Ypsilanti councilmember Pete Murdock addressed the AATA board meeting on April 18, 2013. (Photo by the writer.)

The resolution enjoys the support of Murdock as well as Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, who indicated his support in a phone interview with The Chronicle.

Murdock’s news was met with some nods around the AATA board table, and with an assurance from AATA board chair Charles Griffith that the board would give the request full consideration.

Ypsilanti’s possible request comes in the context of an attempt in 2012 to improve public transit by forming a countywide authority. That authority, incorporated under Act 196 of 1986  in mid-2012 and spearheaded by the AATA, was for all practical purposes ended late last year when the Ann Arbor city council voted to opt out of the new transit authority at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

Of the 28 municipalities in Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti is the only one that didn’t opt out. That transit authority, called the Washtenaw Ride, was formally dissolved this week by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at its April 17, 2013 meeting.

But under the direction of the Ann Arbor city council, the AATA has been meeting with representatives of the county’s “urban core” communities to discuss possible expanded public transit within a limited area around Ann Arbor. It would be a smaller effort than the previous attempt at countywide service. The AATA hosted a meeting on March 28 at Pittsfield Township Hall to go over details about where improvements or expansion might occur, and how much it might cost. [See Chronicle coverage: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit."]

Ypsilanti’s request to join the AATA would be made under a provision of Act 55 of 1963, under which the AATA was originally incorporated. [.pdf of AATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of Act 55 of 1963] Admission of Ypsilanti as a member would require a majority vote by the AATA board. It would also require that the articles of incorporation for the AATA be amended – which might require action by the Ann Arbor city council.

Act 55 states: ”If a political subdivision joins the authority, the board shall amend the articles of incorporation accordingly.” In the past, however, it’s been through a resolution of the Ann Arbor city council that the articles of incorporation have been amended. In that case, the number of board members was increased to seven.

Membership in the AATA has possible implications for governance, including the possibility that through the articles of incorporation or bylaws, the city of Ypsilanti would be represented in some fashion on the AATA board. But the goal of adding Ypsilanti would include providing a more solid funding foundation for the service that AATA already operates between the two cities. Currently, that’s funded in part through a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA) between the AATA and Ypsilanti.

The two cities each already have millages that are designated to support public transportation. Ann Arbor’s millage is perpetual, passed in 1973 at a rate of 2.5 mills. The Headlee rollback has reduced that rate to just over 2 mills currently. Ypsilanti voters in November 2010 authorized a Headlee override of the city’s charter millage, restoring it to the originally authorized level of 20 mills, designating the additional 0.9789 mills for public transit purposes. The AATA does not currently exercise its Act 55 statutory ability to levy taxes itself – which it could do on approval of a majority of voters who live in member jurisdictions.

To sustain and improve transportation in the area, the AATA has indicated that additional funding would be required. At the March 28 meeting at Pittsfield Township Hall, four basic scenarios for transportation service in the urban core were presented for consideration: sustain, improve, expand, or expand and improve. [.pdf of March 28, 2013 meeting packet] For the “improve” scenario, the combined total of additional funding that would be required from the city of Ypsilanti and the city of Ann Arbor was between $1.7 million and $2.65 million – depending on the cost allocation methodology.

Based on the Washtenaw County 2013 equalization report, the taxable value of all property in the city of Ypsilanti is $289.6 million. And in the city of Ann Arbor, the taxable value of all property is $4.840 billion. A tax rate of 1 mill is $1 for each $1,000 of taxable value. So Ypsilanti’s transit millage will generate roughly $283,000 this year, while Ann Arbor’s transit millage will generate roughly $9.6 million.

Given the combined taxable value in the two cities, a new AATA millage rate of a bit more than half a mill would be needed to cover the additional $2.65 million required under the “improve” scenario [.52*(4,840,000,000+289,000,000)/1000= 2,667,080].

This brief was filed the day after the AATA board’s April 18 meeting. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

The agreement would establish an arrangement for Washtenaw County to incorporate a new transit authority under Act 196 and for the two cities (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) to pledge their transit tax funds levied currently for use by the AATA to the new Act 196 organization, once its governance and basis for its funding is clear.

The governing bodies of the four entities would need to sign off on the arrangement. Ford’s written report indicates that the four-party agreement is expected to go before the Ann Arbor city council for discussion at a working session on Dec. 12, with a vote possible as soon as Dec. 19.

The AATA’s planning effort to expand its services across Washtenaw County comes in the context of a proposal from Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder that would provide vehicle registration fees as a possible funding option for a regional transit authority for the southeastern part of the state, which would include Washtenaw County. [Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"]

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A detailed reported of the meeting will follow: [link]

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, presents a possible board configuration for a countywide transit authority at the board's June 3 meeting at Weber's Inn. (Photos by the writer.)

On both occasions, a significant focus was the AATA’s countywide transit master plan. At the June 16 meeting, the board approved the final version of the first two volumes of the plan, which had previously been released in draft form. The two volumes cover a vision and an implementation strategy. A third volume, on funding options, is not yet complete.

The plan is the culmination of over a year of work by AATA staff and a consulting firm to perform a technical analysis and gather public input. The goal was to create a document to guide transit planning in the county over the next 30 years. The timing of the next step – beginning to translate a neatly formatted document into reality – will depend in part on a third volume of the plan, which has not yet been finalized. The third volume will describe options for how to fund expanded transit service in the county. Countywide transit funding will ultimately be tied to the governance structure of some entity to administer transit throughout Washtenaw County.

And governance is a topic that’s ultimately reflected in the actual wording of the resolution that the board adopted at its June 16 meeting on the transit master plan. The resolution authorizes transmittal of the documents not just to the public, but also to an unincorporated board, described as an “ad hoc committee” that will work to incorporate a formal transit authority under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. [AATA is currently incorporated under Act 55 of 1963.]

For the last few months, CEO Michael Ford’s regular monthly reports to the AATA board about his activities have included his efforts to meet with individuals and representatives of government units throughout the county to discuss participation in the governance of a countywide transportation authority. June continued that trend. So wrapped into this combined report of the AATA board’s last two meetings is a description of the June 2 visit that Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein made to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

At its June 3 retreat, the board also voted to shift some funding to the AATA staff’s work associated with the countywide transit master plan.

At its June 16 meeting, the board handled some business not specifically related to the transit master plan. The board adopted two policies that it has previously discussed: one on the rotation of auditors, and the other on a living wage for AATA vendors. They also received updates on the expansion of service to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health Center and to the Detroit Metro airport.

Progress on those two fronts led board member David Nacht to suggest that the kind of movement and progress the AATA was demonstrating, even without additional money that could come from a countywide funding source, showed that the agency’s future plans deserved support from the community.

Transit Master Plan (TMP)

At its June 3 meeting, the AATA board was asked to vote on a resolution endorsing Volumes 1 and 2 of its countywide transit master plan (TMP) as revised and amended. The plans had been previously released to the public at the board’s April 21, 2011 meeting.

A “whereas” clause in the board’s resolution provided some additional description of a transitional governance structure, which could lead to an eventual countywide authority established under Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986. The transitional structure would be “an interim and  ’unincorporated’ Act 196 Authority Board (‘U196 Board’) which will act as an ad hoc committee to establish an organizational framework and funding base for an expanded transit system, and to work toward formally creating and incorporating a new Act 196 Authority.”

According to the resolution before the board, both volumes of the TMP are to be transmitted to the U196 board “for further analysis, refinement, and definition.” [.pdf of "Volume I: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of "Volume II: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

Michael Benham, project coordinator for the AATA’s transit master plan, told The Chronicle before the meeting that not much, besides revised formatting, had changed between the version of the plan disseminated to the public two months ago and the final draft. But he pointed to one substantive alteration that was made to one of the appendices, which describes a set of short- and medium-term enhancements the AATA hopes to make to the existing bus system. Those enhancements essentially involve the routing and timing of buses, as opposed to the construction of massive new infrastructure like rails or extra roadway lanes just for buses.

Between the time of the  draft and the final version of that appendix, the strategy for serving the Washtenaw Community College campus and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital has been beefed up. The initial draft looked like this:

Draft of planned bus network service enhancements between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, including the Washtenaw Community College and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. Route 3 is depicted in red. (Image links to larger file)

Between the draft and the final version, the same section of the map was revised to look like this:

Final version of map in appendix of the AATA transit master plan. Route 3 is depicted in green. Route 7 and Route 48 (an Eastern Michigan University shuttle) shoulder part of the ridership volume in the Washtenaw Community College and the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital area. (Image links to larger file)

Improvements in service that can be achieved in the shorter term – through route reconfiguration, increased frequency and extended hours of existing operations – are a theme that the AATA has tried to highlight through the transit master planning process. The idea is that existing service can be improved and additional services can be provided, before the establishment of a countywide authority.

During the June 16 meeting, the board heard from CEO Michael Ford, as part of his regular report, that the AATA would be extending its paratransit service to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health and Geriatrics Center starting July 1, 2011. Ford also told the board that the target date for beginning some kind of bus service to the airport – likely by partnering with another provider like Michigan Flyer – is Oct. 15, 2011. The AATA is sticking with that target, even though the AATA’s grant application for federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to support the airport service has been rejected.

In addition, the geographic boundaries for the Night Ride service have been extended out to Golfside Road.

News about service to the airport, the East Ann Arbor clinic and the Night Ride service led board member David Nacht to conclude that, “We’re making progress.” He ventured that the AATA was getting itself into a position where it could say to voters throughout the county, who may be asked to support a countywide authority with their tax dollars: Look what we’ve done without any additional funding – look at how we’re turning ourselves into a regional organization. We deserve some funding.

A comment from board chair Jesse Bernstein on the resolution that authorized dissemination of the final version of the TMP acknowledged that the next phase will be “very delicate.” He called the process so far “encouraging” in terms of communication with the community. The AATA will need to continue the values of open communication and discussion, he said.

Earlier in the meeting, Bernstein had responded to a criticism made during public commentary at a previous board meeting – that the AATA board did its work through committees, and did not do its work in the public eye – by laying out the structure of the board’s committees and how they work. The board has three committees: (1) performance monitoring and external relations (PMER); (2) planning and development (PDC); and (3) governance. The PMER committee is currently chaired by Charles Griffith; PDC is chaired by Rich Robben; the governance committee consists of the two committee chairs, plus Jesse Bernstein as chair of the board. Minutes of the PMER and the PDC are included in the board’s meeting packets, which are available to the public for download from the AATA website. The meetings themselves are also open to the public.

The unincorporated board of the new transit authority – called a “committee” and labeled “U196″ in the resolution – will be discussing how to incorporate the board and move forward, Bernstein said. The U196 will be making final recommendations, dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Bernstein said it is an exciting time to be on the board. He thanked the staff and those who have participated in the process so far and who will continue to participate.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve dissemination of the first two volumes of the transit master plan and to convey it to the U196 board.

At the June 16 meeting, both people who commented during public time at the conclusion of the meeting were supportive of the board’s action on the TMP. Thomas Partridge saluted the board’s work on the plan, but encouraged board members to start using creative strategies for enlisting public support to help make bus stops more accessible.

Carolyn Grawi, of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, echoed Partridge’s praise and also his suggestion about bus stop accessibility. She suggested that perhaps a visit to the Ann Arbor city council might be in order to address the intersection at Research Park Drive and Ellsworth, where Grawi has long advocated for a traffic signal. It would allow the AATA to run service in both directions in and out of Research Park Drive.

Countywide Governance

The resolution approved by the board at its June 16 meeting – which authorized dissemination of the transit master plan to the public and to the U196 board – was also considered by the board at its June 3 retreat. It was not approved at that meeting, mostly due to uncertainty about what that U196 board would actually be. To the eventually approved resolution, the following whereas clauses were added, to provide some general idea about the status of the U196 board:

WHEREAS, discussions have been held with locally elected officials within Washtenaw County for the purpose of establishing an organizational framework and funding base for such expanded transportation services, and

WHEREAS, those discussions are expected to result in the creation of an interim and   “unincorporated” Act 196 Authority Board (“u196 Board”) which will act as an ad hoc committee to establish an organizational framework and funding base for an expanded transit system, and to work toward formally creating and incorporating a new Act 196 Authority, therefore …

In broad strokes, Michigan’s Act 196 of 1986 enables the establishment of public transit authorities that include multiple jurisdictions in a single geographic area – cities, townships, villages – but has a provision for political subdivisions to opt out of inclusion in the transit authority.

Countywide Governance: Two Acts – Act 55 and Act 196

The AATA now operates under Act 55 of 1963. Current discussion has focused on the possibility of forming a countywide funding base through creating a public transit authority under Act 196 of 1986. [Previous Chronicle coverage lays out in detail some of the other technical differences between Michigan’s Act 55 (1963) and Act 196 (1986): "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit."]

One advantage to Act 196 (if any type of “fixed-guideway” system is envisioned) is that it allows for voters to approve the levy of a millage lasting up to 25 years for transit service that includes a fixed guideway. Vehicles that run on rails – street cars and commuter trains – are obvious examples, but bus rapid transit (BRT) is also a fixed guideway system. With a BRT operation, special reserved lanes and queue-jumping infrastructure at intersections allow buses to take priority over other traffic on the roadway, so that they have a fixed guideway within the roadway.

Another advantage of Act 196 is that it offers more administrative flexibility for the formation of a public transit authority. Act 55 enables cities to establish a transit authority. While it’s possible to subsume additional multiple jurisdictions in an existing Act 55 public transit authority, there is little flexibility for opting out.

For Act 196, a county counts as a political subdivision that can establish a public transit authority under the act. And that’s what the AATA would like Washtenaw County to do, if the county board of commissioners is willing to take that step. But there are other options for forming an Act 196 authority, which include the formation by an existing Act 55 authority, or by multiple political subdivisions who choose to band together under an intergovernmental agreement.

On any scenario for formation of an Act 196 public transit authority, the flexibility for inclusion or exclusion in that authority is one possible advantage of using Act 196 for expanded countywide service in Washtenaw County. An Act 196 authority allows for political subdivisions of the county that do not wish to participate in a public transit authority to opt out. And those political subdivisions can opt out without eliminating the opportunity for other political subdivisions to band together to provide public transit for their residents.

Countywide Governance: Third Act – Act 7

The initial indication is that Salem Township is not interested in participating in a public transit authority for Washtenaw County. In Michael Ford’s monthly written report to the board for June 2011, he notes:

In a disappointing development, Salem Township voted not to participate in the Northeast Group for the time being. However, we will not be deterred. We will revisit Salem when Northfield Township votes in July and continue to update them before the U196 board starts meeting.

The other members of the “Northeast Group” to which Ford’s memo refers include Northfield Township, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township.

On the scenario the AATA has sketched for eventual Act 196 authority board membership, the Northeast Group would have one of 15 seats on the Act 196 authority board. Of the four political subdivisions in the Northeast Group, Ann Arbor Township and Superior Township have already struck an agreement made under Act 7 of 1967 – which establishes how interlocal governmental agreements are made. That agreement may, as Ford’s report indicates, be joined by Northfield Township in July.

Countywide Governance: Interim Unincorporated Board – U196

The Northeast Group is part of a possible governance structure for an Act 196 authority that the AATA has sketched out for the county. It blocks out the county into nine geographic sections corresponding to a total of 15 board seats. Seats would be assigned partly based on population, and partly on the funding used.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

The sketch envisions a scenario where Ann Arbor’s existing 2 mill tax would remain in place, in addition to whatever countywide millage might be enacted, and so assigns Ann Arbor seven board seats. Based purely on population in the county, Ann Arbor would receive one-third of the board seats – that is, only five.

Concerns about the proportionality of representation as well as the proportionality of benefit have been raised not just by those outside of Ann Arbor, but by Ann Arbor residents looking at a future countywide system from a broader point of view.

At the June 3 AATA board retreat, during public commentary Vivienne Armentrout told the AATA board she felt that if she were in an out-county area, she’d wonder about proportionality of funding compared to benefits. She asked: “Are we talking about massive investment in commuter rail?” Without having funding options on the table, it’s not clear what you’re asking people to buy into, she told them. [Armentrout is a former member of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.]

In the rest of the county, the reaction to AATA’s possible Act 196 board representation has also met with some skepticism and resistance. On a second visit to the Washtenaw County board by representatives of the AATA, the different perspectives – among commissioners representing Ann Arbor districts in the county and those representing other areas – were readily apparent.

Countywide Governance: Visit to Washtenaw County Board (June 2)

In April, staff from the AATA and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) had made a presentation at a working session of the county board of commissioners, giving details of tentative plans for the countywide transit system. Some commissioners raised concerns at the time, particularly related to a possible governance structure, which designated seven seats to Ann Arbor on a 15-member transit authority board. From The Chronicle’s report:

Commissioner Kristin Judge, whose district covers Pittsfield Township, protested the way board seats were assigned, saying it gave an unfair advantage to Ann Arbor. Commissioner Wes Prater, who represents southeast portions of the county, said he was “flabbergasted” that the governance plan had been developed so fully without consulting the county board, which under the current proposal would be asked to ratify the new transit authority’s board members. However, some individual commissioners were previously aware of the proposal, including board chair Conan Smith and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the board’s working session. Both Smith and Rabhi represent Ann Arbor districts.

The topic was taken up again at a June 2 county board working session, which included a presentation to county commissioners by AATA CEO Michael Ford. Ford and Jesse Bernstein, chair of the AATA board, also fielded questions about the proposal, covering a range of topics – from the number of seats on a governing board to whether Ann Arbor residents would continue to pay their current transit millage.

After Ford’s presentation, Dan Smith kicked off the discussion by noting that at their retreat earlier this year, commissioners had talked in general about the county government taking a leadership role in coordinating countywide initiatives. He clarified that at this point, the governance structure is just a proposal, and might be changed in the future. Ford confirmed that this is the case, saying it would ultimately be up to local governments as to how they form a transit authority’s governance. AATA is just trying to facilitate the discussion, he said.

Rob Turner wondered what the county’s role would be. Is it necessary for the county to incorporate the authority, as the proposal calls for? No, Ford said – but that would be the easiest way to handle it, rather than having multiple units of government file for incorporation separately.

Turner asked what additional role the county would play. That’s up to commissioners and the county administration, Ford said. If the county wants to take on additional responsibility, it’s possible to explore that, he added – possibly some kind of liaison role would be an option.

Turner then asked how the proposed governance would be affected if a smaller group of communities wants to form an Act 7 partnership. For example, right now the proposal calls for an Act 7 formed from jurisdictions on the entire west side of the county – including eight townships, Chelsea and Manchester. What if only a portion of those entities wanted to form an Act 7? Turner asked. How would that affect the transit authority’s governance structure?

Ford said they hadn’t faced that issue yet. All of the local governments had indicated agreement with the proposed plan and its geographic breakdown, he said. If that changes, he added, adjustments would be made. [Later in the month, Salem Township's board voted not to participate, though AATA still hopes they'll eventually join the authority.]

Finally, Turner clarified that if a local entity doesn’t opt out within a 30-day period after the vote to incorporate as an Act 196 authority, they’d be joining for five years. That’s true, Ford said – it’s specified in Act 196.

Wes Prater asked why AATA couldn’t incorporate under Act 196, rather than the county. That would be an option, Ford said. Prater expressed concern that the county would seem to be accepting liability and responsibility for the transit authority, but wouldn’t have any power over it – as proposed, no county representative would have a seat on the authority’s board, for example. It didn’t seem like the transit authority would answer to any elected body, Prater said.

Prater also objected – as he has in the past – to the way that seats on the transit authority board would be assigned. It’s not a one-person, one-vote structure, based on population, he noted. Rather, Ann Arbor would get seven of the 15 seats, even though the city’s population represents a third of the county. The remaining eight board members would be representing two-thirds of the county’s population. ”That doesn’t add up to the one person, one vote in my mind,” Prater said.

Ford noted that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would bring assets (buses, bus stops, and buildings, for example) to the new entity – and that both cities already have dedicated transit millages. He said AATA’s attorney had reviewed the proposal, and that they’re confident that the way they’re proceeding is sound.

Prater wanted the county to have its attorney check the proposal as well. If it approved the Act 196 incorporation, the county board would be authorizing an entity that in turn could put a tax levy on the ballot, he said. The governance proposal really bothers him, Prater said.

Bernstein said Prater had raised some core questions that will have to be answered. The board of the unincorporated Act 196 entity will be the people who decide how the transit authority will be governed, he added – it isn’t set in stone. The issue of how many representatives from Ann Arbor serve on the unincorporated board is wide open, he said.

The AATA is suggesting this as a point to start the discussion, Bernstein told commissioners, but there’s plenty of room for modifications and adjustments. They’re not ready to propose something definitive.

Prater again cited concerns over creating a transit authority that doesn’t report to any government entity. He said he’s very cautious about supporting an authority that might put a countywide tax on the ballot. Prater expressed support for the model used in Grand Rapids, in which a smaller number of jurisdictions form the transit authority. He guessed that most areas in Washtenaw County, outside of the urban areas, don’t have the population to support a countywide transit system.

Bernstein reported that in talking with people in the county’s rural townships, they are concerned over the ability of residents to age in place – that is, to continue to live in their homes, even if they can no longer drive. Elected officials in those areas, he said, want transit services for residents to get to their medical care, for example.

The other issue is land use, Bernstein said. Townships don’t want dense developments in their communities – they’d rather see transit corridors, he said, so that their tax base can grow while they preserve farmland and open space at the same time.

Bernstein said it’s true that there’s not yet a funding plan, though organizers assume it will be a millage of some sort. There’s still a long way to go, he said.

Prater noted that five townships and two cities account for about 75% of the population in this county – those are areas where he supports public transportation. [He was referring to the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ypsilanti, Scio, Superior, Pittsfield and Augusta.] Prater said he’s not convinced that the approach being pursued is the right one, adding that he’s very critical of it. If the governance isn’t fair, the initiative is already in trouble, he said.

Leah Gunn clarified that each jurisdiction involved in the transit authority would vote separately on a transit tax. She noted that Ann Arbor residents have been paying 2 mills for transit for many years – it was voted in as a permanent millage in the 1970s, and funds the AATA. Will that millage be retained, even if there’s an additional millage?

That’s one of the suggestions, Bernstein said, adding that he’s open to whatever makes sense. Some have said that every jurisdiction should pay the same amount. All of these things are decisions that need to be made. ”I have no idea what that [funding mechanism] is going to look like,” he said.

Gunn said she feels strongly that Ann Arbor should keep its 2-mill transit tax. She elicited from Ford that Ann Arbor has invested nearly $180 million in its transit system over the years. In addition, they’ve leveraged those dollars for millions more in federal funding, she noted. Ann Arbor has been very generous, she said – without that investment, AATA wouldn’t be able to provide transit services to other communities, like Ypsilanti.

Yousef Rabhi clarified that whatever future millage might be voted on would be on the ballot only in jurisdictions that wanted to be part of the new transit authority – it wouldn’t necessarily be countywide. He also pointed out that based on having one-third of the county’s population, Ann Arbor would be entitled to five seats in a 15-member transit authority board. But if the city also contributed an additional 2 mills in funding, that could justify an additional two seats on the board, he said.

Rabhi said he’d like to keep the 2-mill transit tax, noting that he uses the AATA bus system frequently. With a larger system, it’s an opportunity for more routes, more services – more of a good thing, he said.

Ronnie Peterson weighed in, telling Ford and Bernstein that a countywide system has been a long time coming. He had urged AATA’s previous two CEOs to take on this project, but they hadn’t, he said. He wished it had been undertaken when the economy was better. “Keep your foot to the pedal,” he told them.

Peterson urged Ford to bring communities to the table that already buy transit services from AATA, like Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – communities which Peterson represents on the county board. That should happen even before a formal entity is created, he said.

Bernstein concluded the discussion by noting that the next major step will be to pull together representatives into an unincorporated entity, and to develop articles of incorporation for an Act 196. Meanwhile, AATA will continue to operate its current system, he said, and they’ll work to get answers to the questions that commissioners have raised. Where they wind up must be inclusive of everyone who wants to participate, Bernstein added – they won’t return to the county board until everything is in order.

Countywide Governance: Funding, TMP Volume 3, U196

One next step is the actual creation of the U196 board, now described as an “ad hoc committee.” The membership on the U196 board is not proposed by the AATA to be the same as the eventual Act 196 authority board. In fact, at the June 3 board meeting was a resolution that would have authorized the chair of the AATA board, Jesse Bernstein, to appoint three members of the current AATA board to serve on the U196, not all seven board members.

The board did not vote on the resolution, but did discuss it long enough to establish the rationale behind not appointing more than three: Action by the U196 board should not be construable as actions of the AATA board. [Four members would constitute a quorum of AATA board members.] Bernstein was keen to emphasize that the U196 board would be open, welcoming and transparent to all.

Another next step for the AATA is to complete Volume 3 of the transit master plan, which would focus on funding options. Existing funding options include fares, advertising (on vehicles), state and federal grants, and property taxes if approved by voters. Possible future funding options identified by the AATA include local vehicle taxes, gas taxes or sales taxes. Those would require state-level legislative action.

A resolution that was before the board, but was not voted on, at the June 3 meeting was one that would release “Volume 3 – Funding Options Report” to a “panel of financial and public funding experts, to review, refine and adjust the document” before it is forwarded to the U196 board.

To take the next steps will also require more funding for planning – though not on the same scale as for the future transit system. Before the board at its June 3 meeting was a resolution that decreased the budget for AATA administrative salaries and benefits by a total of $200,000 and made a corresponding increase in line items supporting the effort of transportation master planning – for agency design fees, consulting fees, printing and production and media.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the budget change to support additional planning work.

Regular Business (June 16): Living Wage Policy

At its June 16 meeting, the board considered a living wage policy that is roughly parallel to the living wage policy expressed in the city of Ann Arbor’s city code. It applies to the wages paid by AATA contractors to their employees. The AATA living wage policy would apply to contractors who have a contract worth more than $10,000 per year and employ or contract with more than five people. It would apply to nonprofit contractors only if they employ or contract with 20 or more people.

The minimum wage to be paid to their employees by AATA contractors would be at the same level stipulated by the city of Ann Arbor. In May 2011, the city ordinance on the city’s living wage – keyed to poverty guidelines – required that the wage be nudged upward. The new wage is set at $11.83/hour for those employers providing health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not providing health insurance. That’s an increase from previous levels, which have remained flat at $11.71 per hour for employers offering health insurance and $13.06 per hour for those who don’t offer health insurance.

The AATA board had initiated the process of setting a living wage policy at its Dec. 16, 2010 meeting, when it passed a resolution directing staff to explore that policy. The context for that resolution was a janitorial contract for the Blake Transit Center. Board member Rich Robben had expressed concern that a vendor might be achieving an extraordinarily low bid by paying its workers substandard wages.

During the brief deliberations by the board, David Nacht characterized the policy as reflective of community values, but still sensitive to very small employers. It shows the AATA doesn’t believe in slave labor or undervalued labor, he said.

Sue McCormick clarified what in cases where the AATA has current contracts in place, they’ll continue as they are. But she gave the example of the auditor, where there’s an annual contract renewable each of five years. On renewal each year, the living wage policy would apply.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the living wage policy.

Regular Business (June 16): Auditor Rotation Policy

Also at its June 16 meeting, the board considered a new auditor rotation policy. The policy would entail that the AATA not use the same auditor for longer than two four-year terms – a total of eight years.

Sue McCormick, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, was the board member who originally suggested looking into the issue of implementing an auditor rotation policy. She had raised the issue at the board’s Sept. 16, 2010 meeting, when board members approved a contract with Rehman as its auditor, but only for one year.

Among the risks cited by the AATA in adopting the rotation policy were the potential for needing to hire an auditor with less experience, who would produce a lower quality of work, and the potential that competitive bidding would be restrained. Among the benefits cited by the AATA in adopting the rotation policy were independence, a fresh approach, and lower cost.

At the board’s May 19 meeting, Charles Griffith, chair of the board’s performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee, had indicated to his colleagues that the policy would need to come before the board at its June meeting so that there would be time to issue a request for proposals in time for next year’s audit.

In reporting out from PMER at the June 16 meeting, Griffith said the idea of limiting an auditor to eight years of service had received McCormick’s blessing.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the auditor rotation policy.

Next Board Meeting: Hoists

Although the board does not have a July meeting scheduled, CEO Michael Ford indicated that he would likely ask them to meet that month, in order to approve some capital improvements to the AATA maintenance facility – bus hoists, used to lift buses so that mechanics can work underneath them. A possible date floated at the June 16 meeting was Monday, July 18.

Present (June 3, 2011) : Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Present (June 16, 2011) : Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale. Absent: Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting (tentative): Monday, July 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Transit options in the three scenarios – which the AATA has labeled Lifeline Plus, Accessible County, and Smart Growth – are nested subsets, starting with Lifeline Plus as a base, which expands on existing services and focuses on services for seniors and disabled people. Accessible County extends services by adding fixed-route bus service to connect all the county’s urban centers. The Smart Growth scenario includes north-south and east-west commuter rail regional components, as well as high-capacity local transit options for corridors like Washtenaw Avenue and State-Plymouth.

Development of the TMP for countywide service has been identified by the AATA board as a necessary step to take before reorganizing the AATA as a transit authority for the entire county. In December 2009, the board held a special meeting to seek advice on various options for reorganization under Act 196 or Act 55. [Chronicle coverage "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

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

Jeff Ammon, a Grand Rapids area attorney who’s been consulting for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, explains legal options for establishing an entity that could expand the geographic reach of AATA service. Millage options use the metaphor of “donut” (upper left) and “layer cake” (middle right). (Photo by the writer.)

The meeting of the full board, with their five guests, came on the heels of a planning and development committee meeting. At that committee meeting Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, gave highlights from a recently completed survey of Washtenaw County voters on their attitudes towards a possible countywide transportation tax.

Those who said they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes on a 1 mill countywide millage eked out a 51% majority countywide.

However, Bob Foy, general manager of Flint’s Mass Transit Authority, repeatedly reminded the full board at their meeting: To get a millage passed, you need a product you can sell. In Flint, which is a countywide authority, Foy reported that the last millage was approved with 68% of the vote.

What the expanded transportation product might look like for Washtenaw County is not yet clear. At the planning and development meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that AATA would be bringing in a consultant to address that issue.

The message sent at the board meeting by the two consulting attorneys – Jerry Lax and Jeff Ammon – was that there’s a difference between (i) deciding on the legal authority to be formed, and (ii) deciding on the desired service that AATA wanted to offer. When the board knew what countywide service it wanted to provide and how it wanted to fund that service, they said, at that point it would make sense to decide on the legal mechanism for establishing an expanded authority.

That authority could be established legally under either of the state’s enabling acts: Act 55 or Act 196.

Conversation about possible expansion to countywide service has been a part of AATA board discussions for at least a year. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Plans for Countywide System" and "AATA Adopts Vision: Countywide Service"]

Act 55 versus Act 196

Jerry Lax, a former Ann Arbor city attorney and the current Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority legal counsel, and Jeff Ammon, an attorney out of Grand Rapids, laid out some of the technical differences between Michigan’s Act 55 (1963) and Act 196 (1986).

Length of Millage

One of those differences relates to the allowed duration of the millages. For an authority that provides regular bus service, both acts allow for a levy of a maximum of 5 mills, for a maximum of 5 years. Where Act 196 is more flexible is for transit service that includes a “fixed guideway.”

Vehicles that run on rails – street cars and commuter trains – are obvious examples, but bus rapid transit (BRT) is also a “fixed guideway” system. With a BRT operation, special reserved lanes and queue-jumping infrastructure at intersections allow buses to take priority over other traffic on the roadway, so that they have a “fixed guideway” within the roadway.

Act 196 allows a millage to be approved by voters for up to 25 years if it includes a fixed guideway project:

Taxes may be levied at a rate and for a period of not more than 25 years as determined by the public authority in the resolution calling the election and as set forth in the proposition submitted to the electors if the public authority seeking the levy is seeking the levy for public transit services that include a fixed guideway project authorized under 49 USC 5309.

[What is not entirely clear is how the current transportation millage levied by the city of Ann Arbor is consistent with the AATA Act 55 organization. Ann Arbor's millage has no end date, but Act 55 imposes a limit of 5 years.]

Political Subdivisions, Service Outside Area

Other differences relate to the political entities mentioned in the acts. Act 55, passed in 1963, was conceived as a way for cities to form transportation authorities:

From Act 55: Sec. 2. (1) The legislative body of any city having a population of not more than 300,000 may incorporate a public authority for the purpose of acquiring, owning, operating, or causing to be operated, a mass transportation system.

Act 196, passed in 1986, recognized that it’s not just cities that might want to form a transportation authority [emphasis added]:

From Act 196: Political subdivision means a county, city, village, or township.

Further, Act 196 provides the explicit provision for political subdivisions to band together to form an authority, and provides the added flexibility that parts of those political subdivisions, except for counties, may be designated as belonging to the area of the transportation authority:

A city, village, or township forming a public authority by itself or in combination with 1 or more other political subdivisions may provide that only a portion of the city, village, or township shall become part of the public authority. The portion of the city, village, or township to become part of the public authority shall be bounded by precinct lines drawn for election purposes.

Act 196 also lays out explicitly how transportation service to areas outside the boundaries of the authority can be provided – there’s no geographic limit to where service can be provided. Under Act 55, it’s not impossible to achieve service outside the area of the authority – the AATA does this through purchase of service agreements (POSAs).

Opting Out of the Authority

In describing how Flint’s MTA had achieved a countywide authority, Bob Foy said they went to the county board and asked them to join the existing Act 55 authority. There was a champion for the cause on the board who enjoyed the respect of other board members, and was able to achieve a unanimous vote to join the authority, making it a countywide entity.

One advantage to that approach, Foy said, was that once the county is on board, “you have everybody.” That is, a township within the county could not, under Act 55, opt out of membership in the transportation authority once the county was a member.

Foy stressed that this was not the same as getting a millage passed countywide or providing service countywide. It just meant that you had the opportunity to go to all the voters of the county and ask them to pass a millage to support the service you wanted to provide.

In contrast to Act 55, a recent amendment to Act 196 gives any political subdivisions that get included in an Act 196 transportation authority the opportunity to opt out:

(7) An authority that forms under this act on or after May 1, 2006 shall notify all political subdivisions or portions of any city, village, or township that are included in the authority that the political subdivision or portion of the political subdivision is included in the authority. The authority shall include in this notification notice of the right to withdraw from the authority under this section. The political subdivision or portion of the political subdivision that is notified has 30 days after receiving the notification to withdraw from the authority pursuant to subsection (5).

Taking the AATA and the city of Ypsilanti as an example, if the Washtenaw County board of commissioners were to vote to join the AATA under its existing Act 55 authority, the city of Ypsilanti (among others) would be included in that Act 55 authority. Any millage levied – in the city of Ypsilanti and across the county – would need to be approved by county voters. So Ypsilanti would have no choice about being in the authority, but voters would have a choice at the polls about whether to approve the associated millage. It’s possible to wind up with a countywide authority, but no funding source.

On the other hand, if the AATA first formed an Act 196 authority, and then the Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted to join the AATA under that new Act 196 authority, then the city of Ypsilanti (among others) would have to be property notified that it had been included, and would have 30 days to withdraw if it so chose. Withdrawing would mean that Ypsilanti voters would not be included in any ballot question on a millage related to that authority – because they wouldn’t be living within the area of the authority.

Technical Paths to Countywide Service

Attorneys Jerry Lax and Jeff Ammon laid out at least three different funding options for expanding AATA service.

Piecemeal Service Contracts

On this scenario, the geographic area of the legal authority would not change – it would remain the city of Ann Arbor. To add service to more areas of the county, the AATA would add contracts with individual municipalities, much as it does now. Into the mix was also thrown the possibility of contracting with Washtenaw County for service coverage in areas that did not otherwise have a contract with the AATA.

This approach illustrates that the service coverage area need not necessarily be the same as the geographic area defining a transit authority.

A contract-by-contract model could be pursued under Act 55, without changing the AATA to an Act 196 authority. However, the recommendation from the two attorneys was to convert AATA to an Act 196 authority. Conversion to an Act 196 authority provides the advantage that transit topics are laid out in more detail to provide explicit guidance, there’s not a geographic limit on service, and there’s a possibility of a millage lasting up to 25 years if it’s used to pay for some kind of rail or bus rapid transit system.

Those advantages would put the AATA in a better position to lead future countywide transit efforts.

The County Forms an Act 196 Authority  (Layer Cake Millage)

A second option presented to the board for funding expanded transit service was for two transit authorities to exist simultaneously. The second authority would be established by the county under Act 196. The resulting geographic area from which this Act 196 authority would potentially draw a millage would be the entire county – minus any municipalities that chose to withdraw within 30 days of being notified that they’d been included in an Act 196 transit authority.

Voters in the geographic area of the new Act 196 authority – the county minus possibly some subset of the county – would then have to approve any millage that might be levied.

Assuming the city of Ann Arbor did not exercise its right to withdraw from the Act 196 authority formed by the county, and assuming that voters in the county’s Act 196 area approved a millage, then Ann Arbor voters would pay two millages – one mandated in the city charter, and the other to the new Act 196 authority.

This is what Jeff Ammon called a “layer cake” approach – a countywide millage would be layered on top of the Ann Arbor city millage.

With two transit authorities, a natural question is: Which transit authority actually owns the buses and operates the service? On the scenario sketched out at the board meeting, the county’s new Act 196 authority would exist primarily as a funding mechanism. In exchange for agreed-upon levels of service, the county’s Act 196 authority would turn over its millage money to the AATA, which would continue to operate the service.

Bill Schomisch, who’s head of Kalamazoo Metro Transit and who attended the special AATA board meeting to share the Kalamazoo experience, described how Kalamazoo is a “layer cake” model, with the other transit authority existing as a funding mechanism for the KMT. Schomisch also told a cautionary tale about what happens if the millage fails to be renewed – they’d finally succeeded in getting a millage passed in May of 2009, but they had to operate for one year on reserves.

The County Forms an Act 196 Authority (Donut Millage)

This scenario begins the same way as the “layer cake” approach – the county would form an Act 196 authority. But on this path, the city of Ann Arbor would exercise its statutory option to withdraw from the authority within 30 days. With respect to a potential millage source, that would leave the area around Ann Arbor as the “donut” to the “hole” left by Ann Arbor.

The existing AATA would then provide transit service in areas outside of the “hole” by contracting with the Act 196 authority.

Peter Varga, CEO of The Rapid, the Grand Rapids’ transit system, which includes six cities as part of an Act 196 authority, described the funding for their system in this way: the “hole” has contracts with the “donut.” [Varga joined the meeting by phone.]

Comparing the “layer cake” to the “donut,” one difference is that for a given amount of revenue needed from the new Act 196 authority, the millage rate would need to be higher on the “donut” approach, because Ann Arbor’s property tax base would be left out of the equation.

Public Comment, Politics and a Morsel of Analysis

During time for audience comment, Nick Sapkiewicz of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) asked a question of the guests that spoke to some of the diplomatic and political efforts that would be necessary for countywide expansion: How do you determine representation on new transit authority boards?

Foy reported that for Flint’s MTA, the county’s board of commissioners appointed five positions, the city appointed five positions and one was appointed by the “education community.” Varga described how the city of Grand Rapids appointed five board members, with the other six cities in the authority appointing two each. Varga said that at one point, three of the six mayors served on the board.

At the conclusion of the AATA special board meeting, questions and comments were entertained from the audience. (Photo by the writer.)

From the audience also came a question about balancing the service needs of different communities when it came to funding through contracts: How do you determine what level of service to offer, compared to a community’s ability to pay? The implicit background to the question was the ongoing challenge the city of Ypsilanti has faced in paying the full amount of the service contract it has with the AATA.  Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber and councilmember Peter Murdock attended the special meeting on Tuesday, with Schreiber offering his encouragement to the board to go down a path to countywide funding and service. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Buses for Ypsi and a Budget for AATA"]

From Grand Rapids’ Varga came the reply that even low density areas should get good service. And from Foy came the explanation that what they looked at in evaluating service levels was not miles driven or number of routes, but rather the question of whether they were meeting the needs of their riders.

Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, elicited from Schomisch the fact that advocates for disability (Friends of Transit) had helped pass the millage in Kalamazoo.

Jim Mogensen cautioned that while some of the advice was along the lines of there being several different legal mechanisms for doing things, the lesson from the guests and the AATA’s own experience was: “History matters. When it happens and why it happens matters.” He remarked that every system seemed to be cobbled together.  The cobbling together in the AATA’s case, he said, involved purchase-of-service contracts that seemed like a mechanism to lay claim to a local match for federal funding.

Mogensen often comments at AATA board meetings on the theme of contrasting interests: commuters versus residents. Transit service designed primarily to serve basic transportation needs of residents who use the system to get around could look much different from a system designed primarily to get people to their jobs.

Whether an expanded system looks more like a commuter system or more like a basic transportation system could factor into whether there’s support for membership by municipalities in a countywide Act 196 authority. And it could factor into the level of support for a millage in different areas of the county.

A system that featured connections between urban areas in the county would likely appeal to commuters, while a service that included door-to-door service for outlying county areas might look attractive to out-county dwellers.

As described by Flint MTA’s Foy, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. The MTA provides something Foy called “through-the-door” service – a driver of a van will come into a rider’s dwelling to provide assistance with putting on coats and galoshes for those who would like it. The MTA also provides commuter service to the Delphi plant in Troy.

Like the Flint MTA, the AATA currently offers paratransit services through its A-Ride program, and is currently piloting commuter express buses between Chelsea and Ann Arbor, and Clinton and Ann Arbor. Ridership on those commuter bus pilots has not met expectations.

Chris White, AATA’s service development manager, highlights survey results for the planning and development committee. To White’s right is AATA controller, Phil Webb. (Photo by the writer.)

At the planning and development committee meeting that immediately preceded the full board meeting, board member Sue McCormick focused on the geographic distribution of millage support measured by the survey that Chris White had reported out.

Groups of 235 respondents had been selected in four different mutually exclusive areas: Ann Arbor, non-Ann Arbor urbanized areas, western townships, and eastern townships.  The support for a possible countywide millage was strongest in Ann Arbor, followed by other urbanized areas, then western townships and eastern townships.

If western and eastern townships opted out of an Act 196 organization formed by the county, then the survey results indicate that chances of passing a transportation millage would increase. That would need to be balanced against the diminished millage revenue that their inclusion would otherwise bring.

What the survey revealed most clearly, said White, was that the state of the overall economy would be the major factor affecting possible millage support. When people feel like the future is uncertain, they’re less likely to support an additional millage, no matter what it’s for.

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

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Charles Griffith, AATA board member (left),  and Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, talk about Ford’s presentation and the board’s subsequent discussion after an Oct. 29 meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board meeting (Oct. 29, 2009): At a special meeting of the AATA board held before dinner at Weber’s Inn, recently hired CEO Michael Ford gave board members a presentation that hammered home one basic point: The AATA needs to expand its current vision and mission by establishing a countywide transportation authority.

The AATA is currently funded by a millage levied at a rate of a little over 2 mill just in the city of Ann Arbor, with service to additional municipalities funded through purchase of service agreements (POSAs).

Board members were generally receptive to Ford’s presentation – David Nacht’s remarks reflected that this was essentially what they’d hired him to do. And to get things rolling towards an expanded, countywide mission for the AATA, Ford asked the board to adopt four specific resolutions in the coming few months. But when those resolutions are adopted, it’s not going to have an immediate impact on bus riders’ lives. As Nacht put it Thursday night, that’s simply “when the real work begins.”

And board member Rich Robben allowed that there were issues that he did not yet “feel that warm and fuzzy feeling about,” noting that ultimately the move to a countywide authority would need the support of the voting public.

After the jump, we take a look at the four specific steps Ford is asking the board to take, and summarize the board’s discussion on his proposal.

Ford’s presentation contained four requests, all of them couched in terms of board resolutions. He asked the board to pass resolutions that would (i) adopt a vision statement, (ii) establish an Act 196 authority, (iii) develop a countywide system, and (iv) integrate all transit initiatives with expertise of staff and consultants.

Vision Statement

Back at its February 2009 meeting, the AATA board adopted a mission statement, but postponed a decision on adopting a vision statement until its next meeting, with the intent of crafting the statement as an exercise undertaken by the board as a whole, instead of starting with a committee recommendation. [Chronicle coverage of that meeting: "AATA: What's Our Vision?"]

At its March meeting, however, as the board was winnowing down candidates for its CEO position, it decided to postpone the vision statement exercise until the new CEO was chosen. The thought behind this was that the new CEO, whoever it turned out to be, would probably like to have some input into the formulation of that statement. [Chronicle coverage of the March 2009 meeting: "Bus Fares Will Increase"]

The CEO who was eventually hired, Michael Ford, presented the board on Thursday with a draft of a possible vision statement. His  request was that it be considered, possibly amended, but ultimately adopted by the board through a resolution.

Here’s what Ford proposed:

Vision Statement [Ford's Draft]: The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority will facilitate public transportation that promotes quality-of-life for Washtenaw County stakeholders through mobility services that support the economy, safeguard the environment and strengthen communities. AATA will evolve toward a continuous expansion of coverage, increased frequency and hours of service to efficiently move people to countywide destinations using appropriate modes of transportation and with the most efficient use of resources.

Board discussion on the vision statement focused on the process by which the board would provide its input on the statement. Board member Ted Annis led off that discussion by saying that he was in broad overall agreement with what Ford had presented, but wanted to know what Ford had in mind as far as the mechanism by which board members could convey their input on the vision statement. He stressed that he viewed Ford’s proposal as a draft. It’s due to the apparent board consensus on that view that The Chronicle has labeled Ford’s proposal as a “draft.”

Annis also pointed out that the mission statement adopted earlier in the year should also be revisited – at least for minor revisions related to the geographic scope of the agency. Here’s the mission statement adopted by the board in February:

Mission Statement [Adopted February 2009]: It is the mission of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to provide useful, reliable, safe, environmentally-responsible, and cost-effective public transportation options for the benefit of the greater Ann Arbor community.

Annis pointed out that if the direction the AATA was headed was to countywide service, the phrase “Washtenaw County” should be considered as a replacement for  “greater Ann Arbor community.”

Ford said that he was open to using the board’s committee structure to handle the mission and vision statements.

Board member David Nacht said he had no objection to providing additional board input on details, but expressed his hope that the process would be expedited. In that spirit, board member Sue McCormick – who is the city of Ann Arbor’s director of public services – suggested that a joint meeting of the performance monitoring and external relations committee and the planning and development committee  could, in a 60-90 minute joint session sometime in the next 30 days, just “pound it out.”

Nacht was eager to get the job done even sooner: “I bet we could get it done over dinner!” But that idea was not embraced by his board colleagues.

The board did, however, reach a consensus that they’d vote on a vision and mission statement at their Nov. 18 meeting.

Form an Act 196 Organization

As part of the initiative to establish countywide service, Ford asked the board to pass a resolution to establish an Act 196 authority – something that Nacht characterized as the “800-pound gorilla” in the room.

The AATA is currently incorporated under the state of Michigan’s Act 55. What would be the point of incorporating a new entity under Act 196? The short answer is that Act 196 is written with explicit attention to the possibility that entities as large as an entire county or that even multiple municipalities might want to join together to form a transportation authority, whereas Act 55 is more narrowly construed.

Act 55, passed in 1963, was conceived as a way for cities to form transportation authorities:

From Act 55: Sec. 2. (1) The legislative body of any city having a population of not more than 300,000 may incorporate a public authority for the purpose of acquiring, owning, operating, or causing to be operated, a mass transportation system.

Act 196, passed in 1986, recognized that it’s not just cities, or individual municipalities that might want to form a transportation authority [emphasis added below]:

From Act 196: Political subdivision means a county, city, village, or township.

…

Sec. 4. (1) A political subdivision or a combination of 2 or more political subdivisions may form a public authority under this act.

In Act 196, then, the section laying out how members can join and how members can be released from membership is far more detailed and complex than the corresponding section in Act 55.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen would suggest that a key difference between the two pieces of legislation with respect to membership is that Act 55 allows for non-membership when there are purchase of service agreements in place, but Act 196 does not.

The details of what must happen and what can happen are sufficiently complex that board member Ted Annis requested that a consultant, who’d previously been engaged by the AATA to provide legal advice on Act 196, be brought back. When Ford assured the board that he was prepared to lay out a specific plan for incorporation under Act 196, Annis responded: “I still want to lobby you to bring that guy back.” That guy is Jeff Ammon, a Grand Rapids attorney, who along with Jerry Lax, a local attorney who also provides legal counsel to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, previously provided the AATA with advice on Act 196 incorporation. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "AATA: What's Our Vision?"]

Annis reminded his board colleagues about part of the advice they’d heard from Ammon: The Act 51 Act 55 organization of AATA would not disappear as soon as an Act 196 organization was established. Instead, an Act 196 organization would be set up essentially as a “shell” to be populated later. Otherwise put, it’s not a “conversion.”

In discussing the timeframe for a board vote on Act 196, David Nacht stressed the importance of holding a public hearing, whether or not it was legally required.

During public commentary, Terri Blackmore, who is director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), suggested that the public hearing on Act 196 incorporation presented a communications challenge. She urged the board to consider the fact that what they needed public input on was the more  intuitive notion of a countywide system, as opposed to the Act 196 versus Act 55 question. Most people don’t know that AATA is an Act 55 organization now, she said.

Discussed briefly by the board was the possibility of a public hearing held between their November and December meetings, dedicated solely to the question of Act 196 reorganization. However, a consensus emerged for that hearing to be held at the board’s regular December meeting, when a vote on Act 196 reorganization would be taken.

Among the questions to be answered about the new Act 196 organization concerns the make-up of its governing board. Currently, the seven members of the AATA board are appointed by Ann Arbor’s mayor, with confirmation by its city council.

The System: The Ride Goes Countywide?

If the AATA expands to a countywide system, then one basic question to be answered is: Where will the buses go and how often will they go there? Also not a trivial matter: What will the name of the new entity be?

AATA CEO Michael Ford’s “slide of confusion.” These are the elements that require integration in development of the countywide system.

In his presentation to the board, Michael Ford had built one slide by adding one-by-one all the current services offered by the AATA and all the transportation initiatives currently under discussion. He called it “the slide of confusion,” meant to illustrate that currently the AATA did not have a clutter-free narrative to tell about what a countywide system would actually look like.

The AATA needed to hire a consultant, Ford said, to assist in the development of a system that could be presented to the public – to voters – that would lay out “what they’ll get.” The recommendation by the AATA’s planning and development committee to hire a consultant for that task was reported by Ted Annis at the board’s last meeting. [For Chronicle coverage, see "AATA Sets Meeting on Regional Authority"]

Board members at Thursday’s Weber’s Inn meeting expressed a desire to have some say in the scope of work developed for the request for proposals that would be put out for the consultant. Among the items they’d like addressed: the name of the new entity. Annis expressed his assumption that the new entity would be called The Ride, which is how the AATA is currently branded in all of its marketing literature. The domain name for the AATA website reflects that branding: theride.org. Annis was still curious to see what a consultant might come up with.

Integration

Among the challenges facing a transition to a countywide authority is integration of the expanded services with services currently under discussion that are broader than just Washtenaw County. Those include north-south commuter train service from Ann Arbor to Howell (WALLY), as well as east-west commuter train service between Detroit and Ann Arbor. Demonstration service on the east-west line is expected to be rolled out in October 2010.

During public commentary, LuAnne Bullington focused her remarks on these commuter train initiatives, asking, “Where’s the money for the trains going to come from?” She pointed out that these projects were focused on commuters outside of Washtenaw County, and that if the AATA was to become a countywide system, then it should focus on Washtenaw County residents.

Sketch of the Future

Based on the consensus that seemed to form in the course of board discussion, we can expect to see committee work on the vision and mission statements between now and the board’s Nov. 18 meeting and a vote to adopt those statements at that meeting.

The board will receive detailed briefing documents from Ford on the Act 196 question in preparation for a public hearing and vote to incorporate an Act 196 organization at its Dec. 16 meeting.

After getting feedback from the board on the scope of work for a consultant to develop a plan for an actual countywide system, an RFP will be issued, with a request coming to the board to award a contract early in 2010.

As board member Rich Robben pointed out, voters will ultimately decide the question. A vote on a countywide millage to support the new Act 196 organization could happen in November 2010. Ann Arbor residents could face a ballot choice that eliminates or reduces the current transportation millage, contingent on passage of a countywide millage. Ypsilanti residents – who currently get bus service from the AATA through a purchase of service agreement – could face a ballot choice with the opposite contingency: implementation of a dedicated transportation millage, contingent on the failure to pass a countywide millage.

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

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]