Margie Teall (Ward 4) raises her hand asking to be recognized so she can speak at the Ann Arbor city council’s Nov. 8 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Smith had said her farewell from the council at the previous meeting, on Oct. 15. She had decided not to seek re-election to her seat. At the Nov. 8 meeting, two other councilmembers attended their final meeting – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) who, like Smith, did not seek re-election, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) who did not prevail in his August Democratic primary. New councilmembers – Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – will be ceremonially sworn in at the start of the council’s next meeting on Nov. 19.

A transitional theme emerged, as discussion of some agenda items straddled the Nov. 8 and Nov. 19 meetings – including the transit authority opt-out vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had been planning to bring a similar item forward on Nov. 19, when he felt he’d have a six-vote majority on the question. But that move was preempted by the Nov. 8 item, which included the sponsorship of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje – who had previously been key figures in supporting the city’s role in the planned authority.

Discussion of a living wage waiver for the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN) also included mention of the Nov. 19 meeting. That’s when a proposal will be brought forward that would change the living wage ordinance itself. The preference of Hieftje and Hohnke to wait and consider the ordinance revision for all nonprofits – instead of granting a waiver to CAN – was strong enough that they voted against the waiver. But the eight votes it received were enough to ensure that for the next three years, CAN does not need to abide by the living wage ordinance – which would otherwise require it to pay all its workers $13.57/hour.

A resolution that transferred $90,000 from the general fund reserve to the affordable housing trust fund was part of the transitional theme – because it had Sandi Smith’s name attached as a sponsor, even though she could not attend the meeting. The dollar amount was keyed to the price of a strip of land belonging to the former YMCA lot, which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently purchased from the city. The transfer of funds was made in the spirit, if not the letter, of a policy enacted by the council at Smith’s urging at her final council meeting. That policy called for net proceeds of the sale of the Y lot to be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund.

The council’s agenda for Nov. 19 was partially previewed when both Briere and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) announced they’d be bringing forward proposals to revise the city’s Percent for Art ordinance – in the wake of a failed public art millage proposal at the polls on Nov. 6. Briere’s proposal would alter the definition of projects that qualify, while Lumm’s would eliminate the program. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of the budgets for all capital projects be set aside for public art.

And although he’ll be leaving the council, Derezinski will serve out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term on the city planning commission. Pratt is leaving that role after being elected Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. At the Nov. 8 meeting, council confirmed Derezinski’s planning commission nomination, which had come at the council’s previous meeting. The council also decided to expand a task force on planning for the North Main corridor to make room for outgoing councilmember Sandi Smith, and appointed her to that group as a citizen member. She’s been serving as the council’s representative.

In other business, a resolution that would have moved toward converting the city’s retirement system to a defined contribution plan – instead of a defined benefit plan – was withdrawn. The council also approved increasing the staffing level of the fire department from 85 to 86 firefighters. And the city’s sign board of appeals (SBA) was dissolved by the council, with responsibilities transferred to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The council also voted to give city attorney Stephen Postema a 2.4% raise, his first in five years.

Countywide Transit Act 196 Opt Out

The council considered a resolution that withdrew the city of Ann Arbor from a new transit authority – called The Washtenaw Ride – that was incorporated on Oct. 3, 2012, a little over a month ago. Incorporation of the new transit authority under Act 196 of 1986 had been preceded by the development of a 30-year transit master plan and a five-year service plan by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, over a more than two-year period.

The cost of the planning effort came up in council deliberations. An outside consultant, Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), held two contracts with AATA to help develop a transit master plan and take steps toward implementing it. At its Feb. 16, 2012 meeting, the AATA board authorized an increase in the SDG contract by $95,500 – to $288,817. That contract with the London-based consultant was for “implementation assistance” of the plan. The original implementation assistance contract was approved by the board at its July 19, 2011 meeting.

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

Countywide Transit: Background

The language of the council’s Nov. 8 resolution offered some optimism that expanded transportation services might be pursued with some other mechanism than a countywide Act 196 incorporation: “… AATA is encouraged to continue to discuss regional transportation options among Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti township, Ann Arbor township, Scio township and Pittsfield township, leading to a better understanding and process for improving local transit options …”

The version placed on the Nov. 8 agenda by mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had the same effect as one that had been developed for the Nov. 19 agenda by Kunselman and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The preambles to the two approaches, however, contrasted in the level of forward-looking optimism that was conveyed. The contrast is also evident in the titles of the two resolutions:

• [Resolution to Withdraw from New Act 196 Public Transportation Authority in and for Washtenaw County and Terminate the Public Transportation Agreement between the City, AATA, Washtenaw County and the City of Ypsilanti]
• [ Resolution to Withdraw from the New Act 196 Public Transportation Authority, to Terminate the 4­Party Agreement between the City, AATA, Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County, and to Continue Discussion of Expanded Transit Among Urban Core Communities]

The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution was placed on the agenda in the context of opt-out decisions by most of the other 28 municipalities in the county. Even so, until the Nov. 8 council meeting, jurisdictions still participating in the new authority included more than half the county’s population, and counted the county’s largest population centers: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Saline.

Ann Arbor had been expected to help lead the initiative, and had been the first of the four parties to ratify the agreement, on March 5, 2012. Since incorporation on Oct. 3, more than one glitch was encountered in the technical implementation. Those included unclarity about the start of a 30-day opt-out period, and the eligibility of current AATA board members to serve on the board of the new authority.

Countywide Transit: Public Comment

Joel Batterman told the council that although he’d been working with Washtenaw Partners for Transit, he was speaking as a resident of the city. He reminded councilmembers that he’d addressed them about two years ago on the topic of the Fuller Road Station, which he said he didn’t feel served the interests of the city or the University of Michigan. Decisions that are made or not made about transportation, he said, are among the most important and lasting choices that come before the council. He was sad that the council is looking to end current initiative. The current initiative would have meant improvement to the bus service, including extended hours and frequencies and more direct routes serving areas on the west side of town. It would also expand the service area to match better where people are living today.

Batterman allowed that people had concerns about local control. But it was also important to consider that when the AATA was formed in the early 1970s, about 56% of the county’s population lived in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but today only 39% do. At the same time, the out-county is increasingly dependent on Ann Arbor employers, and the working families who need transit most often live outside the city limits.

Batterman acknowledged that rural townships might not be ready to participate in a transit authority. But those more urbanized areas that did not opt out would still have included a majority of the county’s population and would have brought a majority of the county’s transit-dependent residents within reach of the transportation they need. That’s something that really matters and still needs to happen, Batterman said – for Ann Arbor’s economy and for the well-being of everyone in the area. He encouraged the council to take the initiative in the coming year to work toward a new accord on expanding transit. He noted that Ann Arbor residents overwhelmingly support better transit – noting that even those who spoke against the formation of a new transit authority at a city council meeting last winter said they wanted many of the improvements, like expanded late night service, which the initiative was intended to help support. Whatever differences of opinion might exist over the structure and governance of an expanded transit system, he felt we could all support a future with more transit, cleaner air, expanded opportunities for people and perhaps even fewer parking garages.

Carolyn Lusch told the council that she also works with Washtenaw Partners for Transit. One of the great things about her job is she gets to hear people’s stories. Over last few months, she’s spoken with families, seniors, churches, students and businesses – people who are interested in and have great need for transit improvements. They’d told her about how they have to call a taxi to get groceries or miss a doctor’s appointment, or call up family members for favors.

The need for transit still exists, Lusch said. She was encouraged by the call for continued dialogue that’s expressed in the council’s resolution. As an Ann Arbor resident, she said, she was hopeful that expanded transit in the future would give her more options. The strong support for the concept of transit is an excellent first step, she said, but: “You can’t ride a concept home from your shift and I can’t hop on a concept when I’m going home from late night meetings downtown. I need a bus.” We need buses that run quickly, efficiently and to all the places we need them to run, she said. She thanked the council for keeping the discussion open.

Countywide Transit: Council Deliberations – Who Speaks?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said it’s become apparent that the interest in the current approach to expanded countywide service governance is not firm enough to go forward with it. So a group on both sides of the issue had decided to end this particular endeavor, she said. [By a group "on both sides," she meant some who had supported the four-party agreement governing the possible transition when the council voted on it (Briere, Hieftje, Taylor) and some who had opposed it (Kunselman, Higgins).]

Briere said it was important to end the initiative as firmly but as softly as possible.

Hieftje wanted to add Scio Township to a list of municipalities mentioned as those with which conversations would continue in the shorter term: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township.

Some members of the AATA board and staff were in the audience available for comment. So Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) invited AATA strategic planner Michael Benham to the podium. Higgins objected and asked that the matter be put to a vote. Arguing against allowing Benham to take the podium, Higgins said that before asking AATA to speak, the council should vote the resolution up or down.

By way of background, Higgins appeared to be invoking a subsection of the council’s Rule 4 [emphasis added]:

Members of Audience Addressing Council
Upon the request of a member of the Council, a member of the audience shall be permitted to address the Council at a time other than during public commentary, unless three members of Council object.

Kunselman also objected, saying that the council was voting on an issue that had been put before the council by Washtenaw County – the inclusion of Ann Arbor in a countywide Act 196 authority that had been incorporated by the county – not by the AATA. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he wanted to err on the side of allowing councilmembers to ask questions of anyone they’d like to ask. Although she said she agreed with Higgins that the vote was about opting out, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) didn’t have a problem with Benham fielding questions. Responding to Kunselman’s remarks that the resolution was not about the AATA, Taylor observed that AATA is identified in a resolved clause as being asked to do something.

Outcome on allowing AATA staff to speak: The council voted 8-2, with dissent from Higgins and Kunselman, to allow Michael Benham to speak.

Countywide Transit: Council Deliberations – AATA Speaks

Benham said the AATA was heartened by the language in the resolution that says “keep going.” He was optimistic that the community could arrive at a vision of expanded transit for those who need it the most.

Hieftje then disavowed the idea that the resolution that night was an attempt to pre-empt the Lumm and Kunselman resolution, pointing out that Kunselman had been invited to co-sponsor it, which he’d done. However, Hieftje said it was “difficult” to have more than five councilmembers co-sponsor a resolution. [Six is a quorum of the council; so if six councilmembers sponsor a resolution together, it gives rise to questions about whether they convened a meeting of the council in violation of Michigan's Open Meetings Act.] He ventured that Lumm’s name could be added as co-sponsor then, and Lumm indicated that she’d like that.

Kunselman picked up on remarks by Hieftje to the effect that ridership on the AATA was going up. He read aloud a portion of a press release from the AATA:

AATA also will review existing services and costs to ensure its history of strong fiscal stewardship is not disrupted, he said. The review will determine the feasibility of continuing to provide the services implemented as part of AATA’s initial investment under its Five-Year Transit Program. These services produced successful results within months of introduction but may no longer be sustainable without additional funding …

The services that had been introduced to jumpstart the countywide initiative include: increased Route #4 frequency, the AirRide airport service, expanded NightRide service, and commuter express service between Chelsea and Canton.

Kunselman said that what he heard in that language was: The AATA needs more money. Benham told Kunselman that the services mentioned in the press release were implemented with the expectation that there would be a new funding source – provided through the Act 196 authority. The services are not currently sustainable into the future, with just the existing funding that’s available. Kunselman told Benham that he really appreciated the straightforward response from Benham.

Higgins told Benham that she’d approached AATA over the years because councilmembers had heard from residents that their transportation needs are not being met out in neighborhoods. She asked what guarantee she had that these sorts of concerns would not continue to be ignored. Benham indicated that he was not aware of any view on the part of the AATA that travel to and from neighborhoods is not a priority. Higgins related an anecdote about a visitor to the city of Ann Arbor who needed 1.5 hours to get from the north to the south side of the city – saying a three-hour commute inside the city of Ann Arbor isn’t acceptable. She didn’t think all the community’s transportation needs are being met, and noted that Ann Arbor had an aging population that needs transportation. Now is an opportunity to make her a believer, Higgins said.

As the deliberations continued, local resident Thomas Partridge – sitting in the audience – expressed his displeasure with the way the conversation was going by pounding his crutch on the floor and slamming a bound copy of the council’s agenda on the counter. Hieftje raised the possibility that Partridge would be removed, saying that tantrums weren’t usually tolerated.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3 – leaning back) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman weighed in heavily in favor of maintaining the current governance of the AATA under local Ann Arbor control using Act 55, with purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) made with those communities who want transportation service. The articles of incorporation could be modified to include additional seats on the board for those communities, he said. Later in the deliberations, Briere ventured that residency in Ann Arbor for AATA board members was a possible issue of concern for some councilmembers, so that needs to be addressed directly.

Lumm expressed the view that those on the council who’d predicted that the proposal would not be well received by the townships had been right. She characterized the effort to implement the countywide authority as a colossal waste of time and money.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Lumm, saying that she didn’t think effort had been wasted – because it’s raised awareness that Ann Arbor is part of a region.

Derezinski expressed his disappointment that the effort was not going forward, but indicated he’d support the resolution.

Hohnke said he was a little bit disappointed in the decisions of some of the townships to opt out. Lumm responded that she was not disappointed in the townships, saying she trusted them to protect the interests of their residents.

Hieftje felt it was a little too easy to say that the AATA wasted resources developing a plan and exploring this approach to countywide governance. He noted that in Grand Rapids, a similar proposal had to be put to voters twice before they approved it. He drew a comparison to the failure of the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal at the polls on Nov. 6 – noting that one of the greatest criticisms of the library bond proposal was that the library didn’t have a specific plan for the new downtown building.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to opt out of The Washtenaw Ride.

Living Wage Exemption for Nonprofit CAN

The city council was asked to consider a waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), so that the nonprofit would be exempt from compliance with the city’s living wage ordinance for the next three years.

Living Wage: Background

CAN is a nonprofit dedicated to improving communities in underprivileged Washtenaw County neighborhoods, and receives allocations from the city through the city’s coordinated funding process to support human services. For fiscal year 2013, CAN was allocated $105,809 by the city for its Y.E.S. You CAN! program. Because those annual allocations exceed $10,000, CAN is subject to the city’s living wage ordinance, which currently requires that a minimum of $12.17/hour be paid to employees by employers who provide health insurance and $13.57/hour by those employers not providing health insurance.

However, Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance has a mechanism by which the minimum requirements can be waived – if conformance would cause economic harm to a nonprofit. It’s that waiver provision that the Ann Arbor city council was asked to approve at its Nov. 8 meeting.

One condition of the waiver is that a plan for eventual compliance within three years must be submitted to the city. CAN’s plan highlights the programs that it would need to cut, in order to conform with the ordinance. [.pdf of CAN's compliance plan]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also announced at the Nov. 8 meeting that in the near future she would be bringing forward an ordinance revision to exempt nonprofits from the living wage ordinance permanently. That echoes a previous attempt two months ago by the council to exempt some nonprofits from the living wage ordinance. On the council’s agenda for Sept. 17, 2012 had been a resolution that would have exempted from the living wage ordinance those nonprofits receiving city human services funding.

The Sept. 17 resolution appeared to be an attempt to invoke the ordinance’s waiver provision, but it did not name a specific nonprofit, and no plans for eventual conformance had been submitted by any nonprofits at that time. So the agenda item was withdrawn as it was deemed to be tantamount to changing an ordinance through a simple council resolution – which is not a legal way to procede. At that time it was indicated that an ordinance revision would be forthcoming.

Living Wage: CAN’s Previous Waiver Attempts

Based on correspondence provided to The Chronicle by the city of Ann Arbor in the context of a broader request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, the Sept. 17 agenda item stemmed from requests made by CAN, although that organization was not specifically mentioned in the council’s resolution or in discussion at the table. Together with the material obtained through the FOIA, CAN’s compliance plan indicates that Doughty submitted a letter on July 10, 2012 asking for a waiver. [.pdf of July 10, 2012 letter from CAN]. Just before the Sept. 17 meeting, CAN was asked to revise the request to mention a plan eventually to comply. [.pdf of Sept. 17, 2012 letter from CAN] The revision consisted of the following addition:

Community Action Network will use this exemption time to devise and implement a strategic fund raising plan to fill our budget gaps caused in part by the increased burden the living wage ordinance continues to place on our finances.

However, the ordinance specifies that the plan to bring an organization into compliance must be submitted as part of the waiver. And the lack of an actual compliance plan led to the withdrawal of the Sept. 17 resolution.

The concern raised by CAN dates back at least to February 2012. In email correspondence sent on Feb. 7, 2012 by CAN director Joan Doughty to the city/county office of community development Mary Jo Callan and councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), she made a plea for some kind of accommodation with respect to the living wage ordinance:

From: Joan Doughty
Sent: Tue 2/7/2012 5:05 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Callan, Mary Jo
Subject: Living Wage?

Hi Mary J and Chris:

Hope this finds you well. I would really like to reignite the living wage ordinance waiver for nonprofits. We’re going to be hurting, and paying summer camp counselors living wage is sort of ridiculous. The city doesn’t do it either. …. so …. Please? I’m begging you — do something!

Best,

jmd

Joan M. Doughty
PhD Executive Director Community Action Network
www.canannarbor.org

Doughty’s correspondence to the city indicates that many other nonprofits receiving funding from the city don’t meet the conditions of the living wage ordinance, but there is no enforcement.

Doughty’s correspondence in the summer of 2012 also mentions the fact that the city’s ordinance is likely on dubious legal grounds. As The Chronicle has previously reported, a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 left in place an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

Doughty appears to indicate in her correspondence that city attorney Stephen Postema had related in conversation with Doughty’s husband, Washtenaw County prosecutor Brian Mackie, that Postema felt if the city’s living wage ordinance were to be challenged in court, it would be struck down. Writing on July 12, 2012 to Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Doughty indicated that a “family member” of hers had discussed the legal issues with Ann Arbor city attorney Stephen Postema:

I understand that Steve Postuma [sic] circulated a confidential memo to city council members about the issue. Publicly he holds that because the Supreme Court’s decision was “unpublished” (it’s not – you can find it on the Internet) it isn’t applicable wider than in the Detroit case. That might be true, but a family member of mine with considerable legal knowledge contends that if a company or agency challenged the Ann Arbor living wage in court, it too would most likely fall. And Steve has conceded this to the same family member…

In a phone interview, Mackie told The Chronicle that he does recall discussing the living wage issue with Postema, characterizing the conversations as not being substantive. However, Mackie recalled telling Postema he thought it was wrong that the city was exempting itself from its own ordinance. He also recalled Postema saying there was an argument to be made in defense of the ordinance – but Mackie said he didn’t recollect anything more detailed than that.

In other correspondence on April 26, 2012 to city of Ann Arbor community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, Doughty refers to her husband:

I asked my husband (who is an attorney) to read the court of appeals decision, and he is of the opinion that it shouldn’t take filing a lawsuit against the city to “make” it take the right and legal action.

In her July 12 email, Doughty pitches the idea to Smith of altering or rescinding the city ordinance. And it’s Smith to whom Doughty proposes the idea, in part because Smith would be leaving the council, because she did not seek re-election:

… she [Mary Jo Callan] told me that the city council members she talked to would like to change the living wage, but, in our liberal climate, none of them want to be “the one” who proposes it. So … since you’re not running for re-election, I’m hoping you are willing to “do the deed”. There are many approaches and options: abolish it completely since there is nobody monitoring it and it’s probably illegal – revoke it pending a potential overhaul, exempt nonprofits, define more specifically who should receive living wage (so: not summer staff, not true part time staff and entry staff levels) etc. etc. etc.

Living Wage: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know how many exemptions from the city’s living wage ordinance had ever been granted. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that he was not personally aware of one.

Joan Doughty, executive director of the Community Action Network (CAN).

Mayor John Hieftje ventured that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival had been exempted. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that the ordinance had been revised to exempt nonprofits that are supported through the city’s community events fund, as is the case with the Summer Festival. [For some additional history of the living wage in Ann Arbor, see "Living Wage: Insourcing City Temps"]

Higgins indicated she was not against granting a waiver to CAN – and she was asking about previous waivers merely because she was curious.

Hieftje had a couple of concerns about granting a waiver to CAN. For human services nonprofits, he said, some of their employees are trying to avoid becoming clients themselves. CAN’s situation, he allowed, might be somewhat different in that the positions in question were held by part-time, student employees, rather than full-time. Hieftje said he would need some time to think about it, but would prefer to consider the issue more as a package of all nonprofits at one time. His second concern was that there’s been a lot of time since the ordinance was enacted – and at the beginning the provision for a waiver was put in to give nonprofits time to adjust. He characterized himself as “still puzzling this one out.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Joan Doughty to come to the podium to answer questions. Doughty confirmed that the waiver was being requested not in order to pay full-time staff less than the living wage, but rather for students. Doughty also stressed that she and CAN are not against the living wage, but rather against it as it’s written and applied currently. She added that a lot of nonprofits are not paying the living wage, but said that “We all know that it’s not being checked.” But “flying under the radar” was not how CAN does its business, she said, so CAN wanted to use the waiver option as provided in the ordinance to do it the right way.

Lumm indicated that additional background on the living wage would be provided at the Nov. 19 meeting when the ordinance revision would be proposed. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification about why CAN hadn’t been able to receive the funds it was due under the contract with the city. Doughty explained that the city attorney had indicated the funds couldn’t be disbursed to CAN until she signed, indicating that CAN was complying with the city’s living wage ordinance. Doughty indicated that instead of signing something that attested that CAN was complying with the living wage ordinance, CAN had applied for a waiver. Unless that waiver is approved, she said, CAN could not get paid.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told Doughty that he appreciated that CAN was following the city’s ordinance – and that was enough to make him support it. Teall concurred with Kunselman. Unlike Hieftje, Teall said she’d prefer to decide the waiver for CAN separately from the ordinance revisions. She felt that CAN has waited long enough.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) took issue with the view expressed by Teall and Kunselman, saying that the fact that there’s a mechanism for requesting a waiver shouldn’t be sufficient grounds for granting it. Part of the compliance plan is supposed to include an explanation for how the organization would come into compliance, he noted. Doughty told Hohnke: “That’s what we submitted.” Hohnke told her he was having trouble following the plan. Doughty ticked through the basic four options: (1) CAN would cut programs; (2) CAN would reduce eligibility for participation; (3) the city would increase human services funding; or (4) the city would change the ordinance exempting nonprofits.

From left: Ann Arbor councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Hohnke asked what other sources of funding CAN had. Doughty listed off several organizations: Ann Arbor Housing Commission, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, United Way, HUD, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, various church congregations, Kiwanis, and Rotary. She allowed that it’s a complicated funding structure for a small nonprofit. Hohnke appreciated that Doughty had brought forward the issue, because it allowed a structural issue to be identified. It might be that some people don’t need to earn a living with the wage they’re being paid, Hohnke said. Like Hieftje, he wanted to consider it as a whole rather than as a one-off exception. He indicated support for possible postponement.

Responding to Hohnke’s suggestion to postpone, Doughty indicated that CAN can’t get paid until a waiver is granted. Hieftje admonished Doughty that she needed to restrict herself to responding to questions.

Lumm addressed the timing issue by saying that the ordinance revision would have been brought for initial consideration that night. But it was seen as undesirable to have one edition of the council approve it on first reading and another at the second reading. [The new council will be seated at the Nov. 19 meeting.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that for her, there were two important considerations: (1) CAN hasn’t signed a living wage statement; and (2) the application for a waiver requires a plan to come into compliance. She said she’d read the plan submitted by CAN several times, but she didn’t see how it brought CAN into compliance. Doughty pointed Briere to the part in the plan that explains how CAN would use the time of the waiver to renegotiate contracts with other funders so that CAN could pay those contracts. Briere indicated she didn’t see that statement in the plan, but even if she did, she wasn’t sure how that would bring CAN into compliance. Briere recognized that Lumm was going to propose an ordinance revision, but there’s no guarantee it would pass.

Lumm asked city attorney Stephen Postema if he’d reviewed CAN’s compliance plan. Postema indicated that he’d looked at the plan, but said it’s for the council to determine if the plan is sufficient. He allowed that the plan covers the words of the ordinance. Lumm got confirmation from Postema that the city does exempt itself from the living wage.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) told Doughty she was in an unenviable position, saying that CAN does a tremendous service to the community. He didn’t want to get lost in the semantics. He appreciated that Doughty had stepped forward and said CAN was having a hard time, calling it noble of Doughty to have come forward. Anglin feared that this is the tip of a terrible iceberg.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed Anglin’s sentiments. He got confirmation from Doughty that the needs increase during the winter months. That immediacy, he said, warrants consideration immediately. The larger issue of the ordinance revision can be addressed later, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he knew what good work CAN does, and he felt it makes perfect sense that an amendment to the ordinance should be sought. That’s logically separate, however, from seeking a waiver within the ordinance, he said. In contrast to Teall and Kunselman, however, he didn’t see CAN’s request for a waiver as trailblazing or as enhancing the moral stature of CAN. For the city to enforce the ordinance also does not diminish its moral standing, he said. Taylor allowed that it’s a good thing that CAN chose not to dissemble, but it’s not a black mark on the city that it enforced its ordinance and withheld the funds. Taylor said he’s delighted there’s a mechanism to break through that knot, so he’d support it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she didn’t have a problem supporting the waiver request. Hohnke reiterated that he felt the issue should be addressed holistically across nonprofits. Addressing the merits of the plan submitted by CAN, Hohnke felt the spirit of the plan specified in the ordinance was to think about increasing revenue streams and consolidating. He reiterated a preference to consider the ordinance change and to delay the waiver request.

Joan Doughty, executive director of the Community Action Network, and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Teall noted that if the request for the waiver had been presented last summer, the issue of considering the waiver and the ordinance change would not have come close to the same time. She wanted to know why it had taken so long. Postema observed that the city staff itself cannot provide a waiver, but rather it’s for the council to consider. There was no compliance request in place in July, he said – and CAN’s plan had only just been received.

Doughty reviewed how CAN had sent a letter, revised it and was then told that it was insufficient in September. Postema said he couldn’t comment on what happened between CAN and the office of community development. For whatever reason, he said, the waiver request is in front of the council now.

Teall indicated she agreed with Taylor’s remarks. Kunselman weighed in again, saying, “We’re way over-thinking this.” He disagreed with Taylor, saying that CAN was, in fact, blazing a trail, because they’re the first nonprofit to seek a waiver. He ventured that no nonprofit wants to seek a waiver, because they know they’d face a city council discussion that goes nowhere.

Hieftje reiterated that he wanted to take a more holistic look, which would begin at the next council meeting – in 11 days. He wanted to see the waiver postponed until the next meeting.

Briere floated the possibility that if CAN received a waiver, it might work against CAN because CAN would then be constrained by the ordinance, even if the council amended the ordinance. Taylor established that CAN would be done no harm with a waiver under the old ordinance, if the ordinance were eventually amended.

Outcome: The council voted to grant CAN a waiver from the city’s living wage ordinance, with dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Though she voted yes, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated as she voted that she didn’t like granting the waiver.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund

The city council was asked to increase Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund by $90,000, through a transfer from the general fund reserve.

The amount of the transfer was keyed to the cost of a piece of city-owned property that the city sold recently to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. And the justification for the transfer was based on the council’s recent enactment of a formal policy on the use of the proceeds of city-owned land sales.

The $90,000 piece of land is a six-foot-wide strip on the former YMCA lot at Fifth and William, immediately to the south of the location for the AATA’s planned new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. The $90,000 price was based on an independent appraisal. The AATA board approved its side of that deal this spring at its April 26, 2012 meeting. The city council approved the land sale over a year ago, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. The total parcel area was 792 square feet.

The land sale policy approved by the council on Oct. 15, 2012 had begun as a proposal from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to allocate 85% of the net proceeds of city-owned land to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The council originally considered the item at its Sept. 17, 2012 meeting but delayed action. The council eventually opted to adopt a policy that treated land sales on a case-by-case basis – except for the former Y lot at Fifth and William, of which the six-foot-wide strip was a part. The enacted policy called for net proceeds from that parcel to be placed in the affordable housing trust fund. [For additional background, see: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”]

Because the $90,000 piece of property had been a portion of the former Y lot, the resolution in effect would retroactively apply the policy on use of land sale proceeds – by transferring $90,000 to the affordable housing trust fund. The portion of the policy that requires the city to recover its costs associated with the property was not applied – as the city purchased the land for $3.5 million.

The resolution was sponsored by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje – although Smith was not able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting.

The six-foot-wide strip of land, and its $90,000 price, has been highlighted in recent council deliberations for a different reason – as a funding source for a transportation connector study. The city of Ann Arbor had been asked to contribute $60,000 to an alternatives analysis study of the Plymouth/State corridor, from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, extending south to I-94. The local match was needed for a $1.2 million federal grant that had been awarded to the AATA for the study.

During deliberations on the $60,000 connector study allocation at the Sept. 4, 2012 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had objected to one of the “whereas” clauses in the resolution. The clause mentioned the availability of $90,000 in the general fund from the land sale, which was more than enough to cover the requested $60,000 local match. So the allocation was essentially pitched as a “return” to the AATA of a portion of the land sale price. Kunselman objected that once the $90,000 was in the general fund reserve, it was no longer earmarked as funds to be used for any particular purpose.

When the council eventually reconsidered the decision on Oct. 15, 2012 and wound up approving $30,000 for the study – because the Ann Arbor DDA had in the meantime agreed to contribute $30,000 – it was Higgins who raised the objection about the “whereas” clause. And the clause was amended out before the council’s approval.

The groundbreaking for the AATA’s new Blake Transit Center – which had occasioned the sale of the six-foot strip of land on the southwestern edge of the AATA’s property – is scheduled for Nov. 19. The AATA board gave final approval of a roughly $8 million budget for the transit center at its Oct. 18, 2012 meeting.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was concerned about the appearance that the council was randomly spending money out of the fund balance. In a back-and-forth with the city’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford, Lumm established that the resolution was a transfer from the general fund balance reserve and not directly connected to the sale of land. Crawford characterized the resolution as tying into the concept of the land sale policy, and linking the land sale in concept to the depositing of money into the affordable housing trust fund – he noted that the resolution was transferring $90,000 from the general fund balance.

From left: City administrator Steve Powers and chief financial officer Tom Crawford.

Lumm seemed to indicate some dissatisfaction with the fact that a requirement of the land sale policy – that the related transactional costs be deducted before transfer to the affordable housing trust fund – didn’t seem to apply to the resolution.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) suggested a “friendly” amendment to change the “resolved” clause to read: “… after any costs associated with the sale have been deducted.” Crawford thought that the $90,000 was already the net amount, because the city had negotiated to have the AATA bear the closing costs. In any case, he said, the amount was not a large number. So Briere withdrew the proposed amendment.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed concern about the idea of applying a policy retroactively – to a piece of land that had previously been sold. Lumm echoed Kunselman’s sentiment.

Briere allowed that Kunselman and Lumm were right in that the land sale policy was enacted after the land in question had been sold. However, Briere said, “This resolution … has nothing to do with the policy – except as realization that we’d already sold a piece of the old Y lot.” It seemed appropriate to Briere to treat that previous sale as part of the Y lot, which the council wanted to go to the affordable housing trust fund.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he supported the resolution based on the fact that the city had not been able to make regular contributions to the affordable housing trust fund.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to transfer $90,000 to the affordable housing trust fund.

Defined Contribution Retirement Plan

On the council’s agenda was a resolution, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that directed the city administrator to develop a defined contribution retirement plan to offer non-union employees hired after July 1, 2013. The city currently has a defined benefit plan.

Although the resolution indicated specific action for non-union employees, it also included a goal to implement a similar change for union employees – which would have to be collectively bargained. The second resolved clause indicated that the city would “… strive to implement the same pension changes for all new employees.”

The directive to the city administrator in the resolution stated that the non-union retirement plan – along with the appropriate ordinance amendments, related plan documents, and implementation steps – were to be developed within three months, by Jan. 31, 2013, for review first by the city council’s labor committee then by the full council.

Lumm’s resolution had been added to the Nov. 8 agenda on Nov. 2. She had told her colleagues at the council’s Oct. 1, 2012 meeting that she’d be bringing the resolution forward. She’d drafted a similar resolution in May this year, in connection with possible amendments to the FY 2013 budget. She didn’t bring forward the resolution at that time, partly because it was not technically an amendment to the budget and partly because the deliberations on the budget had already lasted several hours.

Lumm campaigned for her seat on the council in 2011 based partly on a call for a transition to a defined contribution plan. Among the reasons Lumm cited in her resolution was state legislation that was enacted recently – which will facilitate the transition to defined contribution plans. [.pdf of analysis by Senate Fiscal Agency of Public Act 329 of 2012]

In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common of these defined contribution plans is the 401(k).

Defined Contribution Plan: Council Deliberations

Apparently related to the resolution on converting to a defined contribution retirement was a closed session held at the beginning of the council’s Nov. 8 meeting, to discuss labor negotiation strategy. Discussion of labor strategy is one of the exceptions that can be used under Michigan’s Open Meeting Act to hold a closed session. Conversion to a defined contribution plan for union members would need to be collectively bargained. The closed session was added to the council’s agenda at the meeting and took place before the council handled the rest of the agenda.

When the council reached the resolution on moving toward a defined contribution plan, Lumm said she believed the city must address issue of legacy costs. She felt that the issue should be addressed now, instead of kicking the can down the road. The city had taken one step toward addressing the problem by adopting an “access only” health care plan. The next step now, in her view, was to change to a defined contribution type plan similar to a 401(k) type of plan. She noted that other public and private organizations had adopted this approach in order to reduce employee costs.

In 2004, a city of Ann Arbor blue ribbon committee had made a recommendation to transition to such a plan, and it’s now seven years later, Lumm said. However, she noted that the city administrator and the city attorney had raised some questions about her resolution. Out of respect for their concerns she was withdrawing the item, but she looked forward to future discussion.

Outcome: The item on moving toward a defined contribution retirement plan was withdrawn.

Appointments

At its Nov. 8 meeting, the council handled a couple of items related to appointments to boards, commissions and task forces.

Appointments: North Main Task Force

The council considered expanding a task force that’s looking at future planning for the North Main Street and Huron River corridor – so that it could include outgoing councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1). She was appointed to represent the council on the group, but did not seek re-election to her council seat.

Mayor John Hieftje had indicated at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting that he would be moving to expand the task force in this way. The resolution was sponsored by Smith’s Ward 1 cohort, Sabra Briere.

Smith’s last meeting was Oct. 15, because she was unable to attend the final meeting of her term, which was Nov. 8. New councilmembers – including Sumi Kailasapathy, who’ll take the seat held by Smith – will be ceremonially sworn in at the council’s Nov. 19 meeting.

The task force is due to make a recommendation on a use for the city-owned 721 N. Main Street parcel by the end of the year. That comes in the context of a planned application by the city to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund next year for a grant in connection with 721 N. Main. The group’s broader recommendation for the entire corridor is not due until mid-year 2013.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to expand the North Main task force, to confirm Sandi Smith as an additional citizen member and to confirm Sabra Briere as the council representative to the task force.

Appointment: Planning Commission

On the agenda was the confirmation of Tony Derezinski to fill a partial term on the city planning commission – through June of 2013. Derezinski’s last meeting as a city councilmember was Nov. 8, and up to that point he had served by annual appointment as the council’s representative to the planning commission. But because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race in Ward 2, he could not continue to serve on the planning commission in that capacity. Instead, it’s expected that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will serve in that role.

The vacancy on the planning commission for which Derezinski was nominated is opening up due to the resignation of Evan Pratt, who won a new position for himself as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in the Nov. 6 election. Derezinski was nominated by the council to fill a citizen position on the commission.

Derezinski, along with Susan Baskett, also had been nominated at the council’s Oct. 15 meeting to serve as a board member for the recently incorporated Act 196 transit authority. But in light of the council’s action to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8 meeting, the council won’t be acting on those nominations.

Ward 2 city councilmembers Tony Derezinski and Jane Lumm.

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the item on the agenda by thanking Pratt for his service on the planning commission. Hieftje indicated that his interest in appointing Derezinski was based on a desire to have some continuity on the commission.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) began her remarks objecting to Derezinski’s appointment by turning to Derezinski, seated immediately to her right, and saying, “You know I love you, Tony … This is really not fun for me.” She stressed that her objection had nothing to do with Derezinski. She was not comfortable making the appointment for reasons similar to those she gave in voting against the appointment of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to the board of the DDA. [That vote came at the council's Aug. 20, 2012 meeting.] She drew a distinction between the appointment of Smith to the North Main task force, and the appointments to the DDA board and planning commission.

Lumm told Derezinski that she felt he’d done a phenomenal job on the planning commission. She allowed that it had been a practice to appoint former councilmembers to such positions, but she did not agree with it. She concluded her remarks by telling Derezinski, “I hope you understand.” His response: “Noted.”

Lumm’s remarks prompted several councilmembers to express their support of Derezinski’s appointment. Hieftje drew a comparison between Derezinski’s appointment to the planning commission and that of former councilmember Jean Carlberg. He said it would be a shame to waste the expertise and depth of knowledge that Derezinski offered.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that Derezinski’s appointment would be finishing out a term.

Outcome: The council voted to appoint Tony Derezinski to the planning commission, over dissent from Jane Lumm.

Appointments: Upcoming

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated during council communications time that she’d be bringing forward to the Nov. 19 meeting the nomination of Patti Smith to serve on the city’s environmental commission. [The environmental commission is one of the few boards and commissions that have nominations come from the council as a body instead of the mayor.]

Appointments: Council Committees

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her council colleagues during communications time that with new councilmembers coming on board at the next meeting, it’s the time of year when the organization of the council is considered. She asked councilmembers to forward to her their preferences for committee appointments. She hoped to have the committee appointments ready for the council’s first meeting in December.

Upcoming Council Business

The Ann Arbor city council’s post-election Nov. 8 session was its last meeting before new councilmembers are ceremonially sworn in on Nov. 19. And current city councilmembers used the occasion to announce some issues that the new edition of the council will be asked to consider.

Upcoming Business: Towing

During council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had been working on a towing ordinance revision that would come before the council for a first reading at the Nov. 19 meeting.

Upcoming Business: Public Art

At the Nov. 19 meeting, two proposals will be brought forward on the city’s public art ordinance. The changes stem from the fact that a proposed public art millage failed at the polls on Nov. 6 by a 10-point margin (55.8% opposed and 44.14% in favor).

So at the Nov. 8 meeting, two different proposals were floated on the city’s existing public art ordinance – based on possibly differing interpretations of the expressed voter sentiment. It’s possible to construe the result as either (1) about the way public art is funded or (2) about whether public money should be used to support public art at all. One proposal was announced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and the other by Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Briere’s proposal is to narrow the definition of projects to which the existing ordinance would apply. Currently, the Percent for Art ordinance applies to essentially any capital improvement project undertaken by the city, and requires that 1% of the budget for such projects be set aside for public art. Briere’s proposal would narrow the definition by restricting eligible capital improvement projects to those that are “intended to be open or visible to the public.” Projects to construct roads, highways, paths, and sidewalks would be eliminated from eligibility. Bridges would still qualify.

Briere’s proposal includes a financial threshold for qualifying projects: $100,000. Briere’s proposed ordinance amendments would also require a public process associated with proposed art projects. Part of that process would require notification of the councilmembers in whose ward a project is proposed.

Lumm’s proposal is not to amend the existing public art ordinance, but rather to repeal it. Lumm described her intent at the Nov. 8 meeting to bring forward a proposal similar to one she’d made at the council’s Aug. 20, 2012 meeting – a resolution that directed the city attorney’s office to prepare an ordinance revision that would repeal the Percent for Art program. In an email sent to other councilmembers, Lumm stated that ”… the version I will bring forward on 11/19 will be the proposed ordinance changes themselves for consideration at first reading.”

The Aug. 20 meeting was the occasion on which the council voted to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. It was meant to provide a more flexible funding mechanism for public art in Ann Arbor. The 0.1 mill tax was expected to generate around $450,000 annually.

The proposal won a majority of votes in just 13 out of 59 Ann Arbor precincts, with the most support coming from Ward 5, Precinct 4 where 60.5% of voters supported the public art millage. Ward 5 had six of the 13 precincts where the proposal achieved a majority. And the proposal finished in a dead heat in Ward 5, Precinct 5 with 471 voting for and against it. Opposition among in-person voters was strongest in Ward 1, Precinct 9, where only 34.5% of voters supported it.

The proposal did not win a majority of votes in any precinct of Ward 2, which is represented by Lumm and Tony Derezinski, who also serves on the Ann Arbor public art commission. Nov. 8 was Derezinski’s last council meeting – he was defeated by Sally Petersen in the August Democratic primary.

Upcoming Business: Living Wage

In connection to the discussion on the living wage ordinance exemption granted to Community Action Network, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) announced she’d also be bringing forward a proposed ordinance revision for the Nov. 19 meeting that would provide a uniform exception for nonprofit entities that receive human services funding allocations from the city.

Dissolution of Sign Board of Appeals

The council was asked to give final approval to the transfer of responsibilities previously performed by Ann Arbor’s sign board of appeals (SBA) to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The change to the city’s ordinance had been given initial approval on Oct. 15, 2012.

The ordinance change was accompanied on the agenda by a separate council action eliminating the seven-member sign board of appeals, which most recently has had only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA will now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010, and more recently at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, when it recommended the change.

During the brief deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described the move as an effort to streamline the process. He noted that the SBA handled just six appeals last year. The ZBA could easily handle that as a part of its regular process, he said. Eliminating the SBA would eliminate some of the paperwork that goes along with having a separate body, he said. Mayor John Hieftje said that the streamlining would be beneficial. He ventured that maybe some people who might have otherwise had interest in serving on the sign board would instead want to serve on the ZBA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give final approval to the ordinance change transferring responsibility from the SBA to the ZBA and to dissolve the SBA.

Pedestrian Improvements

The council considered to two separate projects featuring pedestrian and non-motorized improvements. One is a Safe Routes to School project on Green Road. And the other involves a Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) project to install a pedestrian island on Huron Street between Thayer and Ingalls.

Thurston Elementary Safe Routes to School project.

What the council was asked to authorize for the Safe Routes to School project – in connection with Thurston Elementary School – was an agreement between the city and MDOT for the installation of bike and pedestrian safety improvements on Green Road. The agreement is required as a condition of the federal funds used for the project – a total of $111,800. The city will be using $18,000 from its alternative transportation fund to cover construction inspection and contingency costs.

The project itself includes installation of two new pedestrian crossing islands and bike lanes on Green Road. It also includes converting a portion of Green Road to three lanes and installing two rectangular rapid flashing beacons.

The authorization to apply for the federal funding was given by the council over two years ago at its Sept. 7, 2010 meeting.

The second project is a pedestrian island being installed by MDOT on Huron between Thayer and Ingalls. The city will be performing construction engineering services in its role as construction manager. The city’s cost of $6,400 will be reimbursed from federal funds.

Construction on both projects is expected to begin in the spring of 2013.

The item on the Huron Street pedestrian island was on the consent agenda, a collection of items that are voted on as a group. Any councilmember can pull individual items out of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pulled out the item about the pedestrian island in order to make some remarks about it.

Not many years ago, Briere said, it would be difficult to imagine a crosswalk or light on this part of Huron Street. Now there’s even a pedestrian island. She said that these infrastructure improvements reflect a greater use of the area by pedestrians and also an acknowledgment of the importance of transportation in the community. She was pleased with the accommodations that MDOT had been able to make to implement the pedestrian island. She called it a really good move. Students and faculty walk across Huron Street at that point all the time, she said. Anything to make the crossing safer is better, she concluded.

On the Safe Routes to School items, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff for providing a map of the improvements and for their work in making the grant applications. And Briere pointed out that this grant is the second one received by the city for this purpose. It’s important for children to be able to walk to school instead of catching a bus, she said. This project for Thurston Elementary coordinates with one for Clague Middle School.

Briere noted that it had taken two years to bring the grant process to fruition. So the city can’t rely only on this kind of mechanism to address gaps in the pedestrian infrastructure.

Briere’s concluding remark served to foreshadow an item on the council’s Nov. 19 agenda, which would establish a $15,000 budget to analyze alternatives for filling a sidewalk gap on Scio Church Road.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve both pedestrian improvement-related agenda items.

Firefighter Staffing Levels

The council was asked to nudge upward by one the number of firefighters authorized in the current year’s budget for the city of Ann Arbor – to 86. The position will be funded for the rest of the current fiscal year by tapping the general fund balance reserve for $50,000. For the full year next year, the additional position would cost about $82,000.

According to a memo sent by city administrator Steve Powers to city councilmembers, as the budget planning cycle begins for FY 2014-015, he anticipates being able to maintain the 86 firefighter positions. Part of the rationale for adding the additional position is based on the fact that a recent hiring cycle to fill six positions had resulted in seven highly qualified candidates. The additional position would, according to Powers’ memo, help manage overtime and allow assignment of personnel to fire prevention work.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers peruses the printed copy of the council’s agenda.

The staffing level at 85 already reflects the addition of three firefighters since the FY 2013 budget was approved on May 21, 2012. That staffing level increase, from 82 to 85, was funded from a $642,294 federal grant through the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), which was announced on May 30, 2012. The vote to accept the SAFER grant and add three firefighter positions was taken at the council’s Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. At that time, fire chief Chuck Hubbard reported that the city had three vacancies, or 79 firefighters on staff.

The $321,000 from the SAFER grant for each of the next two years was allocated for three firefighter positions, which the city estimates will cost $255,000 (at $85,000 per position). The remaining $66,000 per year was determined to be spent on other unspecified fire services needs, according to the staff memo accompanying the council’s August resolution – including overtime and fleet expenses. Hiring a fourth firefighter was analyzed at the time as requiring $19,000 of fund balance.

Deliberations by the council featured a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3): How does this affect a possible decision to close two fire stations? [By way of background, the city is currently still weighing whether to re-open Station 2, and close Station 3, 4 and 6, leaving three stations open – a net reduction of two stations. For more detail, see previous Chronicle coverage: "A Closer Look at Ann Arbor's Fire Station Plan"]

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the addition of one firefighter would not have an impact either way on the station plan – because a staffing level of 86 still provides enough firefighters to operate an additional station. Adding the position would allow for better performance in the current operational configuration, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirmed with Powers that the addition would result in an actual addition of a firefighter, and would not just be an addition on paper.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her support for the increased firefighter staffing levels.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to increase the staffing level for firefighters from 85 to 86.

Plymouth Green Crossing Revision

The council was asked to give final approval to several changes to the PUD (planned unit development) supplemental regulations for Plymouth Green Crossings – a mixed-use complex off of Plymouth Road, west of Green Road. At the meeting, the council was also asked to give approval to corresponding changes to the site plan for the complex.

The city planning commission had given its recommendation to approve the change at its Aug. 21, 2012 meeting. Six major changes were proposed: (1) adding parking or flexible space for special events as permitted uses in the ground floor of a proposed three-story mixed-use building, on the site’s northeast corner; (2) increasing the use of potential restaurant space within the site from 7,000 square feet to 14,224 square feet; (3) eliminating requirements for a free-standing restaurant that had previously been planned; (4) increasing the maximum number of parking spaces from 275 to 290; (5) reducing the minimum number of bicycle storage spaces from 70 to 64; and (6) adding the following language to the facade section: “ground level facades of Building A if used as interior parking shall include architectural columns, a minimum 3-foot height masonry screen wall, and louvers or grills to screen views to parking while permitting natural ventilation.”

In addition, the city recently discovered that the bank building was built one foot from the west property line, although the approved site plan and supplemental regulations required a two-foot setback. To resolve this, the owner proposed an amendment of the PUD supplemental regulations, according to a staff memo. The memo also indicates that the owner has been making contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund, rather than providing affordable housing within the complex. The final payment is due at the end of this year. [For background on a current policy discussion on the affordable housing trust fund, see "City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy."]

This isn’t the first time that changes have been requested for the site. In 2009, developers also asked to amend the original PUD agreement. Rather than build a restaurant, they asked for permission to turn that part of the site into a temporary parking lot, adding 26 additional parking spaces and 11 spots for motorcycles. The planning commission didn’t act on that request until its Feb. 18, 2010 meeting. Although all five commissioners at that meeting voted to approve the request, the action required six votes to pass, so it failed for lack of votes. However, the request was forwarded to the city council, which ultimately granted approval at its April 19, 2010 meeting.

Plymouth Green: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge spoke at both public hearings on the Plymouth Green Crossing. He called for connecting these types of rezoning approvals to a commitment to provide access for affordable public transportation to the sites. As a Democrat, he stands for progress, he said. He alluded to the presidential election and the campaign, which resulted in an admonishment from mayor John Hieftje to confine his comments to the topic of the hearing. Partridge told him that he disagreed with Hieftje’s attempt to limit freedom of speech. Hieftje responded that he didn’t see how a presidential candidate related to the site plan. Partridge parted from the podium with a suggestion: “Maybe you should go to law school.”

Plymouth Green: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described the revisions as an attempt to use the space in a better way. A lot of other potentials could be realized if the site had more parking, he said. On the site plan, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) recited the key changes and indicated that she felt they had a beneficial effect for the city and were consistent with the master plan.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the PUD and the site plan changes for Plymouth Green Crossing.

City Attorney Performance Review

The council held a closed session toward the end of the meeting, to discuss the personnel review of city attorney Stephen Postema. Deliberations on a personnel review are not required to be held in a closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings, and may not be held in closed session unless “the named person requests a closed hearing.” Postema’s employment contract requires his personnel evaluation be conducted in a closed session.

When the council emerged from the closed session, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) read aloud the resolution adjusting Postema’s salary upward for the first time since 2007, by 2.4%. According to the city’s human resources office, Postema’s salary before the increase was $141,538. The 2.4% increase on that base brings his annual salary to $144,934, just under that of city administrator Steve Powers, who is paid $145,000. The city attorney and the city administrator are the two positions that report directly to the city council. [.pdf of form used by councilmembers to evaluate Postema's performance]

The salary increase for Postema was balanced against the elimination of his vehicle allowance of $330/month – for a net loss in total annual compensation of $563 [141538*.024 - 330*12].

An overview of Postema’s salary history:

• Nov. 8, 2012: 2.4% raise on base salary ($141,538) bringing it to $144,934; can cash in 300 hours before June 30, 2013; car allowance of $330/month eliminated.
• Dec. 19, 2011: can cash in 250 hours before June 30, 2012.
• Oct. 24, 2011: can cash in 250 hours before Dec. 31, 2011.
• Nov. 5, 2009: can cash in 120 hours before June 30, 2010.
• Oct. 20, 2008: paid lump sum of 2.75% annual salary; could cash in 150 hours before June 30, 2009; allowed to engage in outside legal work.
• Nov. 5, 2007: base salary increased by 2.75% for “merit increase” and 1.25% “market increase”; vacation days increased to 25 days per year.
• March 20, 2006: could cash in 80 hours of unused vacation time before June 30, 2006.
• Oct. 5, 2005: base salary increased at Postema’s discretion up to 3%; awarded 80 hours of vacation time.
• Sept. 13, 2004: base salary increased by 3% to $130,810; annual vacation days increased to 22 days.
• April 3, 2003: started work at base salary of $127,000 (20 vacation days in addition to legal holidays).

After the council voted to approve Postema’s salary increase, Postema asked to deliver some remarks. He said that when he was hired, he’d been asked to come in and help the city. He described his work as a sometimes thankless task. He appreciated the faith that the council had shown in him, saying that the words of councilmembers meant a great deal to him. He said he’d continue to do what aids the city.

Outcome: The council’s vote on Postema’s salary adjustment was unanimous.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Elections

During his communications time, city administrator Steve Powers thanked the city clerk’s staff for their work in connection with the Nov. 6 elections.

The line to vote at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street on Election Day – Nov. 6, 2012. It wrapped around on itself inside the building and spilled out onto the sidewalk and out to the street. Some people reportedly stood in line up to two hours.

He acknowledged the long lines that some precincts experienced, and took a positive perspective on that, saying that it reflected heavy turnout. Following up on Powers’ remarks, mayor John Hieftje indicated an interest in reviewing the possibility of adding more than one electronic poll book per precinct – noting that the limit of one per precinct was a state requirement.

Hieftje ventured that it might be worth discussing the creation of more precincts – even if it were only for national elections. The length of the lines could deter some people from voting, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) inquired with city clerk Jackie Beaudry whether the turnout for state elections might warrant additional poll books or precincts. Beaudry indicated that turnout for state elections did not generate the kind of turnout that national elections did.

Comm/Comm: AAPD Volunteer

Samantha Brandfon was recognized with a mayoral proclamation for her volunteer work with the Ann Arbor police department.

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto and Samantha Brandfon, who was recognized by the city council for her volunteer work.

In her brief remarks to the council, she said that she’d come to Ann Arbor to attend graduate school, had stayed and was pleased to give back to the community in whatever way that she could.

Comm/Comm: Progressive Politics

During the initial public commentary session, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, a Democrat and longtime advocate for most disadvantaged members of society. He had been calling publicly and vociferously for measures to advance the cause of America’s most vulnerable for more than for 10 years. He was honored to do so once again on the occasion of the re-election of first African American U.S. president. He called on councilmembers and the mayor to remember the commitments they made when they ran for office, to work for accessible affordable services for middle class residents – and in so doing to build a better society with a greater and higher commitment to street level politics, not selfish, divisive issues. He was critical of the fact that the resolution to opt out of the countywide transit authority and the allocation of money to the affordable housing trust fund would take the city in opposite directions.

At the end of the meeting, Partridge also addressed the council and expressed his disappointment at the council’s decision to opt out of the countywide transit authority. He called on members of the public not to take that decision sitting down and encouraged them to take heart. He described mayor John Hieftje as having given up – not like Barack Obama.

Comm/Comm: Role of Local Government in Sustainability

Kermit Schlansker allowed that the presidential debates were important for the future of the country, but he lamented the fact that there’d been no mention of running out of energy. He described the national government as concerned mostly with politics. Local governments need to take up the slack, he said. He described how he’d not be able to address the council during general public commentary on some previous occasions because he’d been “kicked off the agenda” in favor of speakers who wanted to talk about medical marijuana and public art. [The council's rules for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting give preference to speakers who want to speak about items on the council's agenda.]

Schlansker described the Ann Arbor District Library’s bond proposal as a desire to build “a new Taj Mahal.” He wondered why there was not a bond proposal on the ballot “to feed the city.” Jobs are needed now, he said, and local government has just as much responsibility to address that need as state and federal governments. He called for the establishment of energy farms as one step that could be taken.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Absent: Sandi Smith.

Next council meeting: Monday, Nov. 19, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

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

Also added to the meeting’s agenda were two of the seven needed nominations to the new Act 196 transit board: Susan Baskett, who currently serves as a trustee on the Ann Arbor Public Schools board; and Tony Derezinski, who currently serves on the city council. Derezinski will be leaving the council in mid-November, because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race. His last city council meeting will be Nov. 8.

While it had been previously assumed that the seven Ann Arbor appointments to the new authority’s 15-member board would serve simultaneously on Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s board, legal questions about simultaneous service on the two boards led to the Hieftje’s announcement.

An application for all city boards and commissions is available on the city clerk’s website.

Ann Arbor’s seven representatives to the new authority’s board first need to be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council – under terms of a four-party agreement ratified between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. Under the terms of that agreement, the AATA’s assets would not be transferred to the new authority, to be called The Washtenaw Ride, until voters approve a funding source for the expanded service to be offered.

The composition of the Ann Arbor contingent on the new authority’s board, as well as Ann Arbor’s eventual participation in the new Act 196 authority, could potentially be impacted by the delay in decision-making past the November election. Three new members will be joining the Ann Arbor city council. For more details and analysis, see previous Chronicle reporting: “Positions Open: New Transit Authority Board.”

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

From left: Jesse Bernstein, AATA CEO Michael Ford, Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson. Bernstein, Griffith and Kerson are AATA board members. (Photos by the writer.)

Based on discussion at the board’s Sept. 27 meeting, it was the AATA’s expectation that the articles would be filed as soon as Oct. 3, and the wording of the AATA’s resolution indicated that the filing should take place “immediately.”

And according to Washtenaw County clerk staff, that’s what happened. Representatives of the AATA were authorized as couriers by the clerk, and they conveyed the physical documents to Lansing.

Letters that included a notice of intent to file had been sent on Sept. 27 to every jurisdiction, and to every elected official in the county.

At the Oct. 2 meeting, board chair Charles Griffith and former chair Jesse Bernstein expressed thanks to staff and community members who’ve worked over the last two years to get the process to this point. The basic theme of most of the remarks was in the spirit of the long journey ahead.

The long journey begins with the entity that’s created by the filing – which will initially have no assets, staff, or ability to operate transportation service in the county. A 15-member board composition for the new authority is already reflected in the membership of the board of the pre-incorporated board (called the U196 board), which has been meeting already for a year. Some of those board members attended the Oct. 2 meeting – David Read (North Middle District), Bob Mester (West District), Bill Lavery (South Middle District) and David Phillips (Northeast District).

Districts that include multiple jurisdictions appoint their representatives under inter-local agreements made under Act 7. In the case of the city of Ann Arbor, the appointments to the new transit authority need to be made through the city council’s confirmation of mayoral nominations.

To make the transition from the AATA to The Washtenaw Ride, under terms of a four-party agreement, voters would need to approve a funding source adequate to pay for the proposed expanded service plan. The four-party agreement is between the AATA, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and Washtenaw County.

The five-year service plan for expanded service includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hub services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services on weekends. According to a Sept. 5 press release from the AATA, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti will get a 56% increase in service hours compared to current levels.

The AATA has indicated that a possible funding scenario is to ask voters in Washtenaw County to fund the new transit authority with a property tax of 0.584 mills – in an election that could come as early as May 2013. For a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, an 0.584 mill transit tax would cost that property owner about $58 per year. For an Ann Arbor resident with a $200,000 house, adding the 0.584 mill tax to the existing city transit tax of roughly 2 mills works out to a transportation tax burden of about $258 a year.

Also under the four-party agreement, the two cities’ transit taxes would become part of The Washtenaw Ride’s funding.

The transition would potentially not take place at all, if a majority of voters don’t approve it. Under the terms of the four-party agreement, a voter-approved funding source for the expanded services must be identified by the end of 2014.

Washtenaw County’s role is limited to the filing of the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority. The act of incorporation will include by default all jurisdictions in Washtenaw County. However, filing of the articles opens a 30-day window for jurisdictions to opt out of the arrangement. That can be accomplished through a vote of a jurisdiction’s governing body.

Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, said at the Oct. 2 meeting that he hoped to schedule the first meeting of The Washtenaw Ride’s board for Oct. 11.  Although it’s a fair assumption that the current AATA board members will be nominated by mayor John Hieftje to serve as Ann Arbor’s representatives to the new transit authority, there’s no council meeting scheduled between now and Oct. 11 when the council could vote to make those appointments official. 

Requesting Act 196 Incorporation

The only business transacted at the AATA board’s special meeting related to the resolution on incorporating the new transit authority. [.pdf of board resolution]

Charles Griffith presided over the meeting in his first session as board chair, having been elected at the board’s previous meeting. With no staff reports and no one from the public who wanted to address the board, he began the discussion by saying “We’ll just get on to the item at hand.”

Griffith said the reason for the meeting was to discuss moving forward on the AATA’s transit master plan. It reflected a lot of hard work by many staff, those who’ve been working with the staff, board members, and district representatives, he said. Griffith singled out former board chair Jesse Bernstein for his leadership on the issue. [Bernstein had served the last two years as chair.] Griffith indicated that Bernstein had told him he wouldn’t stop, but would just be sitting at a different spot at the table.

Griffith also thanked members of the broader community for their cooperation, saying he felt that it really shows how much can be accomplished when people sit down and work together. Good transit builds strong communities, he said. It provides more mobility, with less traffic. There’s less pollution. “Everybody wins in this deal,” Griffith said.

He concluded his opening remarks by asking for a motion. That was delivered by Bernstein, who then read the complete text of the resolution aloud. The motion was seconded by David Nacht, who had preceded Bernstein as board chair.

By way of background, the possibility of transitioning to a countywide authority is an idea with a long history. By 2008 there was active discussion, but with little substance behind it, at the AATA board table about the possibility of putting a millage on the ballot. But without a chief executive officer – former AATA CEO Greg Cook had resigned in early 2007 – and without a specific service plan to offer, the AATA essentially paused that kind of talk.

In 2009, the AATA board hired Michael Ford as CEO and tasked him with leading a transition to an authority with a broader governance and service area. The approach was to develop a transit master plan that reflected a 30-year vision and then to set about implementing that vision. In early 2010, then-board chair Bernstein characterized it as a “ready, aim, fire” approach. It was Bernstein who made the motion on the resolution at the Oct. 2 meeting.

“It’s time,” Bernstein began. The AATA had spent two years talking to lots of folks, he said. A structure had been set up to include everybody in the county and to start having people seated at the table with the current board [an allusion to the U196 board and the district representatives who attended the Oct. 2 meeting]. Bernstein characterized the incorporation of the Act 196 authority as formalizing the Act 196 board so that everyone can sit together and discuss the policy issues. There are a lot of options that need to be discussed openly and clearly, Bernstein said.

Bernstein hoped that a first meeting of the incorporated board could be scheduled for sometime in October. He noted that the incorporation also says to local units of government: “It’s serious; and it’s time.” He was glad there is a 30-day opt-out period. But given the timing, Bernstein felt, there would be several more months during which discussion could continue about the possibility of opting back in. “I think this is the right time to do it. I think it’s time to move forward, and I’m very honored to have made this motion.”

Roger Kerson noted the success of the process of bringing all the jurisdictions together. He joined Bernstein in looking forward to expanded discussion with a “voice and vote for everybody at the table.” At a lot of levels of government, he said, there’s gridlock. And people don’t seem to be able to get anything done, or solve problems. The communities of Washtenaw County are different from that, he said, with different populations and different constituencies, needs and interests. The cooperation that’s been achieved so far, he said, attests to a lot of hard work by a lot of people. There’s a lot of work yet to do, and he was looking forward to increasing mobility for all.

Griffith addressed the possibility of opt outs, by saying that everyone knew that some jurisdictions will not feel ready at this time to join in this effort – but that’s okay, he said. What’s important is that we give it our best shot to provide an opportunity to everyone. He said the AATA had come up with the best that it could to meet the needs that had been identified and expressed through communities across the county. “If, for whatever reason, we didn’t get that right, we can keep working at it,” he said. He characterized this step as the beginning of the journey, not the end. He hoped that as many jurisdictions would cooperate as possible.

Eli Cooper characterized it as “quite a journey.” He recalled in 2005 when he first arrived in the Ann Arbor metropolitan area, he found a “wonderful world-class transit operator that served the city of Ann Arbor and its immediate environs.” However, in the Seattle area – similar to other metropolitan areas where he’s lived in the course of his life – a seven-county regional transportation network connected things. He realized that although there was excellent local service, Ann Arbor was not connected adequately to the surrounding communities.

Cooper described a “marathon” effort dating back several years to overcome some of the barriers associated with various governance structures. But over the last two to three years, he said, with an increasing emphasis and effort and a collaborative “can do” attitude, the AATA’s organization and staff – by reaching out and responding to the communities around Ann Arbor – have fashioned what he thinks is a “winning proposition.” People who need to get to the doctor, or to the store, or have a visit with friend won’t be required to have an automobile to have to meet those most basic needs.

Cooper said he would fully support this important step. He hoped people understand there’s a lot of work ahead of us. It’s another step in the journey, and it’s been a long time in coming, he said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution requesting the filing of the articles of incorporation of The Washtenaw Ride.

After the vote, Michael Ford – CEO of the AATA – indicated that the goal was to schedule a first meeting of the Act 196 board for Oct. 11.

Ford thanked everyone for their help and support – the countless meetings, late nights, weekends, holidays. He also thanked the district representatives for their help, support and participation, saying he wanted to continue that relationship going forward. He also thanked the current board of the AATA.

Kerson drew out the fact that the existing AATA board would continue to meet, because it would continue to have business to conduct. Two separate structures would persist for some period of time.

Nacht noted that the current AATA board would still need to vote in order to do anything involving funds. Only the AATA board can vote on those funds, so the AATA board [incorporated under Act 55] would need to continue to meet.

Public Comment

Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living introduced herself as a Washtenaw County resident. She described herself as excited to be moving down the road of countywide transportation. She looked forward to working with the existing board and the future Act 196 board. The community needs to get involved, she said, by reading the material that’s available on the website and attending meetings of the district advisory committees and participating in the future of transportation in the county.

Vivienne Armentrout urged the board to achieve some clarity on how they’ll manage the transition of governance. She was uncertain about what she was hearing, but she said it sounded like the entire Act 196 board would be seated, even if some communities opt out. She thought that in order for the Ann Arbor public to have faith in what the board was doing, the public needed to have a sense that “true representation” is being provided.

Composition of the New Authority’s Board

Armentrout’s remarks during public commentary were an allusion to a resolution discussed, but ultimately withdrawn, at the board’s Sept. 27, 2012 meeting the previous week.

The articles of incorporation, now filed with the state, provide for a 15-member board structure in eight districts. Some of the districts include a single jurisdiction – like the city of Ann Arbor (7 representatives), the city of Ypsilanti (1 rep) and Pittsfield Township (1 rep). Those jurisdictions are almost certain not to opt out of the Act 196 authority. But other districts include multiple jurisdictions. For example, the Northeast District includes four townships: Northfield, Superior, Salem and Ann Arbor. Some, or even all, of those townships could theoretically opt out.

The intent of the AATA board’s Sept. 27 resolution was to give reassurance that a first response by current AATA board members to the opting out of other jurisdictions would not be to reconfigure the new authority’s board structure. They discussed how such a reconfiguration would become important at the point when a millage question is put before voters – because they did not think a situation of “representation without taxation” would be reasonable.

The extreme case of opting out would occur if every jurisdiction in a board district decided to opt out. The articles of incorporation spell out what’s supposed to happen when every jurisdiction in a district opts out:

SECTION 4.02: BOARD MAKE UP REVIEW
The directors shall revisit the Board make-up if
(a) either Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti City reduces or fails to contribute its charter millage to the Authority;
(b) if another community levies a millage and contributes it to the Authority; or
(c) if all communities within one of the Act 7 districts withdraw from the Authority.
The Board make-up shall also be reviewed and be subject to change by two-thirds of the directors after each census to assure appropriate attention to population distribution.

The composition of the informal, unincorporated board isn’t automatically transferred to the incorporated Act 196 board through the act of filing the articles of incorporation. In a reply to an emailed query, assistant city attorney Mary Fales wrote to The Chronicle that:

The NEW TA Board under the Articles of Incorporation has 7 City of Ann Arbor members which must be appointed by City Council on recommendation by the Mayor. At the time the respective individuals are appointed their appointment terms will be established as well pursuant to Section 4.03 of the Articles. There is no provision for any other method of appointment.

The specific language of the four-party agreement – which governs the process of possible transition from the AATA to the new authority – describes the contractual consideration in terms of the city of Ann Arbor explicitly making appointments to the new transit authority’s board: “In exchange for the mayor’s nomination with council confirmation, of seven directors of New TA’s board, …”

The section on terms of appointment, to which Fales referred in her email, sets up initial terms that are staggered for the Ann Arbor representatives – from one through four years – which is a fairly common approach for the establishment of a new board. After the initial terms are served, all subsequent terms are for four years. The idea is to prevent wholesale board turnover all in one year.

The Ann Arbor city council’s regular nomination/confirmation process requires two meetings – one at which the nominations are put before the council, and a second meeting at which a vote is taken on confirmation. Three current councilmembers will not be continuing on council through November, either by choice because they didn’t run for re-election (Carsten Hohnke in Ward 5 and Sandi Smith in Ward 1) or due to defeat in the August primary (Tony Derezinski in Ward 2).

Before the change in the city council’s composition, the only opportunity to apply the regular process to the new Act 196 board appointments would be for the nominations to come at the next meeting of the council, on Oct. 15. The confirmation vote then could be taken at the council’s Nov. 8 meeting – held on the Thursday following the Nov. 6 election. The first meeting for new councilmembers is Nov. 19. Another possibility is to compress the appointment process to a single meeting, which the council sometimes does. But that requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member body.

There’s a possibility that the new edition of the Ann Arbor city council would make a choice to appoint a set of seven members to the new authority’s board that is different from the current seven AATA board members. But if that happened, the current AATA board members would serve out the remainder of their terms as members of the AATA board. And they’d continue to be part of the governance of the only transit authority for Ann Arbor that currently has the ability to operate a transportation service.

Timing of the Filing

The AATA board’s Oct. 2 resolution was consistent with expectations about timing that had been expressed at the board’s regular monthly meeting on Sept. 27 – that the articles would be filed Oct. 3. About the articles, the resolution included “the request that they be filed immediately.”

A Washtenaw County board of commissioners’ resolution related to the filing, passed on Aug. 1, 2012, raised the possibility of a slightly delayed timing sequence. The resolution more generally ratified the four-party agreement between the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and the AATA. As conditions to the filing, the board of commissioners’ resolution stipulated that the county administrator had to ensure several conditions were met, including the following notifications:

2. Letters of notice will be sent to each city, village and township elected official in the county at their address of record alerting them to the County’s intention to file the Articles of Incorporation on a date certain. Those letters shall indicate
a. Whether or not the jurisdiction represented by that official is included in the boundary of the New TA;
b. The process by which that jurisdiction may either withdraw or join the New TA; and
c. The date on which the Articles of Incorporation will be filed and, if relevant, the date by which the New TA must receive official notice from the jurisdiction if that jurisdiction votes to opt-out of the New TA.

Responding to a phone query, Washtenaw County clerk staff told The Chronicle that certified letters had already been sent on Sept. 27 to the clerks of all jurisdictions in the county of an intent to file the articles of incorporation on Oct. 3. Letters were also sent to all elected officials in the county. Information included in that communication was the last day to opt out of inclusion – Nov. 2 – as well as sample resolutions that could be used by a jurisdiction’s governing body to decide the opt-out question. [.pdf of sample letter] [.pdf of sample resolutions] Included in the information packet was a set of FAQs about transit and a set of FAQs about Act 196 incorporation. [.pdf of FAQ about transit] [.pdf of FAQ about the Act 196 filing]

After the vote by the AATA board on Oct. 2, Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel determined that the county board of commissioners’ resolution requiring publication of the service plan and notification of intent had been satisfied, and then notified the county clerk of that. Then on Oct. 3, representatives of the AATA were authorized as couriers by the county clerk to physically convey the paperwork to Lansing.

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

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The creation of the new authority will be made official when the Washtenaw County clerk files the paperwork with the state, likely on Oct. 3. [Added shortly after initial publication: Although the Oct. 3 date was the expectation expressed at the AATA board's Sept. 27 meeting, the wording of a Washtenaw County board of commissioners resolution on the topic indicates that a step of alerting jurisdictions of the intent to file would need to take place beforehand.] However, that entity will initially have no assets, staff, or ability to operate transportation service in the county. A 15-member board composition for the new authority is already reflected in the membership of the board of the yet-to-be-incorporated board (called the U196 board), which has been meeting for a year.

In order for make a transition from the AATA to The Washtenaw Ride, under terms of a four-party agreement, voters would need to approve a funding source adequate to pay for the proposed expanded service plan. That four-party agreement was ratified by the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

The AATA has indicated that a possible scenario is to ask voters in Washtenaw County to fund the new transit authority with a property tax of 0.584 mills – in an election that could come as early as May 2013. For a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, an 0.584 mill transit tax would cost that property owner about $58 per year. For an Ann Arbor resident with a $200,000 house, adding the 0.584 mill tax to the existing city transit tax of roughly 2 mills works out to a transportation tax burden of about $258 a year.

Also under the four-party agreement, the two cities’ transit taxes would become part of The Washtenaw Ride’s funding.

The transition would potentially not take place at all, if a majority of voters don’t approve it. Under the terms of the four-party agreement, a voter-approved funding source for the expanded services must be identified by the end of 2014.

Washtenaw County’s role is limited to the filing of the articles of incorporation. But incorporation of the new transit authority will include by default all the jurisdictions in Washtenaw County. However, filing of the articles opens a 30-day window for jurisdictions to opt out of the arrangement. That can be accomplished through a vote of a jurisdiction’s governing body.

Updated at 3 p.m. Oct. 3, 2012: According to Washtenaw County clerk staff, certified letters were sent on Sept. 27 to the clerks of all jurisdictions in the county of an intent to file the articles of incorporation on Oct. 3. Letters were also sent to all elected officials in the county. Information included in that communication was the last day to opt out of inclusion, Nov. 2, as well as sample resolutions that could be used by a jurisdiction’s governing body to decide the opt-out question. After the vote by the AATA board on Oct. 2, county administrator Verna McDaniel determined that the Washtenaw board of commissioners’ resolution requiring publication of the service plan and notification of intent to file had been satisfied, and then notified the county clerk of that. Then on Oct. 3, representatives of the AATA were authorized as couriers by the county clerk to physically convey the paperwork to Lansing.

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

The meeting comes in the context of the culmination of the AATA’s transportation master planning effort and the review of various financing options now taking place by a group of more than 20 financial experts from the private and public sectors. The financial group is led by former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz.

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

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

The Oct. 20 initial meeting was mostly a meet-and-greet and included a tour of the AATA headquarters on South Industrial. The U196 members who were present agreed that they would try to meet in November and December, and that the location of those meetings would be the AATA headquarters. They also agreed that Bernstein would chair their initial meetings, which will focus on developing bylaws for the organization, setting a committee structure, receiving presentations on service options, and receiving updates from district advisory committee meetings. Each district will convene meetings of advisory committees to focus on implementating service options that district.

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

AATA's CEO Michael Ford presents an overview of the transit master plan to members of a financial group that will be making recommendations on funding options for countywide transportation. (Photos by the writer.)

The AATA fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The budget approved by the board calls for expenses of $30,410,616 against only $29,418,995 in revenues, for a deficit in the coming year of $991,621. At the meeting, members stressed that the nearly $1 million deficit was due to one-time expenses associated with the planned transition to a countywide service. They also stressed that even by using unrestricted reserves over the next year to cover the planned deficit, the AATA would still be left with more than three months’ worth of operating expenses in its reserve.

Incurring a deficit this year was characterized as a way to “catapult” the organization forward, allowing it to pursue an aggressive work plan for the coming year, which was also approved at the meeting. Highlights of that work plan include reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Design for the station is expected to be complete by the end of the year, with construction to start in spring 2012.

In terms of increased service, next year’s work plan includes a focus on: establishing the AATA as a vanpool service provider; establishing service to the Detroit Metro Airport; improving work-transportation connections between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and continuing work on commuter rail. Also related to enhanced services, the AATA is also holding rider forums in October to get feedback on proposed increased service on Route #4, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Related specifically to commuter rail, the board received an update at the meeting on the Washtenaw Livingston Line (WALLY) project, a proposed north-south commuter rail connection between Howell and Ann Arbor. The board expressed some caution about the project by passing a resolution that requires the board’s explicit approval for the expenditure of the $50,000 in next year’s budget allocated for station designs.

In other business, the board approved the selection of Plante & Moran as its new auditor. A new auditor rotation policy put in place by the board earlier this year made the previous auditor, Rehmann Robson, ineligible for the contract. The AATA board also approved a contract with an outside vendor to begin offering vanpool service.

In business that could be described as housekeeping, the board opted to keep its same slate of officers for the coming year and to keep the same meeting schedule – the third Thursday of the month. Jesse Bernstein was elected chair last year, and will continue in that role.

Also at the meeting, other members of the financial review group were announced. That group will be analyzing funding options for an expansion to countywide service. Previously, it had been announced that McKinley CEO Albert Berriz and former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel would co-chair the group. Their first meeting was Friday, Sept. 16, the day after the AATA board met. Berriz stated at that first meeting that the group will meet three more times, and will produce a white paper by the end of this year.

Related to that countywide effort, the initial board for an unincorporated transit authority – a precursor to an eventual formal authority – could be seated by Oct. 20, the date of the AATA board’s next meeting. It would include representatives from Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and other districts throughout the county.

AATA Work Plan

Highlights of the 10-page work plan for fiscal 2012 include reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center (BTC) in downtown Ann Arbor. During his report to board members, CEO Michael Ford said the acquisition of a six-foot-wide piece of land on the southwest border of AATA’s BTC parcel would be on the city council’s agenda for Sept. 19. (At that meeting, the council approved the AATA’s purchase of the land for $90,000, which will facilitate reconstruction of the BTC starting in the spring of 2012.)

In terms of increased service, the work plan includes a focus on: establishing the AATA as a vanpool service provider; establishing service to the Detroit Metro Airport; improving work-transportation connections between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and continuing work on commuter rail.

Related to Detroit Metro service, Ford told the board that work on getting airport service in place had continued and that in the last three weeks he’d worked with Wayne County Economic Development Growth Engine (EDGE) on the issue. He said follow-up work was being done on the definition of public transportation as it relates to airport service. [Detroit Metro Airport charges access fees to private transportation operators.] Ford said the AATA would try to select a private-public partnership soon – in November.

Related to improvement of work-transportation service between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, on Dec. 1, 2010, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority offered a challenge grant of $14,417 to support that kind of service improvement. A description of the grant from The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Before the DDA board was a resolution that would offer a $14,417 challenge grant to fund service improvements for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Route #4 bus, which runs between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The dollar figure for the grant is based on a total estimated price tag for the improvements of $180,000 and a Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) computer model, which estimates about 8% of riders on the #4 bus have destinations west of State Street in the DDA district.

Before the Sept. 15 board meeting, the AATA held a rider forum on the proposed service enhancements to the Route #4 bus service. It was attended by around a dozen people. Additional drop-in sessions with AATA staff on Route #4 service improvements include:

• Thursday, Oct. 6, 5-7 p.m. at Glencoe Hills Apartments clubhouse, 2201 Glencoe Hills Drive, Pittsfield Township.
• Tuesday, Oct. 11, 9-11 a.m. at University Hospital, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor. Classroom #2C108, across from the gift shop and cashier’s office.
• Tuesday, Oct. 11, 1-3 p.m. at Michigan Union, 530 S. State St., Wolverine Room AB, Ann Arbor.
• Wednesday, Oct. 12, 9:30-11:30 a.m. at Dom Bakeries, 1305 Washtenaw Ave., Ypsilanti.
• Tuesday, Oct. 18, 5-7 p.m. at Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

More information about the proposed changes is available online, along with details about how to give input.

The 2012 work plan also calls for continued work on AATA’s information technology, including its website as a communication tool, and improved point-of-sale systems to allow people to pay for their fares. [.pdf of work AATA 2012 work plan]

2012 Work Plan: Board Deliberations

As part of his report from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben reviewed next year’s work plan, calling it “very aggressive.” He described how it includes development of countywide networks and improvements to current service.

Service improvements highlighted by Robben included: adding service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro airport; adding vanpool services; improving service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; upgrading the AATA website; expanding the bus storage facility at the South Industrial headquarters; expanding night ride service to Ypsilanti; and reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center.

During deliberations, Anya Dale characterized the work plan as challenging, but said she thought the AATA can accomplish it. Roger Kerson gave credit to AATA staff for being able to accomplish the goals in this year’s work plan.

Board chair Jessie Bernstein called it an active, committed, dedicated past year on the part of the AATA, saying that there’s another active plan for next year.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve its FY 2012 work plan.

AATA 2012 Budget

The board considered a resolution to approve its operating budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.

The budget calls for expenses of $30,410,616 against only $29,418,995 in revenues, for a deficit in the coming year of $991,621. That shortfall will be made up by drawing on the fund balance. According to the budget resolution, the AATA’s fund balance policy requires it to maintain reserves equal to at least three months’ worth of operating expenses. And the AATA expects to have $1.2 million more in its fund reserve to start the year than the minimum fund balance policy requires.

So the projected deficit – which the budget resolution attributes partly to one-time expenses associated with the transit master plan – is within the $1.2 million excess beyond the minimum three-month reserve, which the AATA holds in its fund balance. [.pdf of AATA 2012 operating budget]

In the most significant categories, the AATA’s revenues break down percentage-wise as follows: 31.4% local transit tax; 29.4% state operating assistance; 18.6% passenger fares; 12.8% federal operating assistance. The AATA also receives some revenue from surrounding municipalities that get transit service through purchase of service (POS) agreements. [2012 AATA revenue pie chart]

In the most significant expense categories, the AATA’s expenses break down percentage-wise as follows: 54.7% employee compensation; 18.2% purchased transportation from other providers; 9.3% other purchased services; 5.7% diesel fuel and gasoline. [2012 AATA expenses pie chart]

2012 Operating Budget: Board Deliberations

Reporting out from the planning and development committee earlier in the meeting, Rich Robben ticked through the figures from the 2012 operating budget. He said the budget will maintain and improve service, and will support the work plan and the transit master plan (TMP).

He acknowledged the roughly $1 million deficit, and described it as stemming from some one-time costs with development of the TMP, such as an improvement program for each district of the county, plus the governance structure. The deficit would be funded from unrestricted net assets, he explained. Even though unrestricted assets will be used, the AATA will still have 3.1 months of operating expenses in reserve after those assets are used in the course of the year, he said. By board policy, the AATA must maintain a reserve of at least 3 months of operating reserves.

Robben led off deliberations by saying it’s not a sustainable budget. But he said it would catapult the AATA towards a transition to countywide service. It’s aggressive, he said, but not taken lightly that the AATA would operate at a deficit. It’s also not AATA’s responsibility to build bank accounts, he said, so it’s appropriate to use the funds for this type of purpose.

CEO Michael Ford (right) talks with AATA board members Rich Robben and Anya Dale after the Sept. 15 meeting.

Anya Dale noted that many of the expenses that are causing the deficit are one-time costs. Now is the time, she said.

Roger Kerson said the budget reveals AATA’s next challenges. Planning was for this past year, he said, and next year is the financing challenge. It’s the right thing to do, he said, and he was looking forward to feedback from the financial review group that will be making funding option recommendations.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he was seriously concerned that the deficit year be a one-time commitment. He picked up on Kerson’s mention of the financial group, and noted that McKinley CEO Albert Berriz and former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel were co-chairing that group. It’s composed of people who understand financing and the politics of funding public activities, he said.

Bernstein called the AATA’s efforts at a transition to countywide service not an empty transition, but a real transition. The budget deficit, he said, should be recognized as unusual and unique, for one year only.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved AATA’s fiscal 2012 budget.

WALLY Commuter Rail

On the agenda was a resolution that expressed general support for continuing to work with surrounding communities on the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. WALLY would provide commuter rail service on a 26-mile route between Ann Arbor and Howell. Relevant entities identified in the resolution include the state of Michigan, Livingston County, the city of Howell and the Ann Arbor Railroad.

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.

WALLY: Background

At the Sept. 15 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 (TMP), which the AATA has developed over 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 part of the AATA FY 2012 budget, the AATA has included another $50,000 for the project. 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.

Benham pointed board members to an appendix in the report with comparative data on WALLY. He characterized WALLY as “right in the ballpark” with other similar projects – at the low end of the range for capital costs. For similar commuter rail connections already in place, he said, the average time from idea to actual service was 10.5 years. So if people ask why WALLY is taking so long, it’s not actually taking so long, he concluded.

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

WALLY: Board Deliberations

Rich Robben said he wanted to make the observation that the board had some concerns about the viability of the WALLY project. That’s why the presentation had been requested from Michael Benham – to make a reassessment of financial issues and to look at the prospects of closing remaining gaps in funding.

Roger Kerson also noted that board member David Nacht (who did not attend the board meeting) had raised some concerns at a committee meeting. Kerson characterized WALLY as a challenging project, but said, “We’re up to the challenge.” Kerson said the AATA was changing the eco-system by making transit a priority. Traffic is real, and congestion is real, he said. Having an alternative to US-23 will be welcome. He said he was glad to be going ahead in a measured way. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he couldn’t imagine a clearer statement of moving forward in a careful way.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution requiring board approval for any expenditures associated with WALLY.

Auditor Rotation

The board considered a resolution authorizing a one-year contract with Plante & Moran for auditing services.

A policy adopted by the AATA board on June 16, 2011 limits contracting with any one auditing firm to a total of eight years. That meant that the auditing firm the AATA had previously used, Rehmann Robson, was not eligible to provide auditing services.

The request for proposals (RFP) was sent to 19 public accounting firms. Plante & Moran’s proposal was judged to be the best of the three proposals received by the AATA.

Auditor Rotation: Board Deliberations

Roger Kerson reported from the performance monitoring and external relations committee that the AATA had received three bids from the 19 solicitations they’d sent out. The AATA evaluation team had ranked Plante & Moran as the best of the three bids, and the committee supported that recommendation.

When the board deliberated on the issue, AATA controller Phil Webb described how the RFP was sent to 19 CPA firms. The 19 were picked from a list of firms in southeast Michigan that did similar work. Technical abilities were 60% of the evaluation score, he said. The cost part of the bids were opened later and counted for 40% of the evaluation. The evaluators were Webb, board treasurer Sue McCormick, CEO Michael Ford.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve selection of Plante & Moran as the AATA auditor.

Vanpools

A resolution on the agenda called for authorizing a contract with VPSI Inc. for vanpool services that is not to exceed $6,600 per year for each AATA owned/managed van. Vanpools are arrangements in which a vehicle is provided through the service, but is driven by one of the members of the pool. Riders pay for operational costs. Currently, the MichiVan program, operated by VPSI, provides such a service in the Ann Arbor area.

However, through fiscal year 2012 MichiVan will only continue to provide vanpool service for existing vanpools in the Ann Arbor area. It’s AATA’s intention to provide service for any additional vanpools that people might wish to create.

Vanpools: Board Deliberations

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben described how in a vanpool, the monthly cost is paid by riders. The capital cost will be paid by a federal grant.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, told the board that AATA had been working on the project for a while now. [It was one of the service initiatives discussed at an Aug. 10, 2010 board retreat.] MichiVan will continue to operate (with about 100 vanpools) but there’s no ability to expand that number of vanpools. So AATA is looking to be a provider for expansion pools. It allows AATA a chance to get some experience before taking on a larger volume. The eventual goal, White said, is to assume operation of all of the vanpools in the county. This is an opportunity to do that gradually, he said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize a contract with VSPI Inc. for vanpool service.

AATA Housekeeping

The board handled a number of housekeeping items.

Housekeeping: Board Officers

The board elects new officers every year. This year, board chair Jesse Bernstein said at the Sept. 15 meeting that the current officers have agreed to continue. As the organization contemplates a transition to a countywide focus, it was felt that it would be good to have some continuity, he said.

AATA board officers are: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and Sue McCormick (treasurer).

The committee chairs are: Rich Robben (planning and development committee), and Charles Griffith (performance monitoring and external relations).

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to maintain the same slate of board officers.

Housekeeping: Board Meeting Schedule

Also on the agenda was the approval of the full board’s meeting schedule, as well as the schedule for its committee meetings. Board meetings fall on the third Thursday of the month. [.pdf of board and committee meeting dates] AATA board meeting information packets are generally available before the meetings on the AATA website.

During deliberations, Anya Dale asked if there was an opportunity to talk about holding meetings earlier in the day. CEO Michael Ford told Dale that there had not been a discussion about that, and he said that staff can be open to changes or modifications. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he’d be very open to discussing times, once dates are firmed up.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve its meeting schedule.

Housekeeping: Local Advisory Council Appointments

Reporting out from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a co-chair of that group, Jody Slowins, reported that terms were coming to an end, and that members would need to be reappointed. The LAC is a body that provides advocacy for seniors and disabled people.

Gloria Kolb had submitted an application, Slowins said, and the LAC welcomed her graciously.

Slowins said she’d been involved with the LAC for the last 12 years, and she’d never seen such a good group. The AATA’s paratransit coordinator, Brian Clouse, is strongly supportive of the LAC, she said.

Recommended for appointment to the LAC were: Gloria Kolb, Cheryl Weber, Clark Charnetski, Mary Wells, John Kuchinski, Lena Ricks, Eleanor Chang, and Stephen McNutt.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the appointments to the LAC.

Countywide Transit Finance Group

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

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

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

CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the AATA board for its Sept. 15 meeting included a partial list of members in the group tapped to review the funding options report for the countywide transit master plan. At the meeting, an updated list was circulated.

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

The first meeting of the group was Friday, Sept. 16 – the day after the AATA board met. Most of the members were able to attend. The group received a presentation of some of the material they’d already been given in written form. They also asked for specific additional information and analysis, including: the specific economic impact of transit investments in communities of comparable size to Ann Arbor; and a measure of the costs that could be avoided through increased investment in transit.

While the amount and timing of a possible countywide transit millage received scant mention, a robust theme of the initial conversation was the potential for creative private-public partnerships in funding improved transit. Berriz called his and Guenzel’s selection as co-chairs of the group symbolic of the potential for private-public partnerships.

Berriz told members of the group at the Sept. 16 meeting that they will meet three more times, and will produce a white paper by the end of the year.

In his public commentary at the AATA board’s meeting the day before, on Sept. 15, Larry Krieg, with Wake Up, Washtenaw!, congratulated the AATA for the people it had assembled for the financial review. It’s an impressive list, he said. He asked that “out-of-the-box thinking” be tried.

Krieg hoped that among the funding mechanisms the group could identify would be original, significant public-private participation.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Sept. 15 meeting, the AATA board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Governance, U196 Board

During his report to board members, CEO Michael Ford gave a brief update on progress with future governance issues connected with the entity that would eventually administer countywide transportation.

WEMU's Andrew Cluley interviews AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein after the Sept. 15 meeting.

By way of background, the basic approach the AATA is taking to expanding countywide transit is to transition to an authority formed under Act 196 of 1986. The AATA has been working towards encouraging townships in the county to strike inter-governmental agreements [under Act 7 of 1967] to have joint representation to the board of any Act 196 organization. It’s conceived as a 15-member board, with seven seats from Ann Arbor, two seats from the southeast sector (Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township), and one seat each for the city of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township, and multi-jurisdictional districts in the northeast, north middle, west and south middle parts of the county.

As a precursor to the Act 196 authority, the AATA hopes to seat an unincorporated authority (U196) by Oct. 20, the date of the board’s next meeting.

Ford reported at the Sept. 15 board meeting that he’d met with AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein and Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje about an inter-local agreement between Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

Comm/Comm: Chelsea Express

Roger Kerson reported out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee that the Chelsea Express – a commuter service between Ann Arbor and Chelsea – is now near capacity. The AATA is now at the point of deciding what to do if the route meets capacity.

Comm/Comm: Website Development

Mary Stasiak, AATA director of community relations, said that one concern the staff is focusing on is to make sure the AATA “owns” everything that’s being developed for the site, given that some of it is being custom developed. The AATA has sent the initial designs back to the contractor for revision, because “we want to make it the best that we can,” she said.

Comm/Comm: Complaints

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County Democrat, an advocate for seniors and the disabled, and those needing and deserving of public services during this trying time in American history. He called for the election of a new chair of the board of the AATA to champion service that is friendly and caring in safe and ride-worthy vehicles. He questioned whether that’s been the case under current board leadership.

SelectRide should not receive the bid for the AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service, Partridge said. He called the vehicles that SelectRide puts on the road “jalopies” that have accumulated more than 200,000 miles before they are purchased by SelectRide.

Partridge also spoke at the second public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. He called himself an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting. He said he had led the effort to get the board to meet in an accessible place. [Last year, the AATA moved its meetings to the boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library from its headquarters on South Industrial Highway.] Despite those efforts, Partridge said, the board went ahead with their vote on the budget with three of its seven members absent. The budget items should have been deferred until the entire board could attend, he said.

He complained that AATA staff members got people to come to board meetings to salute their incompetence. The public is being cheated by publicly funding vehicles that should never be on the road, he said. SelectRide, the company that holds the para-transit contract with AATA, perpetuates discrimination against everyone, Partridge said, even their own employees.

His complaints have been whitewashed, Partridge contended, and he called on the board to elect new leadership.

Comm/Comm: Compliments

Carolyn Grawi spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She said she came to support the new local advisory council appointments. She also congratulated AATA for its work associated with the non-motorized Washtenaw Avenue walkway and the accessible crosswalk – AATA was among the many players on that project, she said. She also congratulated Mary Stasiak’s department for receiving an APTA AdWheel award, recognizing its billboard ads.

Present: Jesse Bernstein, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

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

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

Co-chairing the panel will be Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc., and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.

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

At its July 19, 2011 meeting, the board authorized the board chair to appoint three of its members to the U196 board and authorized the AATA’s CEO to use AATA resources in support of the U196. Update: The AATA has now made the report available in digital form: [.pdf of Part 1 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report] [.pdf of Part 2 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report]

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]