make sense to those who have money.

Outcome: The board did not move or vote on a resolution on WALLY.

Canton Express

On a pilot basis, the AATA has operated commuter bus service from Chelsea to Ann Arbor since May 2008, and from Canton since August 2009. Neither service has met hopes for ridership. In March, the board voted to bring the Chelsea service in-house using AATA buses and to cut fares from $125 per month to $99. Previously the service had been contracted out with Indian Trails. Riders are primarily University of Michigan employees and their fares are subsidized by the university.

Canton Express: Staff Presentation

The framing question on Canton express service was this:

Should AATA bring the fare structure of the Canton Express Service into line with the fare structure for the Chelsea Express Service?

Michael Benham walked the board through arguments for taking the service in-house and reducing fares that were similar to those they’d heard back in March when the fares for the Chelsea service had been reduced. AATA estimated that they could save roughly $94,000 a year in operating costs, compared to what it cost to contract out the service to Indian Trails.

Their goal is to double the ridership on the service – that would bring them to a break-even point, Benham said.

Canton Express: Board Deliberations

David Nacht wondered if by using a smaller vehicle to deliver the service it might be possible to charge as little as $75 instead of $99. He encouraged the staff not to be wedded to one model of service delivery.

Roger Kerson questioned whether doubling ridership was realistic. He asked what the universe of potential riders is.  Chris White replied that a lot of that was tied to what people’s work schedules are.

He reported that one of the express buses would be included in the Chelsea Festival Parade.

Rich Robben wondered if by using an AATA bus, the authority was in effect subsidizing operations by providing the bus. Jesse Bernstein concurred that it was a question that is relevant and needs to get an answer.

Nacht said it was okay that the AATA was learning how to provide this kind of commuter bus service. In contrast to the train business – which the AATA may or may not get into, he said – commuter bus service was something they needed to stay committed to.

Kerson asked if there was any information available on the impact of the fare reductions on the Chelsea route since March. Not yet, was the answer.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a resolution to reduce fares on the Canton express route.

Other Public Commentary

In addition to the remarks of Jim Mogensen and Carolyn Grawi, which are reflected in the body of this report, two others addressed the board during public commentary time.

Vivienne Armentrout thanked the board for making the meeting accessible to the public – by providing the audience with copies of the many different handouts that accompanied the presentations.

Thomas Partridge spoke at the start and at the end of the meeting. He called on the board to make their meetings accessible to the public by holding them in a location where they could be taped on CTN.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein followed up on Partridge’s remarks by noting that starting with the board’s next meeting on Aug. 19, the meetings would be recorded using facilities at their new meeting location – the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.

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

Next regular meeting (NOTE NEW LOCATION): Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

A draft of the resolution with the recommendation was to be sent to all board members for review late Wednesday. If the full DDA board approves the resolution at its next meeting on May 5, city councilmembers who are up for re-election this year may not have to campaign under the shadow of police and firefighter layoffs. The $2 million from the DDA would allow the city council some flexibility in amending the FY 2011 city budget, before it is adopted at the council’s second meeting in May. That budget was formally introduced at the council’s April 19 meeting and showed a roughly $1.5 million deficit. It also included some police and firefighter layoffs.

But how much of the $2 million will be put towards avoiding layoffs versus offsetting the deficit is far from clear. Two city councilmembers attended the DDA operations committee meeting: Sandi Smith, who also serves on the DDA board; and Margie Teall, who serves on the council’s sub-committee appointed for the purpose of renegotiating the parking agreement between the city and the DDA. Last year, the city council and the DDA board each appointed a committee for the purpose of renegotiating that agreement.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Smith said it was not certain whether layoffs could be avoided with the $2 million payment or if so, how many could be avoided. Smith’s contention that there was no guarantee the $2 million would avert layoffs came in response to one of several sharp questions put to his fellow DDA board members by Newcombe Clark. Clark began the discussion by asking if the $2 million was tied to anything.

In the course of the discussion, it was made clear that the $2 million would be tied neither to a promise of no layoffs at the city, nor made contingent in any way on specific progress towards a renegotiation of the parking agreement between the DDA and the city.  It would also not be tied to the implementation of any part of a “term sheet” that will form the basis of the city-DDA discussions in the coming months.

Key aspects of that “term sheet” are the idea that regular payments will be made to the city, that the DDA will assume some responsibility for parking enforcement, and that the city will be “held harmless” in any revenue loss associated with cessation of its enforcement activities.

But by the end of the discussion, Clark had eked out a victory of sorts: a provision in the draft resolution that ties the $2 million to a public process, from this point forward, for the city-DDA negotiations. They have been going on a few months now out of public view. In that regard, the resolution can be fairly be analyzed as a fresh commitment to the committee structure, with its associated expectations of public process, that the two bodies had already adopted, but not implemented for discussing the parking agreement.

Background: The Parking Agreement of 2005

We begin with the basic background on the parking agreement between the city and the DDA, which was a $10 million deal struck in 2005, extending through 2015. It’s that deal that underpins the current discussion on the $2 million payment the DDA is now contemplating.

Since 1992, the DDA has administered the city’s parking system on properties owned or leased by the city of Ann Arbor. Set to expire in 2012, the agreement was extended in 2005 through 2015 – in light of the financial challenges the city faced in that year – to provide additional revenue to the city. In broad strokes, it was a $1 million-per-year deal, with the added wrinkle that the city could request up to $2 million from the DDA in any given year, provided the total over 10 years did not exceed $10 million. From the DDA board’s 2005 resolution:

Whereas, The City is facing a funding crisis and has asked the DDA to significantly increase its payments under this Agreement in order to help the City address this crisis;
Whereas, The City and the DDA agree that the DDA can afford this increase only if the City and DDA cooperate to increase revenues into the DDA;
Whereas, Both the City and the DDA agree that the DDA is a separate governmental entity that has a statutory responsibility to support and expand community values and services in the City’s downtown and near downtown neighborhoods;
[...]
3. Increase the annual rental fee paid to the City for use of City parking facilities to $1,000,000.00/year beginning with the 2005/06 fiscal year, for a total of $10,000,000.00 during the ten year period of the Agreement.
4. During the period of July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2015, provide the City the opportunity to draw an advance on future rent not to exceed one full year’s rent, thus providing for up to two year’s rent on any year. Any request by the City for pre-payment must be made to the DDA by December 1st of the preceding year so as to be included in the DDA’s annual budget.

The situation now confronting the city is one anticipated by DDA board member Rob Aldrich in 2005: What happens if the city requests $2 million each of the first five years? From the board minutes of the March 2, 2005 meeting:

Mr. Aldrich asked if it would be possible for the City to draw the full $10 million in the first 5 years; Mr. Solo said yes. Mr. Aldrich asked what would happen in year six, which is to say, would the City be satisfied to receive no further rent for the remaining five years. There was no response to this question.

In the city’s fiscal year terms, FY 2011 is “year six.” At that March 2, 2005 meeting, representing the city was councilmember Leigh Greden (Ward 3) who was filling in for mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board as mayor.

Other members of the DDA at the time were: Ron Dankert, Bob Gillett, Rene Greff, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, Sandi Smith, Dave Solo, Rob Aldrich, Fred Beal, Gary Boren, Dave DeVarti, Leah Gunn. Of those, remaining now in 2010 are Hewitt, Hieftje, Smith, Boren and Gunn.

Background: Foundations of Good and Bad Faith

Based on the March 2, 2005 DDA board meeting minutes, then-councilmember Leigh Greden, who was filling in for mayor John Hieftje at the board meeting, gave an assurance on the part of the city that it was not the intent to ask for $2 million beyond the first year of the agreement [emphasis added]:

Mr. Solo said that approving this resolution does not preclude renegotiations at any time, by either the City or the DDA. Mr. Greden commented that the City would have to agree to renegotiate in the future, and that it was important to note that it was not the intent of City Council to rely on this money more than to get them through the next few years. City Administration and Council have put in place short- and long-term strategies to solve the structural budget deficit, and have budgeted for $2 million only in the first year.

The fact that the city ultimately did request $2 million each of the first five years is one possible reason for a perception by some DDA board members of poor faith on the part of the city.

Another reason some DDA board members might perceive a historical lack of good faith on the city’s part can be traced to a DDA development plan for three different downtown parcels that was in the works back in 2005, in the same time frame as the parking agreement was renegotiated. It was known as the “3-Site Plan.”

The 3-Site Plan was an effort to develop city surface parking lots, including lots at First & William, First & Washington and the Kline’s lot – on the east side of Ashley Street, between William and Liberty. The concept underpinning of the 3-Site Plan was that parking could be decoupled from development – build a parking structure at First & William and free up the other two sites for development without the constraint of building on-site parking.

But instead of pursuing the 3-Site Plan in 2005, Ann Arbor’s city council opted to create a Greenway Taskforce to explore the possibility of incorporating the First & William lot into a greenway along the Allen Creek creekshed. And in July 2009, the city council passed a resolution  expressing the desire to see the lot become a park, when money for environmental cleanup could be identified. [Chronicle coverage "First & William to Become Greenway?"]

The First & Washington site now has an approved site plan for City Apartments – a combined residential/parking development by Village Green. Nothing has been built because of a lack of financing for the developer. Its site approval has been extended by the city administrator until June 30, 2010, after which additional city council action will be required to allow more time for the project to move forward. No similar progress has been made on the Kline’s lot.

The reporting of Tom Gantert of The Ann Arbor News during 2005 chronicles the struggle between supporters of a greenway and supporters of the 3-Site Plan, which was championed by the DDA, through the better part of the year. [Ann Arbor News archives from 2003 until it closed last year are available from the Ann Arbor District Library's online research portal.]

The friction that year between greenway and 3-Site Plan supporters was reflected in friction between DDA board members and city councilmembers, as well as between the city’s planning commission and the city council. At the time, mayor John Hieftje was accused of trying to prevent the city’s planning commission from holding its own public hearing on the matter, in part by preventing CTN coverage of their planned hearing.

The attitude of some at the DDA towards the idea of decoupling the First & William parcel from the 3-Site Plan was essentially that it would be better to start from scratch: From a June 28, 2005 Ann Arbor News article by Gantert:

[DDA executive director Susan] Pollay did show the DDA’s commitment to its plan when she said was asked about “unhitching” First and William from the proposal.

“Unhitching a piece of it?” Pollay asked, repeating the question. “You may as well start afresh.”

Hieftje said that was the first time he’d heard Pollay say it’d be better to scrap the plan than break up what has been pitched as a “three-site plan.”

But by the end of 2005, a 2-Site Plan compromise had evolved. It involved development just of the Kline’s lot and the First & Washington lot.

Do some at the DDA have lingering ill feelings because the outcome of the political process didn’t go their way on the 3-Site Plan? Yes – but it’s about more than a lost political battle.

It’s the fact that when the parking agreement was negotiated in 2005, there was a conscious expectation on the part of the DDA that if the $10 million parking agreement was approved, the city council would approve the 3-Site Plan. In an April 28, 2010 email sent to all members of the current DDA board, plus current city councilmembers, former DDA board member Rene Greff put in writing what she’d told The Chronicle a couple weeks earlier in a telephone interview. [Though she no longer serves on the DDA board, Greff attended Wednesday's operations committee meeting.]

Specifically, Greff writes that in 2005 the DDA’s negotiating team saw a link between the parking deal and the 3-Site Plan:

But the council members on our committee cautioned that we couldn’t link the increased rent with the 3 site plan in writing because that would make it look like the DDA was bribing council for passage of the three site plan. And besides, we were all working in good faith and knew that the city was going to approve the 3 site plan.

But those 2005 negotiations were conducted out of public view. Greff told The Chronicle that numbers of councilmembers and DDA board members present were consciously chosen to be fewer than a quorum to avoid Open Meetings Act requirements, and that the committee had chosen meeting locations to avoid being discovered by Gantert. In her April 28, 2010 email, Greff calls the meetings “clandestine.”

In her phone interview with The Chronicle, Greff allowed that she’d been complicit in keeping the meetings out of public view. She said that as a relatively new member of the DDA board, she’d relied on Leigh Greden’s assurance that “this is how things are done,” with things worked out in private before they’re made public.

The lesson she drew, she said, was that to protect the interests of the DDA, keeping the process public was important.

Committees, Expectations of Public Process

Although the process that began in January 2009 to renegotiate the parking agreement between the city and the DDA began with the expectation of a public process, up to now it has been shielded from public view. And Wednesday’s operations committee found DDA board members attributing that shielding to the lingering hurt feelings from 2005.

How did the renegotiation process start? It can be traced to the fact that the city of Ann Arbor plans in two-year financial cycles, even though it adopts budgets one year at a time. Back in January 2009, councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noticed that for the FY 2011 plan, which was the second year in the 2010-11 two-year cycle, the city had “penciled in” a $2 million payment from the DDA – despite the fact that the existing parking agreement did not require such a payment.

Smith brought forward a resolution to the city council, which it passed, asking the DDA to begin a discussion. The DDA responded by appointing a committee tasked to negotiate the parking agreement with a corresponding committee of the city council. The council was not swift in appointing its own committee, with some councilmembers expressing reservations about the membership on the DDA’s committee.

At Wednesday’s operations committee meeting, DDA board member Newcombe Clark observed that for 15-months, the city council had been unwilling to engage in dialog, partly because they didn’t like who would be sitting across the table from them.

Russ Collins responded to Clark, contending that he did not know that was the case, saying he had not heard that or read that, allowing that perhaps he should read other things.

Reading a timeline overview of the relevant history, which summarizes material The Chronicle has published twice previously, confirms Clark’s claim [See Chronicle coverage: "Parking Report Portends DDA-City Tension" and "DDA Retreat: Who's On the Committee?"]:

• Jan. 20, 2009: City council passes a resolution asking the DDA to begin discussions of renegotiating the parking agreement between the city and the DDA in a mutually beneficial way.
• March 4, 2009: DDA board establishes a “mutually beneficial” committee to begin discussions of the parking agreement between the city and the DDA. On the committee: Roger Hewitt, Gary Boren, Jennifer S. Hall, and Rene Greff. The DDA’s resolution establishing their committee calls on the city council to form its own committee.
• May 20, 2009: During the mid-year DDA retreat, mayor John Hieftje states publicly that city councilmembers object to the membership of Jennifer S. Hall and Rene Greff on the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee.
• June 3, 2009: DDA board chair Jennifer S. Hall removes herself from DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, replacing herself with Russ Collins.
• June 15, 2009: Mayor John Hieftje nominates councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4), Leigh Greden (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) to serve on the city council’s “mutually beneficial” committee, and they’re confirmed at the city council’s July 20 meeting.
• July 1, 2009: DDA board chair Jennifer S. Hall appoints Sandi Smith to replace outgoing DDA board member Rene Greff (whose position is filled with Newcombe Clark) on the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee. Smith is also a city councilmember, representing Ward 1.
• August 2009: Leigh Greden is defeated in the Democratic primary by Stephen Kunselman.
• August-December 2009: Sandi Smith, the chair of the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, reports at each monthly DDA board meeting that there is nothing new to report.
• Dec. 5, 2009: Dissolution of the DDA is included in an “everything is on the table” list for discussion at the city council’s budget retreat.
• January-April 2010: Roger Hewitt reports at monthly DDA board meetings that only informal discussions are taking place.

As The Chronicle has reported previously, the expectation that the two committees would meet publicly rests on a 1991 city council resolution stipulating that even sub-committees of public bodies that do not constitute a quorum are expected, to the best of their abilities, to conform with the Open Meetings Act:

R-642-11-91

RESOLUTION REGARDING OPEN MEETINGS FOR CITY
COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TASK FORCES

Whereas, The City Council desires that all meetings of City boards, task forces, commissions and committees conform to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act;

RESOLVED, That all City boards, task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees hold their meetings open to the public to the best of their abilities in the spirit of Section 3 of the Open Meetings Act; and

RESOLVED, That closed meetings of such bodies be held only under situations where a closed meeting would be authorized in the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.

Expectations of Public Process Not Met

No meetings of their respective “mutually beneficial” committees have ever been acknowledged by either the city council or the DDA board at any of those bodies’ regular meetings. However, starting in early January of this year, members of the committees – with the addition of councilmember Christopher Taylor, who was not appointed as part of the council’s committee – began the work of renegotiating the parking agreement in the guise of a “working group.” From the “term sheet” memo that was circulated at Wednesday’s operations committee meeting:

MEMORANDUM
To: DDA Board
From: Gary Boren
Russ Collins
Roger Hewitt
Carsten Hohnke
Sandi Smith
Christopher Taylor
Margie Teall
CC: Roger Fraser
Susan Pollay
Re: City of Ann Arbor – DDA Operations
Date: April 28, 2010

In conversations beginning after the New Year, Roger Hewitt approached a number of us in order to discuss additional areas of possible cooperation and resource allocation between the DDA and the City of Ann Arbor. As a result of these conversations, this working group formed to sketch the framework of what could be a new relationship between the DDA and the City. That general framework is described below.

The term “working group” in this context was first encountered by The Chronicle in conversation with Christopher Taylor, when he arrived on the third floor of the Larcom Building on Friday afternoon, April 16 to attend a meeting of the “working group.” Taylor seemed visibly surprised to see The Chronicle waiting there. We had learned of the scheduled meeting the previous Wednesday, when Russ Collins mentioned it at the DDA board’s partnerships committee meeting.

Asked if he was also there to attend the meeting of the “mutually beneficial” committees, Taylor rejected the idea that the committees were going to meet, saying that it was “more of a working group.” He’d been asked to participate by Roger Hewitt, Taylor said.

As The Chronicle previously reported, city administrator Roger Fraser then refused to allow The Chronicle to attend. In barring The Chronicle from the meeting, Fraser rejected the applicability of the 1991 council resolution that requires the meetings of city sub-committees to comply with the Open Meetings Act, contending it was not a sub-committee of the council that was meeting.

Present in addition to Fraser were six others: Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA; DDA board members Roger Hewitt, Sandi Smith and Russ Collins – all members of the DDA’s committee established to discuss the parking deal; and city councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Hohnke is on the council’s committee, while Taylor is not. Missing from the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee at the meeting was Gary Boren.

In rejecting the applicability of the 1991 resolution, Fraser may have been relying on the idea that Smith, Taylor and Hohnke – though a committee-like subset of councilmembers that were part of a “working group” –  did not constitute the appointed sub-committee of the council. The DDA’s committee, however, had three of its four members present, constituting a quorum of its members.

Following Wednesday’s DDA operations committee meeting, Sandi Smith told The Chronicle that a meeting that included the city’s committee did take place in the fall of 2009. However, that meeting didn’t go anywhere, she said, attributing it to Leigh Greden’s defeat in the August primary.

The work of producing the “term sheet,” Smith said, was accomplished largely through rotating one-to-one meetings, not group meetings. In explaining why the process had been kept out of the public view up to that point, Smith echoed a sentiment that Russ Collins had expressed during the meeting, when he said that the parties needed the initial privacy to get to a place where they could have a dialogue – otherwise they’d just be throwing spitballs across the table, Collins said. Collins described the “term sheet”  as a “beachhead” for communication, and the conversation needs to unfold now publicly.

Hearing the phrase “beachhead” from Collins more than once prompted Smith to kid him: “Define that for me, Russ.”

In her post-meeting conversation with The Chronicle, Smith attributed that initial barrier to communication between the city and the DDA to a “culture clash” and lingering resentment about the failure of the city council to approve the 3-Site Plan back in 2005.

Why the DDA Operations Committee Met

To set the context of Wednesday’s DDA operations committee meeting, where the recommendation to pay $2 million to the city of Ann Arbor was discussed, it’s worth reflecting on why the committee met.

The short answer is that the operations committee of the DDA always meets on the last Wednesday of the month, which works out to be the week before the meeting of the full board.

The topic of the $2 million payment may have turned up on the operations committee’s agenda in any case. But the thing that virtually guaranteed it would be discussed on Wednesday was a conversation at the end of the partnerships committee meeting two weeks earlier.

At that meeting, Newcombe Clark had questioned why the partnerships committee had not considered  a resolution to bring before the full board on the $2 million question. He noted that timing of the city’s budget process – adoption by the city council before the end of May – meant that the full DDA board would need to vote at its next monthly meeting  (May 5) on converting the $2 million contingency in the DDA’s budget to a payment to the city.

At the partnerships committee meeting, Clark questioned whether the resolution could be brought to the board without recommendation by a DDA board committee. And when it was suggested that the “mutually beneficial” committee could make the recommendation to the full board, Clark questioned whether it could do that as an ad hoc committee.

At issue was adherence to the DDA bylaws. The city of Ann Arbor’s need for the $2 million could be analyzed as a “request for funding” under the DDA bylaws:

Section 10 – Requests for Funding. The Board may not act upon a request for funding unless the request has been referred to a committee of the Board for review and recommendation. In the event that a committee has not made a recommendation to the Board within 60 days from the time that the request was first presented to the Board, the Board may, by majority vote, bring the proposal to the Board for consideration without benefit of the committee recommendation.

[Approval of amendments to the DDA bylaws, which have been approved by the DDA board, are on the city council agenda for its May 3 meeting. Section 10 does not contain any proposed revisions.]

At the partnerships committee meeting, the issue was settled when Clark asked for and received from the rest of the partnerships committee an assurance that there would be at least a seven-day notice of any resolution on the $2 million question. Said Clark: “I think that it’s reasonable to have seven days notice before we have an item that’s going to make the board meeting crazy.”

The seven-day assurance meant that the last opportunity for a standing committee to review the $2 million resolution before the May 5 board meeting was at the operations committee meeting.

What’s Tied to the $2 Million, If Anything?

Deliberations at the operations committee meeting began with the distribution of the “term sheet.” Several minutes went by as those who were seeing the document for the first time read through the text. It features in most significant part the idea of unifying the administration of the parking program and the enforcement of parking fines with a single entity – the DDA. That’s consistent with The Chronicle’s previous analysis of the DDA’s recent parking plan as an implicit pitch by the DDA to the city to assume responsibility for enforcement of parking rules downtown. [Chronicle coverage: "Parking Report Portends City-DDA Tension"]

The “term sheet” envisions signing an actual contract by Oct. 31, 2010, which is just before the general election in the fall.

DDA board member Russ Collins called the “term sheet” document a “beachhead” that was established to begin a dialog, one that members of the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee felt would ultimately be fruitful and beneficial. At that point, Newcombe Clark sought to clarify if the idea was to pay the $2 million because of the start to the dialog.

If it was something else besides the start to the dialog that was to result in the $2 million payment, Clark wanted to know what that was. If there was nothing else, he wanted to know what the urgency was about the timing. Collins answered that it had to do with the timing of the city’ budget cycle. Clark observed that the current city budget as proposed by the city administrator, if enacted, would include layoffs. So he asked if the idea was to make the $2 million payment in order to guarantee no layoffs.

Sandi Smith, speaking from the perspective of a city councilmember, indicated that the outcome of the community conversation over the next two weeks would affect whether there are layoffs or not – it was unsure whether the $2 million would avert layoffs, and if so, how many, she said.

If the $2 million was to be paid just because the city was now talking to the DDA, wondered Clark, what would happen in November if no progress had been made towards working out the contract?

Smith allowed that there was “an element of faith” involved. Margie Teall, who represents Ward 4 on the city council and who was also present at the table for Wednesday’s DDA operations committee meeting, indicated that the faith was based on more than just the fact that there is a great conversation going on. There was an intent, said Teall, to keep working on the plan.

Collins noted that one reason it had been important to involve the staff of the city and the DDA in the process was to ensure the continuity of work on the plan. And the idea, said Collins, was to establish a longer-term, multi-year contract – something echoed by Hewitt.

Clark then picked up the contrast between the staffs of the two organizations and the members of the two public bodies. Clark noted that there are three people involved on the city’s side who might no longer be involved after the Democratic primary election, held in August. He meant Teall, Smith, and Carsten Hohnke, all of whom will face primary challenges. [Christopher Taylor does not currently face a primary challenge; however, the deadline to submit petitions is not until May 11.] In that context, Clark wondered if there would be follow-through from new councilmembers replacing those who could potentially lose. Speaking to Smith and Teall, Clark said: “I trust your ability to follow through on these agreements, because you are there. But if you are not there …”

Clark himself has taken out petitions to run as a Ward 5 candidate, challenging Hohnke for his seat. It’s a point to which Clark would eventually return as the discussion unfolded to focus on the nature of the future meetings that would be held between representatives of the DDA and the city. Clark secured an assurance that those meetings could be attended by anyone on the DDA board, “even if we don’t like certain people or even if certain people are running against certain people.”

As Russ Collins clarified, the DDA’s working practice for the committee in the future would be consistent with the way that the DDA’s committees work in general. In particular, DDA committee meetings are noticed, open to the public and open to any DDA board member, whether they’re a member of the committee or not.

Before the operations committee reached a point of committing to a public process from this point forward, Clark floated a different idea: staggering out the payments to the city. He suggested a contingent payment schedule of, for example, $100,000 a month based on the city’s ongoing good faith efforts to negotiate the details of the contract. He went as far as to say the conversation could end right then if everyone agreed that the city would get the $2 million only on a contingent, staggered basis – that would satisfy his concerns.

Teall rejected the idea of a contingent payment, as did Smith, Leah Gunn and Hewitt, saying that the city could not budget based on that kind of contingency.

Clark then changed tack slightly, pointing out that the good faith discussions up to that point had been accessible to only some of the DDA board members and not to the public. Clark expressed his concern that the city would opt to have discussions only when they want to, and it would be closed, it wouldn’t be announced, some people would be invited, some people wouldn’t. Concluded Clark, “That is a ridiculous way to talk in good faith, in my mind.” He pitched the idea that the meetings should be open.

As the conversation seemed to stall, Collins told Clark that he sensed there was nothing that could be said to allow Clark to get past his anxiety about the $2 million. As examples of what would help him get past his anxiety, Clark then appealed to the two specific suggestions he’d made: (i) to make the $2 million payment in a contingent, staggered fashion; and (ii) to make the meetings open and public.

Collins indicated that he didn’t think anyone had a problem with future meetings being public. Teall echoed that sentiment. Clark declared that for $2 million he’d be willing to buy 12 above-board meetings that are held publicly and that will take the DDA and the city toward an agreement. Collins said he thought there was no problem with that at all. Replied Clark: “I think that there has been a big problem up to this point.”

The operations committee eventually set about sketching the language of the resolution that it would bring before the full board. Collins noted that nobody had brought a resolution to the meeting and that it had depended on the dialog of the committee. Gunn focused the committee’s attention on two “resolved” clauses that needed to be written – one to allocate the $2 million and one to establish the monthly meetings. [.txt file of the draft resolution circulated later that evening by Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA].

The resolved clauses from the draft resolution:

RESOLVED, The DDA authorizes providing the City with $2 million in fiscal year 2010/11 with the following expectations:

• The DDA and City representatives who have developed the preliminary terms will continue to meet at least once a month to complete work on an agreement that will go to the DDA and City Council for approval, and these meetings will be open to the public, but not subject to the Open Meetings Act.
• The DDA and City representatives will aim to conclude their work by October 31, 2010, but certainly no later than the end of the fiscal year 2010/11.
• The DDA will provide the City with $2 million by providing half on July 1, 2010 and the second half no later than January 1, 2011.

The DDA’s tie of the $2 million to the public process in that draft does not bind the city council to the public meetings beyond the expectation expressed in the 1991 resolution.

Coda: Beat Cops

As the operations committee discussion of the $2 million resolution wound down, Newcombe Clark brought up the issue of downtown beat cops.

By way of background, as a part of the FY 2010 budget process – which involved early retirement incentives for police officers – dedicated downtown beat patrols were eliminated in favor of an approach where police officers would spend their “out-of-the-car” time walking downtown. Officers are supposed to spend an hour out of the car for each shift anyway, and the change was to ask them to spend it downtown. Previously, there’d been dedicated patrols for downtown – often done by bicycle-mounted police officers.

Back in 2005, besides the expectation that the city council would approve the 3-Site Plan, there was an expectation that the beat patrols downtown would also be preserved – if the DDA accepted the $10 million parking agreement. From Greff’s April 28, 2010 email cited earlier:

Just so the record is clear this journey began in 2004 when the City threatened the DDA with beat officer layoffs if we did not provide financial assistance. [...]

We would increase our rent to the City by $1 million a year. The City would not have to lay off any beat cops, and the City would pass the DDA’s 3 site plan which would add to the DDA TIF capture and ensure that we could afford to make the increased payments to the city without raising parking rates or foregoing our other priorities.

At the operations committee meeting, Clark asked whether discussing the question of downtown beat patrols was considered to be inconsistent with good faith for the future conversation of the “term sheet.” He’d been told recently at the city staff level that it was counter to good faith, and said that he’d been denied some information he needed to formulate a proposal on downtown beat patrols. Clark was assured that it was not counter to good faith, and when asked by Clark, Teall indicated that she’d weigh in with city staff to get Clark the numbers he needed.

The resolution that Clark may bring to the full board next week would call for the DDA to begin reserving $60,000 a month to fund beat patrols. Initially, the money would be sourced from the $335,000 already allocated by the DDA for the north-south Howell-Ann Arbor commuter rail project (WALLY). As the resolution draft notes, the rail project has shown little progress.

The city-owned Fuller Road parking lot, site of the proposed Fuller Road Station. To the south of the lot is the University of Michigan medical complex. (Photos by the writer.)

Speaking at a forum on transit-oriented development, Leinberger – a University of Michigan professor of practice in urban planning – said current plans for the joint UM/city of Ann Arbor project do a good job of incorporating different kinds of transit, from bikes and buses to perhaps, eventually, commuter rail.

But Leinberger criticized the project for taking some of Ann Arbor’s most valuable land and turning it into something that won’t generate revenue for the city. He told Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, that “whoever’s in your position 20 years from now will tear it down.”

Monday’s forum, held at the UM Art & Architecture building on north campus, was organized by members of the WALLY Coalition and the 208 Group, among others, to focus on local transit-oriented development efforts. Moderated by local developer Peter Allen, the event included presentations by Cooper, Richard Murphy of the city of Ypsilanti and Shea Charles, Howell’s city manager.

Walkable Urban vs. Drivable Sub-Urban

Chris Leinberger began his presentation by noting that Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of UM’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning, had written a book with Peter Calthorpe – “The Pedestrian Pocket Book” – in which they coined the term transit-oriented development. “So in a sense,” Leinberger said, “it started here.” [The name Calthorpe is familiar to Ann Arbor residents for another reason – the city hired Calthorpe's firm to help develop a zoning and land use strategy. The result of that work was the Calthorpe Report.]

Transportation drives development, Leinberger said. To illustrate, he outlined a post-World War II shift in America from walkable urban environments to drivable “sub-urban” settings in what he characterized as the country’s largest social engineering project. The shift was facilitated by 1) zoning laws that made walkable urban designs illegal, 2) massive subsidies for roads, and 3) finance and real estate industries that are far more comfortable with suburban development. Race played a factor, too, in pushing development out of the cities.

But the pendulum is swinging back to favor walkable urban design, Leinberger contends. Several factors are at play, including a downturn in the market that’s structural, not cyclical, he said. The suburbs are overbuilt, and demographics are changing. In the 1950s, 50% of households had children – today, only 33% do, and in the next few decades that percentage will drop even more. “The demographics are telling us something,” he said.

Chris Leinberger, a developer, UM professor of practice in urban planning and visiting fellow at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Other factors have more to do with attitude. “Boredom is a much underrated motivation for social change,” Leinberger said, adding that people are recognizing how strip malls degrade quality of life.

Also at play: the expense of maintaining a household fleet of vehicles is no longer sustainable, Leinberger said. And a third of Americans don’t drive, either because they’re too young, too old, disabled or disinclined. “I think the days of 15 million in car sales per year are long gone,” he said.

All of this contributes to a structural change taking place in development. And high demand for walkable urban settings puts a price premium in areas like Ann Arbor, he said.

Rail transit plays an important role in making walkable urban design feasible. But paying for it is an issue, especially in an age of declining federal resources. Leinberger said we can learn from the past – 100 years ago, 80% of all rail transit was built by real estate developers, with the rest paid for by power companies.

Leinberger laid out a range of funding options for transit projects, from tax-increment financing to private special assessment districts. He believes the availability of federal funds will decrease, because “we just don’t have the money.” That’s one reason why it’s important to encourage private investment, and to change the requirements that constrain the ability to leverage private dollars for public transit. He cited a nearby example: The proposed Woodward Avenue line in downtown Detroit has backing from private investors, which the federal government initially wasn’t going to include as a match for federal funding.

What’s Happening Locally: WALLY, East-West Rail

There are two local commuter rail efforts: the Washtenaw and Livingston Line, known as WALLY, and an east-west commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Representatives from three municipalities connected with those efforts spoke at Monday’s forum.

Howell

Shea Charles, Howell city manager, gave an overview of his city’s work as it relates to the rail project. Howell would be a terminus for WALLY, which also would include stops in Genoa Township, Hamburg and Whitmore Lake, ultimately ending in Ann Arbor. He noted that the railroad’s owners hope eventually to extend the northern route to Traverse City, and possibly go as far south as Toledo.

Charles described Howell as a classic downtown urban area, with a train depot about 2.5 blocks away from the city’s main intersection of Michigan and Grand River avenues. He said potential development around the depot could include a six-level parking deck, and noted that a portion of the site is a brownfield.

Leinberger was asked to comment on Howell’s plans, as was Susan Zielinski, managing director of UM’s SMART (Sustainable Mobility and Accessibility Research and Transformation) program. Leinberger said if the city was going to have to pay for the commuter line, they’d need to shoot for much higher density to generate more tax revenues. Tax-increment financing was viable, he said. But the problem is that site improvements like housing or retail, which create the additional tax revenue captured by TIF, also create a demand for public services, like police and fire. And if you’re using 20 years worth of TIF revenues to develop the site, other parts of the city will end up subsidizing those public services.

Susan Zielinski, managing director of UM's SMART program. SMART stands for Sustainable Mobility and Accessibility Research and Transformation.

In her response to Howell’s plans, Zielinski characterized the node as one of a string of pearls. She urged the audience to think about how the train connects to other parts of the community, as well as how the stations in different cities connect to each other. She also noted that the goal of transit is accessibility, not mobility for mobility’s sake.

Technology will be able to play a role in making these connections, she said. Imagine using your iPhone to reserve a Zipcar at the next stop, for example, or interconnecting the fares for different systems to make payments easier for commuters.

Ann Arbor

Next up was Eli Cooper, transportation program manager for the city of Ann Arbor, who gave an abbreviated version of presentation he’d made at a Feb. 10 public forum. He described Fuller Road Station as an intermodal “mecca,” with the ultimate goal of creating a hub for commuters into Ann Arbor near one of the city’s major employers, the University of Michigan Health System.

Peter Allen noted that in terms of development, the Broadway Village at Lowertown – a mixed-use project that he described as being  “trapped by the economic downturn” – was only four blocks from the proposed transit station.

Leinberger said the Fuller Road site was “golden” in terms of future development, given its proximity to the Huron River and the premium put on land in that area. He suggested building an underground structure, if possible. Another idea – one he said would likely get Cooper “hung” – was to narrow Fuller Road, making it more walkable.

But fundamentally, a parking structure will under-utilize the land, Leinberger said, and drive out every other type of development. It won’t generate revenues on the site, he said, and in 20 years will be torn down to accommodate something more appropriate – “because the land will be too valuable.”

In her critique, Zielinski said she liked the variety of transit options planned for the site, but thought it should be more of a mixed-use development.

Cooper noted that the site is designated as city parkland, which puts some constraints on development. But he also argued that the project is important because it would support one of the mainstays of the regional and state economy – the University of Michigan. He said that one of the suggestions from the city’s park advisory commission was to find a way to bring more active uses to the site. He said the structure will be built to be strong enough to support additional levels of housing on it in the future, but that finances will drive those decisions. Fundamentally, though, the project must be done in phases. “Crawl before you walk,” he said. “Walk before you run.”

Ypsilanti

The third city project was presented by Richard Murphy, an Ypsilanti city planner who recently accepted a job at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance – a nonprofit led by Conan Smith, who’s also a Washtenaw County commissioner. Ypsilanti’s train depot is in the Depot Town district, located between two parks – Riverside to the south and Frog Island to the north – which draw thousands of people to various festivals each year. The Eastern Michigan University campus to the northwest is another major player, Murphy said, with about 22,000 students and a fast-growing enrollment.

The freighthouse at the train depot is being rehabbed, Murphy said, and there are about 18 acres of a mostly abandoned industrial facility along the river to the north of Depot Town, which could be developed. But “downzoning” has been a trend in the city, he said, shifting toward single-family residential and away from higher-density zoning. Within a quarter-mile radius of the train depot, roughly a third of the land is zoned for single-family homes. There’s also resistance from Depot Town business owners to the commuter rail project, he said, adding that the political consensus for transit-oriented development isn’t there yet.

Murphy also noted that the city might have a “TIF allergy” – they used that strategy to finance redevelopment of the Water Street area along Michigan Avenue, but the land still stands vacant. The city is counting on TIF revenues to help pay $31 million in bonds over a 20-year period.

In responding to the project, Leinberger said that NIMBY opposition can be a critical hurdle to overcome for any type of high-density development. Giving examples from the Washington D.C. area, he said people were finally figuring out that a more walkable, urban environment yields a better quality of life – and accounts for a higher price premium on housing in those kinds of areas.

Leinberger also cautioned that if this region doesn’t invest in the commuter rail, “you’re going to be toast.” To prevent being stuck in a 20th-century economy, he said, rail is key to economic survival.

Southeast Michigan

Wrapping up the presentations was Dick Carlisle of the Ann Arbor planning firm Carlisle/Wortman Associates. Carlisle cited political fragmentation as the single most important obstacle in achieving transit-oriented development. This region has the resources, he said, but not the common vision.

There are over 50 units of government in Washtenaw and Livingston counties, Carlisle noted, and the regional economy will only prosper through collaboration. That effort must include leadership from the universities as well. He proposed forming a Green Growth Alliance, with WALLY as its transit spine, to develop a green and technology-based regional economy via a partnership of the public, private and institutional sectors.

Davy Rothbart signs autographs before the start of Monday's transit forum. The publisher of FOUND Magazine had been speaking at an unrelated event in the same lecture hall, but The Chronicle did find a tenuous connection: In a June 2009 interview on Asylum.com, Rothbart talked about good spots for finding material: "Public transportation like buses and subway trains always seem to attract found stuff."

In other board business, a bylaws change was passed to allow for public comment at the beginning of board meetings on any of the board’s agenda items. Board chair David Nacht described it as “an opportunity to make a pitch in advance of our actions,” and said that he thought it was “a really good idea.” A time limit of two minutes per individual will apply to the commentary at the beginning of the meetings. A time for public comment on any topic will still be available at the end of meetings.

Meeting Agenda (not including resolutions)

Communications: In his communications to the board, chair David Nacht acknowledged that AATA’s web service provider, IAS, had experienced some issues, but he was pleased with the response of staff, which was working in coordination with the city to get everything back up and running as soon as possible. He assured the public that the board was aware of what was going on and said that he was comfortable that AATA staff was making all appropriate steps. [It's not yet clear to The Chronicle whether AATA has retained the services of IAS as its provider, but based on comments left on The Chronicle by someone with IAS, this seems to be the case – AATA website services are back up and running except for real-time RideTrak information.]

Nacht also noted that he’d had a “fantastic session” over lunch with the executive board of the AATA local advisory committee. He said that it was something he wanted to do on a regular basis.

He said that he’d had a chat with the headhunter for the new executive director (since Greg Cook’s resignation in early 2007, AATA has been led by interim executive director Dawn Gabay) and was excited that this process was underway. He also previewed the resolution on the change in the bylaws to allow for public commentary on agenda items before they are discussed by the board. He characterized it as consistent with their efforts to keep themselves streamlined, but to keep themselves responsive to the public.

Approval of previous minutes: Board member Jesse Bernstein noted that because he had been absent, he could not have moved for adjournment as the minutes indicated, saying that, “I’m good, but not that good.” The minutes were revised to reflect that Rich Robben had made the motion.

In discussing the minutes, Ted Annis noted that he’d also been absent, and thus had read the minutes, though he’d be abstaining on voting to approve them. He noted that the minutes, under the heading, “Planning and Development Committee Report,” indicated “There was no report.” Annis chairs that committee. He noted that the PDC had been very active, having met three times since the last board meeting. Each of these meetings, Annis said, generates minutes, and historically these minutes had always been in the committee report. Based on his understanding, Annis said, those minutes would be made available on the AATA website, but he stressed that those minutes needed to become a part of the public record. He asked if something needed to be done to incorporate them in the board minutes by record. Nacht said that the point was well-taken, because the board minutes leave the impression that there’s nothing going on, when in fact there was a lot of work taking place.

Board and Staff Reports: Noting that the new board format would not include going through the various reports from committees and staff verbally, Nacht was prepared to move to question time for the executive director. Board member Charles Griffith, however, noted that it would be useful for committees to “point out what we should be looking at” in the reports, or at least note whether the committee had met or not. Annis indicated that he’d planned to say that his committee had met – a light-hearted quip that earned some laughs. Nacht then quickly polled the committee to establish that they’d all met, and made a gambit to move the board along to the new business, “unless we have something we need to talk about.”

Annis said that he needed to give the board “a little headline news.” “Fire away!” replied Nacht. Annis said that the planning and development committee had met three times since the last board meeting, and that one focus had been fare adjustments. The committee’s Dec. 9 meeting summary, as well as Annis’ verbal description, indicates a proposed base fare structure starting May 2009 of $1.25 per ride, moving to $1.50 per ride in May 2010. In response to a query from Nacht, Annis said that they’d given staff the go-ahead to begin conducting public hearings, with the matter to come before the board roughly around April. Nacht said that it was important to weigh the matter carefully before undertaking an action that will have “an impact on human beings.”

There are various accommodations for discounts and reductions in the fare proposal, which include the possibility of a zero fare for those with disabilities and for seniors. Annis said the committee had also asked staff to look at contingency plans in the event of 10%, 20%, or a 40% reduction in revenues. In light of the situation with GM and Ford, Annis said the committee felt that preparing contingencies was simply a wise move to make.

On the subject of WALLY, the proposed north/south commuter rail, Annis said they’d spent some, but not too much time taking a look at Act 196 (under which AATA might be able to reorganize itself as an authority to include regional rail). He also said that they’d spent time looking at the Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update (AATPU), which had been presented to the whole board at a previous meeting. [Eli Cooper, transportation program manager with the city of Ann Arbor, who had given that presentation, was in the audience as Annis gave his summary.] He advised that the city of Ann Arbor was looking at AATA spending around $11 million over the next five years in support of that plan. Annis had praise for the AATA staff in preparing the analysis underpinning the fare adjustments, saying that “it was so good that I included it in the minutes.”

Annis elicited from his colleague on the planning and development committee, Rich Robben, a status report on the north-south connector study, for which AATA had authorized an increase in its share of the funding to $160,000. Robben advised the board that the DDA had declined to increase its own contribution, choosing instead to turn the matter back to UM, one of the partners in the study (along with the DDA, and the city of Ann Arbor) to explore the possibility that UM would take on a greater share of the study’s funding.

Jesse Bernstein asked for feedback on service productivity standards with a chart and definitions that staff had prepared, and said that he felt it represented a clear and effective way to look at it. Bernstein said the material would be available on the website.

Old Business (WALLY, Roundabouts): Nacht inquired of interim executive Dawn Gabay whether AATA was in the process of recruiting someone to handle the WALLY project (a proposed north-south commuter rail service). Gabay said that they were coordinating with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and that they were heading towards a staffing solution that would involve a contracted employee as opposed to a new staff person. Further, she said, they would likely issue an RFP for public relations.

Jesse Bernstein inquired what the implications might be of MDOT’s intention to install a double roundabout at Geddes and US-23 and whether it would work for buses. Chris White, AATA manager of service development, said that the area currently posed a problem due to traffic backups and that as long as buses can get through the roundabouts, it would be a benefit.

Resolutions

Public Speaking: The board unanimously approved the new bylaw. It provides at the beginning of board meetings for two minutes of public speaking time per person on items the board is considering on its agenda.

Authorization to Execute a Contract for Insurance Brokerage Services: Four responses were received from an RFP sent to 17 firms. Based on the scoring criteria applied by the evaluation committee, the contract, which provides for around $4,000 per month in insurance brokering services, was awarded to Marsh USA, Inc. Satisfied that the vendor had been vetted sufficiently by committee, the board unanimously approved the resolution.

Contract for Design of Park and Ride at Plymouth and US-23: A contract for design work was awarded to OHM in the amount of $125,400. Although the Federal Highway Administration still needs some additional information, at a Nov. 24 meeting of Nacht, FHWA and MDOT (on whose property the park and ride lot will be built), it was indicated the project would be approved by FHWA, thus the need to begin design work. OHM performed traffic studies in connection with the project. Nacht said he was also familiar with their work from his service as Scio Township trustee. The resolution passed unanimously.

Public Commentary

Tom Partridge: Partridge began by criticizing the time restriction of two minutes for public speaking at the beginning of board meetings as too short. He said that the board should encourage public commentary without restrictions and should take an attitude towards the public that indicated they wanted to have as much communication as possible, calling it the fundamental principle on which our Constitution was founded. He described the meeting format as “not public-friendly,” indicating that not everyone had access to the AATA website to get the minutes from committee reports – an allusion to the new meeting format in which committee reports are to be received in written form and eventually posted on the website, but not discussed at board meetings. Partridge also called for the taping of the board meetings for broadcast on the Internet or on CTN, and suggested that venues for the meetings be chosen that can accommodate a large in-person audience. Partridge said that it was incumbent on a “Harvard-educated chair of the board” to bring all this about – Nacht earned a degree from Harvard.

Partridge concluded by noting that the ballot in the recent November elections contained a millage to address revenue for parks, but nothing for transportation. It is to the detriment of the county that there is still not an adequate bus network in Washtenaw County, he said. Referring to the proposed north-south commuter rail project that goes by the acronym WALLY, Partridge asked the board to turn their attention away from “Mister WALLY,” saying that it was a project for the future, but what was needed now is better bus transportation.

From Nacht, Partridge’s turn at public comment earned a thank-you and the characterization, “Coherent and spirited!”

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen took up the topic of discounted and free fares that had been a part of the Annis’ summary of the planning and development committee’s report on fare increases. He drew an analogy to food stamps, drawing on a meeting he’d attended of Food Gatherers at the United Way. There the question had been, “Why don’t people who qualify for food stamps go ahead and get them?” Among the reasons, Mogensen said, is the fact that qualifiers need to go someplace to get them, as well as the fact that as their income situation changes slightly, there’s a need to constantly update and inform the various bureaucratic bodies. In light of that, he said, the AATA board should be mindful of the need to reach out to those who qualified for discounted or free fares and to go to where they are to provide them with their discount cards. This, as opposed to asking people to come out to the AATA administration building, for example.

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi called the board’s attention to the last day of the state legislature’s session the following day (Dec. 18), which represented an opportunity for $150 million in transportation funding, and urged people to call Sen. Liz Brater to express their support. She also thanked the board for the change in bylaws allowing for public commentary to precede agenda items [Editor's note: Grawi had asked for the change at the first AATA board meeting that The Chronicle covered.] Grawi also suggested that minutes from the committee meetings be posted to the website as soon as they were available, even if they were in draft form. She said that she was encouraged that the board was thinking about the impact that fare increases would have on the people who use the bus, and said that if they are successful in putting through fare reductions for A-Ride, the people who use the A-Ride (physical disability and seniors) would be thrilled.

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

Absent: Sue McCormick

Next meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave.

A new authority, millage for expanded service

Board chair David Nacht led off the meeting by reporting receipt of a letter from Steven Manor, city councilmember in Howell, and Peter Von Drak, city manager of Howell, which expressed support for AATA to take a leadership role in forming an authority to run WALLY. He also reported receipt of a letter from Gretchen Driskell, Saline mayor and chair of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study’s (WATS) policy committee, echoing the same sentiments. These two letters of support for AATA’s leadership role in forming an authority to run WALLY add to those reported last month from city of Ann Arbor mayor, John Hieftje, and chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Jeff Irwin. Additional support for the idea of forming an authority came from Clark Charnetski during public commentary, who said at a recent meeting of the Michigan Association for Railroad Passengers the advice they’d heard from a representative of the Great Lakes Central Railroad was: “Get somebody to be an authority.”

Speaking on behalf of herself and Jeff Irwin (who could not attend the AATA board meeting because of a conflict with the county commission meeting), Terri Blackmore, executive director of WATS, outlined the result of their work together, which included articulating a timeline that would put the formation of the new authority sometime in March 2009, with a millage to be put on the ballot possibly by August 2009, with a fallback position to re-do the vote in November 2009 if the millage were to fail on the first try.

One part of the rationale for the aggressive timeline, said Blackmore, is that there’s $500,000 in existing federal funding available under Act 51 that could be lost if not used by February 2009. Further rationale for swift action is that service for Ypsilanti is paid for through September 2009, and if a regional millage could be passed by August, it would put the eastern anchor of the system on solid footing. In response to questions from board member Ted Annis, Blackmore said that she had shopped the proposal around to various planning entities throughout the county and had found a positive reception.

Board member Jesse Bernstein asked whether it would likely be the AATA that initiated the millage or the county. The consensus seemed to be that the county did not have recent history of success in passing millages and that the AATA would likely need to play that role. Blackmore stressed that as a part of the education campaign surrounding the millage, two points needed to be emphasized: (i) it’s safe to ride the AATA (ii) the AATA uses advanced technology, like RideTrak.

With testing envisioned for fall 2009, Blackmore suggested service could be possible by January 2010.

Reporting out from the AATA board’s planning and development committee, Annis continued with the theme of making the vision of an authority to run WALLY a concrete reality. He made the following committee recommendations to the board. The AATA should:

• re-form itself as an entity under the Public Transportation Authority Act 196
• take on the WALLY project as it blends in with the 196 authority
• allocate staff resources for this additional work
• specify a service plan for an expanded transportation system that includes WALLY

On this last point, board chair David Nacht stressed its importance to a millage on the ballot: “What are we selling that new taxes would buy?” Board member Sue McCormick echoed this sentiment, stressing the need to describe what would be delivered and at what price.

Community Relations Department Overview

Mary Stasiak gave an overview to the board of the three-person department she manages. Stasiak ticked through the activities for which they’re responsible: identity and branding, program development and support, passenger information, customer service, promotional efforts, and market research.

One example Stasiak cited of the challenge of branding and identity is that when someone uses the Night Ride service (contracted through Blue Cab), it’s not apparent to an observer that this is an AATA service that’s being provided.

Stasiak eplained that although there is a route planning tool available on the AATA website, in many instances customers preferred to be led through a route plan in person, or at least be led through the use of the web-based tool. “Selling bus service is a one-on-one kind of deal,” she said.

The charts provided in the Power Point slide presentation indicate that the annual budget for the community relations department has fallen from around $650,000 in 2003, to around $250,000 for 2009.

In response to a query from Nacht, Stasiak said that her best ballpark guess of the division of time and resources between existing customers and future customers was 70-30.

City of Ann Arbor Transportation Plan

Eli Cooper, transportation program manager at the city of Ann Arbor, gave the board a quick overview of the draft Transportation Plan, which had been presented back on Sept. 23 to the general public. One slide, – which displayed side-by-side pie charts of the daily trips made within the city of Ann Arbor and into the city of Ann Arbor – drew attention first from Ted Annis, who was surprised by the number of trips (600,000) and later during the public commentary time from Jim Mogensen.

Mogensen noted that there’s an intersection between these two kinds of trips (within and into the city) that could be found in the park-and-ride lots. He noted that there is a park-and-ride lot established near his home, and since the implementation of MRide (a program that allows UM affiliates to ride AATA buses at no cost to them) he finds it impossible to ride the bus in the mornings because the buses are too full to accommodate his walker.

Park and Ride

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, said he hoped that a new park-and-ride lot planned near US-23 and Washtenaw Avenue would be constructed during summer 2009 with service available by August.

White’s update came in response to Nacht’s statement: “A year from now, I want to say, ‘Look what we did with these new park-and-ride lots!’ instead of just talking about it.” To that sentiment, Annis added: “Park and ride has frustrated me for quite a while.”

Public Commentary

In addition to Jim Mogensen and Clark Charnetski, whose comments are noted above, Carolyn Grawi spoke. She said she thought that “The Ride” and the existing AATA logo was a very strongly identified brand and that it should be used as the AATA looked to expanding its service.

In addition, Grawi called the board’s attention to the Oct. 24 presentation of the James T. Neubacher Award to UM regent Julia Darlow at 9:30 a.m. in the Michigan League’s Vandenberg Room located at 911 N. University. The award presentation is part of a series of events in connection with Investing in Ability Week.

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

Absent: Paul Ajegba

Next meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 19 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave.

WALLY

Consideration of WALLY was added to the agenda in response to letters sent by the mayor of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, and chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Jeff Irwin, to the AATA board, asking that the AATA take a “leadership role” in the project, which envisions commuter rail service from Howell down to Ann Arbor. Nacht put the letters from the city and the county in the context of a request from U.S. Congressman John Dingell, who in a recent meeting with key players stressed the need to establish a legal authority, so that he could find federal money to help fund it.

“How do you guys feel about it?” asked Nacht, who himself seemed enthusiastic, going as far as to sketch out one possible approach, which would have entailed hiring someone charged with the responsibility of creating the legal authority: “I think the community has made pretty clear they want us to move quickly.” However, Jesse Bernstein and Rich Robben wanted to ease off the gas a bit, with Bernstein asking how this approach would fit in with the possibility of changing the corporate structure of the AATA itself. One possibility floated was that AATA could be a member, perhaps with multiple seats, of a larger transit authority.

At the end of the short discussion, no decision to hire someone was made, but a resolution was passed directing the AATA’s planning committee to recommend options for presentation at next board meeting on Oct. 15.

FY 2009 Budget

Nacht declared the content of the budget “worthy of a press release” because it reflected costs of $103.29 per service hour, compared to the previous budget, which was analyzed at $108 per service hour. As board member Sue McCormick explained during the meeting, and as AATA controller Phil Webb clarified for The Chronicle afterwards, the $108 figure was somewhat high, due to the way that various costs were allocated to different departments within the AATA. Still, said Webb, from a practical point of view, adjusting for differences in allocations put the previous number around $105-106 per service hour.

Nacht acknowledged board member Ted Annis’ efforts in pushing the AATA to become more efficient without reducing services, which had resulted in a “piece of paper” that achieves that goal. About the piece of paper (the budget passed at the meeting), Nacht said, “That, by golly, is the first step!”

Fuel Budget

In light of soaring oil prices, it would not have been surprising if Webb had reported massive budget overages in the area of fuel. The AATA is actually completely within its fuel budget for the year. This has been achieved through the purchase oil futures contracts. When the AATA pays an increase from, say, $2 a gallon to $3 a gallon for fuel, it simply unwinds a futures contract, which has increased in value as well.

A contract is 1,000 barrels of fuel. At 42 gallons per barrel, a single contract covers the better part of the 55,000 gallons used by the AATA each month. So each month the AATA buys and sells a futures contract, and pays the spot market rate for the amount not covered by the contract. Webb said this is a strategy used by the transit authority in St. Paul-Minneapolis as well.

Effect of Route Adjustments

The AATA has made route adjustments that have eliminated some routes and increased service on other routes. By the end of September ’08 it should be possible to start evaluating whether those changes have had a positive effect on ridership and on-time performance. By January ’09 the board will get a report on the success of those changes.

Record-Setting Ridership

The previous one-day record for ridership on the AATA was 27,123 set on Nov. 13, 2007. But on seven of the first 10 days of September 2008, that total has been exceeded. The new one-day record stands at 28,503, which was set Sept. 15. Increased ridership has, however, affected on-time performance with increased loading and unloading times.

North-East Connector

As The Chronicle previously reported in its summary of the most recent DDA board meeting, the AATA is partnering with UM and the DDA to fund a Phase I study of alternatives for a north-east connector to downtown Ann Arbor. The three submissions in response to the RFP were all over the budget of $250,000. When the DDA met, the three had been winnowed down to two. It was reported at this AATA board meeting that one of the submissions had been selected, and that negotiations on budget would now commence. The outcome of those negotiations is to be reported at the Oct. 15 AATA board meeting.

What Phase I is supposed to deliver is a proposal for an actual product – whether it’s light rail, rapid bus transit, or something else, which could be considered by the board and the public.

MRide

AATA and UM are preparing to start negotiations on new contracts for MRide, the free bus service that UM affiliates enjoy. Negotiation teams are being named on both sides.

Hiring of Executive Director

RFP was published on Sept. 2 with proposals from consulting firms due back on Sept. 26. A short-list is hoped for by Oct. 8. The actual hire of the position is expected by Feb. 1, 2009.

Election of AATA Board Officers

The nominating committee provided an uncontested slate of new officers for the board: chair, David Nacht; treasurer, Paul Ajegba; secretary, Charles Griffith. Nacht remarked on the uncontested slate by quipping, “Thank you, comrade!”

Interesting Fact

The AATA, through its training program, can take a person “off the street” with no prior commercial driving experience, and turn them in to a bus driver.

Present: David Nacht (chair), Paul Ajegba (acting secretary), Jesse Bernstein, Charles Griffith, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben

Next meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 15 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave. Topics to monitor: north-east connector, how to proceed with WALLY.

Let's get this straight. Ann Arbor Railroad track gets measured out for straightening work next week.

“Left, a skosh!” the guy behind the transit radioed his colleagues about a half mile away along the rails. He was sighting northward up the track from where it crosses Traver Road up to Barton Drive. The guys up the track were almost as invisible to the naked eye in real life as they are in The Chronicle’s photo accompanying this story.

The late morning temperatures were in the low 70s, but without a cloud in the sky, the heat absorbed by the rails from the sun was causing the hotter, less dense air swirling up off the rails to bend the light so that the image through his transit was affected by shimmer. He declared into the radio receiver at one point, “The heat waves are starting to mess me up!”

Asked what he was up to, he invited The Chronicle to just look down the track with a naked eye and asked, “See that?” Readily apparent was the very slight curve in what should have been a perfectly straight track. The originally straight track had been gradually shifted by the weight of trains headed downhill along the stretch. Their mission this morning was to lay out where the track needed to be moved. Later next week (Sept 17 – Sept 19) a tamper will be brought out to actually move the track back into alignment.

Readers who have followed the Washtenaw and Livingston Line project (WALLY) will recognize the significance of this particular stretch of track near Barton Drive southwards. WALLY, currently proposed as a commuter rail line from Howell to Ann Arbor along Great Lakes Central Railroad tracks, might need to terminate near Barton Drive, instead of continuing southwards into town, because, as explained in the last report available on the county’s website:

Two key issues must be resolved for the extension to be implemented: … (2) gaining access to approximately three miles of the AARR [Chronicle note: Ann Arbor Railroad - a different entity from Great Lakes Central Railroad] between its northern-most point at a connection with the Great Lakes Central Railroad at MP 47.5, [Chronicle note: at Plymouth Road just north of Barton Drive] and a location between Hoover Street (MP 44.64) and Stadium Street.

… the AARR is not interested in granting access to the commuter trains because of concern that the potential liability costs of a catastrophic accident, such as derailing a commuter train into the Huron River, would cause the owners to lose the railroad.

As the guy sighting down the track confirmed, these were Ann Arbor Railroad tracks that they were straightening. In addition to the track-straightening work between Barton Drive and Traver Road, AARR has recently installed 750 new railroad ties between State Street and Barton Drive.

More on the Ann Arbor Railroad from ArborWiki.

View Map of stretch to be straightened