Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, pending consideration by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

If the Ann Arbor city council does not object, this would be the second expansion of the AAATA board this year. The item is expected to be on the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 21 agenda.

The earlier expansion was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Regarding the budget, on Sept. 26 the board approved a $33.97 million expenditure budget for fiscal year 2014. The budget includes revenues that almost exactly balance those expenditures, leaving an excess of $20,500. About half of the revenue to the AAATA comes from local sources (taxes, purchase of service agreements and fares) with most of the rest funded from state and federal support. The budget will fund roughly 7 million total passenger trips for the next year, according to the AAATA.

Also at its meeting, the board approved the selection of the law firm Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels P.C. to handle AAATA’s legal work. The firm already handles legal work for the transit authority, so the board’s approval means that Pear Sperling will continue in that capacity for the next five years.

As a result of another board action at the Sept. 26 meeting, Charles Griffith will be leading the board for another year as chair. He was first chosen as chair last year by his colleagues. The pattern of chairs serving for two years is typical for the AAATA.

It was the first board meeting Jack Bernard attended as a board member since being confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 19, 2013. However, three other board members did not attend the AAATA meeting: Roger Kerson, Anya Dale and Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Those who did attend received several updates on various projects, including construction on the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor, AAATA’s new website, and activity related to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). The next board meeting of the nascent four-county authority – which includes the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb – will be held at 2 p.m. on Oct. 2 at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Qualified OK

The board considered a resolution adding Ypsilanti Township a member of the AAATA – contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council, as well as other involved parties.

Newly appointed board member Jack Bernard, just before taking his seat at the AAATA board table.

The AAATA board resolution included approval of new articles of incorporation for the transportation authority.

Adding Ypsilanti Township in the way outlined in the articles of incorporation would expand the AAATA board from nine to 10 members. The additional seat would be appointed by the supervisor of Ypsilanti Township – an elected position held currently by Brenda Stumbo – with the approval of the township board.

The item is expected to be on the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 21 agenda. An earlier expansion was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Ann Arbor’s additional board seat on the AAATA was filled when the Ann Arbor city council appointed Jack Bernard. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. The city of Ypsilanti’s seat was filled with Gillian Ream Gainsley. Ream Gainsley is communications and development director at the Ypsilanti District Library.

The “resolved” clause of the AAATA board’s Sept. 26 resolution makes the approval of the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA contingent on approval from the city of Ann Arbor and other parties [emphasis added]:

… approves Amendment 3 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, except that, in the event that Ypsilanti Township, or the City of Ypsilanti, or the City of Ann Arbor declines to approve said Articles as described above, the AAATA Board directs staff to reconvene those parties to reconcile any differences relative to the Articles and to bring a new draft to the AAATA Board and all other parties. [.pdf of AAATA complete resolution on admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member]

The sequence of events leading to the possible admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the transit authority would be slightly different from that leading to the admission of the city of Ypsilanti. The initial resolution adopted by the AATA board on the admission of the city of Ypsilanti was simply an acknowledgment of the request. The first formal action on approval of the amended articles of incorporation – which included the city of Ypsilanti – was taken by the Ann Arbor city council.

A timeline overview:

• April 19, 2013: Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock addresses the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board during its regular meeting to alert the AATA to the probable request by the city of Ypsilanti to join the AATA as a member.
• April 23, 2013: Ypsilanti city council passes resolution requesting admission as a member of the AATA.
• May 16, 2013: AATA board approves resolution acknowledging city of Ypsilanti’s request to join AATA.
• June 3, 2013: Ann Arbor city council approves change to articles of incorporation, admitting city of Ypsilanti as a member of AATA and increasing board membership from seven to nine members, with one of the additional board seats to be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.
• June 18, 2013: Ypsilanti city council approves amended articles of incorporation for AATA.
• June 20, 2013: AATA board approves resolution formally admitting city of Ypsilanti as a member of the board, ratifying articles of incorporation, including a name change to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.
• Sept. 9, 2013: Ypsilanti Township board passes resolution requesting membership in AAATA.
• Sept. 23, 2013: Ypsilanti Township board passes resolution approving amended articles of incorporation with membership for Ypsilanti Township.
• Sept. 26, 2013: AAATA board approves amended articles of incorporation with membership for Ypsilanti Township, contingent on concurrence from other parties.
• Oct. 15, 2013: Planned Ypsilanti city council agenda item on amended articles with membership for Ypsilanti Township.
• Oct. 21, 2013: Planned Ann Arbor city council agenda item on amended articles with membership for Ypsilanti Township.

Historically, other jurisdictions – the city of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township – have obtained some transit services from the AAATA through purchase of service agreements (POSAs). They have used general fund money authorized by the governing boards to pay the AAATA for that service. In November 2010, however, voters in the city of Ypsilanti approved a dedicated transit millage by a roughly 3:1 margin.

So the city of Ypsilanti has used the proceeds of that 0.987 mill tax to pay toward its POSA agreement. Now that the city of Ypsilanti is a member of the AAATA, the revenue from that 0.987 mill tax isn’t recorded under the POSA line item in the AAATA’s budget, but rather under the line item for local, millage-generated revenues.

The expansion of AAATA one jurisdiction at a time comes in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County in one step. Since then, work has continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor – to expand and increase the frequency of service and to establish reliable funding for that improved service.

The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – but the transit authority has historically not done that. Rather, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have dedicated transit millages, which are levied by the cities and transmitted to the AAATA.

Chart by AAATA. Contributions of AAATA members, with impact of successful 0.7 millage, if Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member. The hollow blue box indicates the amount paid by Ypsilanti Township for its purchase of service agreement (POSA), which would be supplanted (and exceeded) by the 0.7 millage if it were to be approved.

One possibility for funding improved transportation services in the Ann Arbor area is through an additional tax levied by the AAATA. The amount of the millage that would be required to pay for the increased services is estimated at around 0.7 mills. In the event that the AAATA were to win voter approval of a 0.7 mill transit tax – a request that might be put on the ballot in May 2014 – the city of Ypsilanti’s existing millage would remain in place, as would that of the city of Ann Arbor. The 0.7 mill tax would need approval among a majority of voters in the geographic area of member jurisdictions – which would include the two cities (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) as well as Ypsilanti Township, if it is admitted as a member.

Ann Arbor’s city transportation tax is levied at the rate of 2.053 mills, and currently generates $9,565,000 annually, according to AAATA. The 0.7 mill additional tax would generate $3,230,007 in additional revenue in the city of Ann Arbor for a total Ann Arbor local contribution of more than $12.7 million. According to AAATA, Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage generates $274,000, which is less than its POSA agreement called for last year. The 0.7 mill tax would generate around $189,785 in additional revenue in the city of Ypsilanti, for a total contribution in the city of Ypsilanti of around $464,000.

Ypsilanti Township pays $329,294 annually for its POSA agreement. If a 0.7 mill tax were approved, that would generate around $707,969 in the township. Based on the amount of expanded services that the township would receive, the township contribution would be defined as just that $707,969.

The proposed expansion of service does not depend on the nascent southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) – a four-county authority for southeastern Michigan, which includes the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb. The RTA was established in late 2012 in a lame duck session of the Michigan legislature. According to the AAATA’s Sept. 26 informational packet, the RTA has so far spent just $98 of the $500,000 in the budget that was initially allocated to it. The RTA could ask for voter approval of a property tax or a vehicle registration fee to generate transit funding.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the Sept. 26 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board she had been impressed by the board’s retreat held earlier in the year as the board and staff sorted through priorities and limitations. That has led to development of a work plan, which was the basis of the balanced budget – which she thought the board would be approving that night. She told the board how she felt a board should work: Board members are not managers, she told them, they are policymakers. But she noted that they have a fiduciary duty, saying that the buck literally stops with them – because the budget is the instrument they use to lead the authority in accordance with the policies that they set.

Because of that fiduciary duty, Armentrout continued, she felt that the board should not be entering into what she called a “speculative venture” by adding Ypsilanti Township as a member to the authority. She called it speculative because the financial arrangements had not been firmly defined. She contended that the township had expectations of considerably expanded service, which are based in turn on the passage of a new millage. Based on the minutes of the township board’s meeting, Armentrout was not convinced that the Ypsilanti Township board of trustees understands that.

Armentrout said that there were no documents that laid out the specific responsibilities on both sides or that defined the financial arrangement. She allowed that there was some mention of a memorandum of understanding, but there was no draft document that can be examined. She continued by saying that many details were missing, including the exact amounts and formulas for the amount to be paid by Ypsilanti Township and how those amounts would be adjusted in the future and for how long the township is making a commitment. The township’s commitment is supposed to end with the passage of the millage, she said. She urged the AAATA board to postpone a decision until those financial issues could be resolved and a clear picture is presented – of the possible impact of this decision on the AAATA’s financial integrity.

Kathy Griswold also addressed the board during public commentary time at the start of the meeting. She said there had been talk of a millage in the near future – an additional 0.7 mills for Ann Arbor residents. She stated that she supports transportation. She knew many students and hourly workers who rely on bus transportation. She told the board that they need to be very aware that they have made some missteps, and there is some dissatisfaction with the existing service because it doesn’t meet all of the needs of the Ann Arbor taxpayers. By proposing a millage, she said, expectations would be raised.

A number of students had approached her, Griswold said, and told her that the bus between Huron High School and Glencoe Hills is beyond capacity. She realized it was the beginning of a new school year, but cautioned that it was important not to have that kind of misstep if the AAATA wanted to ask voters for a new millage. Weekends are a real problem, she said. She knew a student who relies on the bus Monday through Friday and has to get up to catch a bus at 6:18 a.m. to get to school at 8 a.m. And on the weekend – because he worked Saturday and Sunday – he frequently has to pay for a taxi because he starts work before the bus service starts. She found it really disturbing when she sees young people who are trying to get ahead and make something of themselves having to struggle and having hurdles to overcome. She really wanted to see better services for Ann Arbor residents. If those services already exist, then better communication about them needs to happen – before any plans to expand are made, she concluded.

During her report from the planning and development committee, Sue Gott thanked members of the public for their attendance and commentary at that committee’s meetings. She said it was very helpful to receive that citizen input. Gott personally appreciated the fact that three members of the public had attended the most recent meeting of the planning and development committee, and all of them had given the committee good and thoughtful suggestions.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Board Deliberations

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford commented on the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. Ford reviewed some of the recent history. On Sept. 9, the Ypsilanti Township board of trustees had voted unanimously to request membership in AAATA. Since that time, attorneys for the authority, the township, the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor had met to draft mutually agreeable amendments to the articles of incorporation. The amended articles admit Ypsilanti Township as a member of the authority and give the township a seat on the board, bringing the total number of board members to 10.

On Sept. 23, Ford continued, the Ypsilanti Township board had voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation. AAATA’s performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee was recommending that the AAATA board also approve the articles of incorporation as amended, Ford said. He indicated that his understanding was the Ann Arbor city council would have the item on its Oct. 21 meeting agenda. The city of Ypsilanti would also be asked to approve the amended articles, Ford said, and is expected to have the item on its agenda on Oct. 15. If all parties approve the change, Ford said, it would bring more than 50% of Washtenaw County’s population into full participation in the AAATA.

As different communities transition from a purchase of service agreement-type relationship, to a member relationship, Ford said, it’s important to document the change with a formal contract. That had begun with the city of Ypsilanti, he noted. It ensures that the new member communities and the AAATA agree on what the obligations of a membership are.

AAATA board member Susan Baskett.

Reporting out from the PMER committee, Susan Baskett also noted that in the resolution approving Ypsilanti Township’s request for admission as a member, a “whereas” clause had been changed to make clear that the Ann Arbor city council has not yet acted on the matter but is expected to act.

Baskett also noted that the resolution admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA included a “whereas” clause clarifying that the township’s financial commitment would be appropriate to the level of service received. Baskett indicated that she hoped those clarifications would help address some of the concerns that had been raised during the public commentary that evening. The committee was fully supportive of bringing a resolution to the board, Baskett concluded.

In comments later in the meeting, Eli Cooper acknowledged that over the last three or four meetings, the board had received a lot of public comment about the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. As the AAATA moves forward, he said, the budget that’s under consideration for adoption and the services that have been provided historically are not related to the township as far as adding any additional financial liability to the authority. As the AAATA moves forward collectively as an urban core region, he said, there’s a mechanism in place that will allow the township to sustain the services that are contemplated. Cooper invited Ford to comment on that description.

Ford simplified Cooper’s sentiments by saying: “They’ll pay for what they get.” If the township wanted more service, they would pay for that, Ford said.

Baskett inquired whether the articles of incorporation and the other materials would be made public somewhere. Ford indicated that it would eventually all be placed on the AAATA’s website. Ford also indicated that some commonly asked questions with corresponding answers had been prepared. [.pdf of the AAATA's issue analysis]

Jack Bernard wanted to bring the topic to a level of clarity so that the public really does understand what the expansion would mean. He felt there is a genuine concern that the expansion would risk a decrease in service to the core of what has been the AAATA, or create additional costs. He felt that people are apprehensive because they see things growing and they compare it to other experiences that they’ve had when something has expanded – when there are greater expenses at greater risk. He felt it would be helpful to really get onto the table why the AAATA believes that those apprehensions can be alleviated.

Responding to Bernard, Ford pointed to the issue analysis and fact sheet as providing that assurance. Ford returned to a point he made earlier in the meeting – that Ypsilanti Township will be paying for the services that it receives.

Baskett pointed to the first page of the issue analysis that had been done by AAATA staff and read aloud the third bullet point:

AAATA’s funding base will be made more stable by Ypsilanti Township’s membership since Ypsilanti Township has pledged funding, equal to the cost of acquiring services through the Purchase of Service Agreement, to the Authority for transit purposes. This pledge is contained in the Township’s resolution requesting service and will be further documented in a memorandum of understanding. Note that the nature of Ypsilanti Township’s commitment will change in the event of any Authority millage, that is, the commitment of Ypsilanti Township’s general revenues can be reduced by the amount of revenue produced by the township’s share of an Authority millage. In other words, a 0.7 mil Authority levy, if enacted, would produce enough revenue in Ypsilanti Township to fully cover the cost of both existing and proposed new services in the township, making a contribution from their general fund unnecessary. This is illustrated in the accompanying chart, below.

Sue Gott allowed that one possibility is that a millage would be approved. But she felt it was important to also engage in some Plan B thinking – if there is no millage. The other question Gott asked related to the total activity of the AAATA – venturing that staff has a full plate. She asked Ford to comment on the administrative capacity of AAATA to continue route planning and other expansion opportunities. Ford indicated that in connection with the urban core process, AAATA staff had gone out and talked to a lot of people and received a lot of input. A lot of the heavy lifting and difficult work had been done, he felt – as far as what the actual service look like.

Going forward, Ford saw an increased need for communication – within the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor as well as Ypsilanti Township. He felt AAATA is in a good position to deal with that. Ford said he did not see expansion as a burden but as a need to communicate to the public in general: “I think that we’re there. We’ve done a lot of good work. We’ve got some refinements to do.” Details of the schedules and bus stop locations will need to be communicated, he allowed. He did not feel that the expansion would compromise planning efforts, and he felt AAATA was in a position to handle the expansion.

About Plan B – if a millage is not approved – Ford said there would really be no change from the way service is currently delivered and paid for. If Ypsilanti Township is a member, they’d be paying their fair share. If and when a millage is approved, Ford continued, then that’s a whole new discussion. For right now it’ll be business as usual, Ford said – but he allowed that they want to tighten up the relationship with more formal agreements. He did not foresee any major change in staff time or involvement. He concluded that he did not foresee any burden on the AAATA.

Charles Griffith offered some historical perspective on why the board was at the point of discussing adding Ypsilanti Township as a member. When the AAATA had begun a long-term planning efforts a few years back and was considering how it might include other jurisdictions, a fairly wide net had been cast. AAATA staff and board members had talked with all the other jurisdictions the county, he said, and a lot of interest had been generated throughout the county. An effort had been initiated to look at some version of a countywide transportation authority structure, Griffith said. When that was put to the test – that is, when local officials from those jurisdictions had to say yes or no about whether they wanted to be a member of the countywide authority – more of them said no.

So that effort at expansion had then been refined, Griffith said. The Ann Arbor city council had requested that the AAATA approach the task of starting with an “urban core” area that included the city of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township and the city of Saline. A number of meetings of those urban core communities had taken place over the last several months – to take a look at how to create a more vibrant regional transportation system. For some jurisdictions – like the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, which is requesting that same opportunity – it’s a way for long-term partners to have a chance to participate in governance, by being able to appoint a member to the board. In some cases, Griffith said, that relationship between the jurisdiction and the AAATA went back 30 years.

Secondly, those jurisdictions have the opportunity to participate in a millage request, as part of the request of the AAATA, Griffith said. Currently the funding comes from each jurisdiction individually. There’s a certain efficiency related to all the jurisdictions being able to request additional funding jointly, he said. The downside to it, and the reason it doesn’t work for every community, Griffith explained, is that each jurisdiction has different service needs. If a large part of the jurisdiction is rural and that area doesn’t need as much service as a more urban community, it might not work for that jurisdiction to request a millage at the same rate as another community. Because of service needs and tax base differences, it is not necessarily that easy to make a multi-jurisdictional millage request, Griffith allowed. But Ypsilanti Township has come to the conclusion that it would work for that township – at least with the plan that the AAATA has come up with so far.

Other communities, like Pittsfield Township, have said that a membership would not work for them. A millage request of that size would mean more transportation service than they’re willing to take on right now, Griffith said. So Pittsfield Township is happy to find that funding base on its own, and contract with the AAATA for service.

Griffith summarized his view on the guiding principle for admission to the authority by saying: “It shouldn’t matter to us which way a jurisdiction wants to participate in our authority, but from my perspective at least we want to provide the opportunity for them to participate at the highest level possible.” He felt the overall goal is to improve and increase the opportunities for members of the community. For Ypsilanti Township to be member of the AAATA makes sense, Griffith said. That’s because the township can continue to participate in the AAATA on a long-term basis under its existing arrangement. Or there will be a millage request, which would provide a different funding opportunity, he said.

Service needs would change over time, Griffith allowed – and that is why the AAATA has a 5-year plan as well as a 30-year plan, which anticipates further growth in transit over that time period.

Eric Mahler indicated he would support the resolution. If in the future other jurisdictions wanted to join the AAATA, he said, he thought the board would engage in the basic is-it-good-is-it-bad debate over and over again. It’s important for board members to lay out clearly to the public as well as to each other what the guiding principles are. He echoed Griffith’s sentiments – that it makes sense to allow jurisdictions to participate in the AAATA at the highest level that they would like to.

Mahler felt there is more risk in not letting jurisdictions into the authority. It sends a bad message to say, “We don’t want you in our authority.” Mahler continued: “It’s better to have a partner than a client.” Mahler believed that the status quo is not actually the status quo – saying that the status quo means you’re actually receding.

Mahler allowed that there might be discrepancies in service in the city of Ann Arbor in certain pockets here and there, and he felt those issues need to be addressed. At the same time, those pockets – where something might have been missed or could be improved – should not hold the AAATA back from expanding to those jurisdictions that want transportation services. Like any business, he said, you fix what’s wrong and you keep moving forward. He looked forward to Ypsilanti Township’s participation on the board.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution adding Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA.

Ypsilanti Township in AAATA: Public Commentary Coda

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board that the documents that the AAATA had cited clarifying Ypsilanti Township’s commitment were not convincing – because they were not contracts.

Vivienne Armentrout.

And the issues analysis doesn’t commit anyone to anything, she said. She called it a “concept paper.” She also said that “whereas” clauses and in resolutions have no binding power. It’s the information in the resolved clause that commits a municipality to spend money, she said. Ypsilanti Township is not committed to anything, she contended. The “whereas” clauses that the AAATA had taken such care to insert have no force, she said.

The AAATA is admitting a municipality as a member that is a Michigan township – which operates under the assumptions that townships do, Armentrout cautioned. She was familiar with these assumptions from her years of service on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – in particular with Ypsilanti Township. Washtenaw County had spent $1 million defending a lawsuit that had been brought by Ypsilanti Township, alleging that the county was overcharging the township for its share of sheriff deputy services. After about three years of litigation, she continued, the township had finally lost. Both entities had spent a lot of money over very fine print material, she said. Townships are very interested in getting their money’s worth. Ypsilanti Township expects every tax dollar that goes from them in any form to come back to them in exactly those needed services or they will not be satisfied.

Ypsilanti Township will advocate and agitate for additional services, Armentrout said. “I promise you, you’re going to have a lot of issues to deal with in the future if this takes place,” she said. She told the board that they did not have any guarantee even that Ypsilanti Township would pay the purchase of service agreement amount. She allowed that she might be overstating the case and there might be some goodwill involved, but she told the board that what they had approved was a handshake.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget

The board was asked to approve a $33.97 million expenditure budget for fiscal year 2014. The budget for FY 2014, which starts on Oct. 1, includes revenues that almost exactly balance those expenditures, leaving an excess of $20,500.

The FY 2014 budget restores a three-month operating reserve. The board previously had authorized dipping below that level after the state of Michigan’s allocation for operating support last year was less than expected. During the past year, however, the state legislature made an additional appropriation increasing the percentage of operating expenses subsidized by the state from 27.11% to 30.65%.

According to CEO Michael Ford’s monthly written report to the board, the budget will fund 200,000 fixed-route service hours, 64,000 paratransit service hours, 19,000 NightRide service hours, 9,000 AirRide service hours and over 2,000 ExpressRide service hours.

That translates into 7 million total passenger trips for the next year. The FY 2014 budget reflects about a 4.9% increase compared to last year.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Board Deliberations

About the fiscal year 2014 operating budget, Ford noted during his report to the board that the work plan was complete and had been adopted by the board at its previous meeting in August.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Revenue. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA)

The planning and development committee had reviewed the budget several times, he noted, and he had met with individual board members to go over the budget in more detail. The nearly $34 million budget, Ford continued, supports the projects in the work plan and will allow the AAATA to provide about 200,000 fixed-route service hours, 64,000 paratransit service hours, 19,000 NightRide service hours, 9,000 AirRide hours, and over 2,000 Express Ride service hours. That’s a total of about 294,000 service hours, which would include about 7 million passenger trips.

To support that level of service, Ford continued, the budget assumed an increase in service, staff and resources – such as motor coach operators and service crew, and maintenance, to support the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Biodiesel fuel prices are expected to increase, he said. Ford appreciated the board working with staff on the budget.

Later in the meeting, Sue Gott asked if the FY 2013 budget would be amended to reflect the additional supplemental state operating support the AAATA had received. Controller Phil Webb noted that there were only three days left in the fiscal year. But the differences between actual and budgeted could simply be explained, he said.

When the board reached the budget agenda item, Ford thanked board members for their time and consideration. The budget had been reviewed in a fair amount of detail, he said. If another presentation was desired, staff was prepared to do that, but he felt the board had already seen the topic quite a bit. He felt the staff had pretty well exhausted the information.

AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Expenses. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA)

Gott responded to Ford by saying that for the benefit of the public, who had not necessarily attended all the meetings and followed the discussion of the development of the budget, it would be helpful to have a few highlights. Controller Phil Webb was asked to provide the highlights.

Webb began by saying that the budget represents all of the human resources and financial resources that are needed over the next 12 months. Development of the budget, he said, begins by looking at The Ride Guide. The Ride Guide is essentially a promise to the community to provide a certain number of hours of service on the street, he said. That’s the basis of figuring out how many drivers are needed, how many mechanics are needed, how many buses are needed, and how much fuel will be used.

From that follows a certain amount of paratransit service that’s required to be provided, he said. AAATA goes beyond the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he noted.

Webb pointed out that local tax dollars are not used to provide the AirRide service or the ExpressRide services.

Gott followed up with a comment indicating she was satisfied with the way Webb monitored cash flow through the year. She noted that they had heard the concern from the public that the AAATA maintain its financial strength and she indicated the board members all felt a responsibility to do that. She felt that the regular routine monitoring that was in place assured that responsibility is met.

Jack Bernard asked Webb to explain the benchmarking process that the AAATA is going through. Bernard felt it was important for the public to have a sense that the AAATA not looking at itself in a vacuum.

Webb indicated that a peer analysis is done routinely. The AAATA looks at its peers within the state of Michigan because the state of Michigan’s funding is unique, he said. So the AAATA compares itself to mid-sized systems in Lansing and Grand Rapids and Flint, as well as across the country – Madison, Wisc. and some other college towns that have a similar demographic. “We compare favorably in some avenues and dis-favorably in other areas, and we strive to improve ourselves as we go on,” Webb said. That comparative analysis would be coming back to the performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee in the next couple of months.

Eric Mahler asked if the AAATA had a separate capital budget. Webb explained that the AAATA does have a capital and categorical grant program – and the board’s first look at that would be at the October planning and development (PDC) committee meeting. And at the December meeting, board approval would be requested. The timeframe this year is a month earlier compared to the previous year – because the plan must also be submitted to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), Webb explained.

Eli Cooper noted that the budget process had begun with the board’s retreat in the spring. A work program had been outlined. Cooper also described several rounds of committee meetings and discussion by the board. The information had been thoroughly vetted by the board, he said. That was the process.

As to the substance, Cooper reacted to some of the public commentary that had been given – about service to residents. Cooper felt it’s important to note in thinking about the budget and service to residents, given the resources that are available, that the AAATA is doing a fantastic job in providing a reliable world-class service within the community. The challenge is taking something that is good and making it better, he said.

Wringing out additional efficiencies and effectiveness sounds ideal, but that would be more difficult, he said. The question of moving forward and providing even more services that the community warrants – that’s a conversation that will need to be conducted with the community about the resources necessary to ramp up from a great level of service.

So as a board member, Cooper said he would be supporting the budget. He acknowledged that there are unmet needs and that there will be some conversations moving forward about how to best position the AAATA to meet the needs that the community expects, recognizing the AAATA’s financial resources.

Charles Griffith observed that there is a 4.9% increase in the budget compared to last year. So Griffith asked how the authority was able to handle that, and where the additional revenue had come from.

Webb noted that the AAATA is providing over 200,000 hours of fixed-route service, which is more than the AAATA has ever provided. That’s a 2.8% increase compared to the current year, Webb explained. A lot of the additional expenses go to support those services, he said. There are also some research and development projects the AAATA is working on, two of which are funded at an 80% level through federal planning grants, with the remaining 20% made up through a local share. Those projects are the connector analysis study and the WALLY station feasibility project.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the fiscal year 2014 budget, which starts Oct. 1, 2013.

Selection of Pear Sperling for Legal Work

The board considered a resolution selecting Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels P.C. to continue to represent the AAATA.

The contract runs five years starting on Oct. 1, 2013, and is based on an hourly rate. The value of the contract is expected to exceed a total of $100,000. That’s the amount triggering a requirement of board approval.

According to the staff memo on the resolution, 48 vendors downloaded the RFP (request for proposals) issued by the AAATA and 10 firms responded to it. Written proposals were evaluated and scored, and the top four proposers were offered interviews. After the interview process, “best and final” offers were requested from the top two proposers.

Out of that process, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels P.C. was chosen to provide legal counsel to the AAATA on general corporate, labor and employment matters.

At the Sept. 26 meeting during her report from the performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee, Susan Baskett said the committee was satisfied with the staff report on the request for proposals (RFP) and bidding process. The committee supported bringing back the incumbent law firm. Baskett indicated that she’d suggested to staff that they maintain an ongoing evaluation of all vendors so that if the AAATA were asked for a recommendation about any of its vendors, it would be documented.

Later in the meeting, Eric Mahler, who’s an attorney, asked how much the authority expected to spend in legal services. He wondered what the fee arrangement was – a flat fee or regular hourly-type work? AAATA staff indicated that the contract is based on an hourly rate but on an as-needed basis.

Mahler indicated that Pear Sperling was the lowest bidder, and said that generally when it comes to a law firm, you probably do get what you pay for. However, he said that Pear Sperling is an excellent law firm. Staff indicated that the fee rate is locked in for five years.

Baskett indicated that part of the PMER committee’s recommendation was based on Pear Sperling’s past performance, and it was not merely a decision to continue with that firm just because it was the lowest bidder.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to select Pear Sperling for legal work for the next five years.

Board Governance

Two items appeared on the agenda related to board governance: selection of a board chair for the coming fiscal year; and adoption of the meeting schedule for the upcoming year.

Board Governance: Officer Elections

On the board’s agenda was the annual election of board officers. Charles Griffith was elected last year to serve as board chair. The pattern for the last few chairs is for them to serve two years in that capacity – but a term as chair is just one year.

Griffith is climate & energy program director for the Ecology Center. He has already served for seven years on the AAATA board, and his current appointment lasts another three years. He was reappointed to the board on May 2, 2011 to another five-year term after first being appointed on Sept. 19, 2006.

AAATA board chair Charles Griffith.

The other two officers coming into the Sept. 26 meeting were Eli Cooper as treasurer and Anya Dale as secretary.

Griffith introduced the topic of officer elections by noting that it had been the board’s custom to rotate officer positions every couple of years. The current officers had been serving in that capacity one year or less, he noted. He’d asked Roger Kerson to head up a nomination committee. That committee had recommended that the current officers continue in that capacity. But Griffith indicated that he would entertain any nominations from the floor.

Sue Gott spoke on Kerson’s behalf, because he was absent. She’d served on the nominating committee with Kerson. Kerson had done quite a bit of due diligence talking with board members, Gott reported. Because some members of the board are new and might not be quite ready to step into an officer role, she and Kerson felt that it made sense to give the current officers, who are doing a good job, a continued opportunity. And because others had not volunteered an interest, it was appropriate that the existing officers be put forward as a slate for election, she said.

Gott thanked Anya Dale in her role as secretary, Griffith in his role as chair, and Eli Cooper in his role as treasurer. So that was the slate of officers that she and Kerson wanted formally to put before the board for its consideration. She invited any other questions about the committee deliberations.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to elect existing officers to another term.

Board Governance: Committees

The AAATA board has two standing committees – the planning and development committee (PDC), and the performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER). Griffith noted that new board member Jack Bernard had been assigned to the PMER committee. That results in the following committee composition:

• planning and development committee: Sue Gott (chair), Eli Cooper, Gillian Ream Gainsley, Eric Mahler.
• performance monitoring and external relations committee: Roger Kerson (chair), Susan Baskett, Jack Bernard, Anya Dale.

The PMER committee was mentioned during public commentary. Commenting on the new website during public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen said that he’d looked for the minutes from the PMER committee and he had been told that the meetings of that committee weren’t available because the meetings of that committee are no longer public meetings.

At the start of the meeting, board chair Charles Griffith welcomed newly-appointed board member Jack Bernard, thanking him for being willing to join the team. “We are really thrilled to have you,” Griffith said. Bernard replied,” I’m glad to be here.”

AAATA CEO Michael Ford also welcomed Bernard to the board table at the start of his report to the board. He noted that Bernard had already devoted a lot of time and energy to staff meetings and had gone through an orientation recently. “We appreciate your time and effort,” Ford said.

Board Governance: Meeting Schedule

Also at the Sept. 26 meeting, the board considered its regular meeting schedule for fiscal year 2014, which runs from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The basic pattern of meetings is every third Thursday of the month. [.pdf of 2013 meeting schedule] Meeting start time is 6:30 p.m.

Outcome: Without debate, the board voted unanimously to adopt its regular meeting schedule.

Local Advisory Council

Rebecca Burke reported from the AAATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues. She asked the board to approve the recommendation from the council on appointments to its executive board – Cheryl Weber and John Kuchinski.

Burke also asked that the board re-examine the charge to the local advisory council – asking that communication be improved between the board and the LAC. She suggested that someone from the board be assigned as a liaison to make the communication smoother.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to make the requested appointments to the LAC executive committee.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Sept. 26 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

On the topic of the southeast Michigan regional transit Authority (RTA), Michael Ford indicated that board chair Charles Griffith and AAATA staff had met with the RTA’s CEO, John Hertel, to discuss the need for cooperation and education on any regional funding request that voters might receive. The RTA had selected members for its citizens advisory committee, Ford reported. Four members of the committee were selected from Washtenaw County: LuAnne Bullington, Prasanth Guruaja, Larry Krieg and John Waterman. AAATA staff continue to attend the meetings of the RTA, Ford said.

Ford mentioned during his report to the board that the Ann Arbor city council would be having a session on transportation issues, focused specifically on the RTA. [That's a work session scheduled for Oct. 14, 2013.]

And later during the AAATA board meeting, Griffith noted that the next meeting of the RTA board would be in Ann Arbor in the same room where the AAATA meets – the fourth floor conference room of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth Ave. That meeting will be taking place on Wednesday, Oct. 2 at 2 p.m.

Comm/Comm: On-board Rider Survey

During her report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Susan Baskett described an upcoming survey to be done by CJI Research Corp. in late October. The same company has conducted the last two onboard surveys – in 2009 and 2011. The firm also has a strong transit background, Baskett said. The sample size of 2,500 respondents would result in a 95% confidence level on the results, she said.

Survey questions would cover issues like rider origin and destination, satisfaction with the new website, and English proficiency of riders. English proficiency of riders is related to a new requirement of Title VI, she said. Surveys will be printed in Spanish and Chinese.

Baskett reported that Bernard had suggested including questions about riders with disabilities. The survey would take place in late October over the course of about a week. Surveys would be handed out on the busy routes. Baskett hoped that the results of the survey would be back for preliminary consideration by the committee in mid-December.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

Sue Gott reported that the planning and development committee had received an update from Dawn Gabay on the artwork that will be integrated into the new Blake Transit Center under construction in downtown Ann Arbor. The RFP for the artwork had been re-issued.

The project is about a month behind schedule but within budget, according to Michael Ford’s report to the board.

Eli Cooper congratulated the project team on continuing to make progress on the construction. He recalled at the beginning of the year the board had been told about frost laws, and the target completion date has slipped. That could have created a cascade leading to more and more delay, he said. But to the staff’s credit, the delay had been stemmed at that point. “Job well done, keep it up,” Cooper concluded.

Comm/Comm: Environmental Law Conference

Charles Griffith told his board colleagues that he had just arrived from the University of Michigan law school having attended an event where the newly appointed director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had delivered some remarks. [Gina McCarthy, the EPA's administrator, was appointed this summer.] She had been kicking off a conference, he reported, that the UM law school is hosting – on environmental law and public health. The following day a number of different sessions would be offered, he continued, noting that they were all free. He highlighted one of the sessions in particular – on sustainable communities. He noted that the sustainable communities session would feature at least one local speaker, Jonathan Levine, who was involved in transportation planning in the region.

Comm/Comm: Ecology Center Fundraiser

During communications, Charles Griffith announced what he called a “shameless plug” for the Ecology Center, which employs him. The center was hosting its annual fundraiser dinner on Oct. 3, and the keynote address for that event would be delivered by one of the most world-renowned climate scientists. He ventured that it would be a very interesting talk. Tickets were still available, he said.

During public commentary after Griffith’s remarks, Vivienne Armentrout filled in the name of the world-renowned climate scientist, which Griffith had not included – James Hansen.

Comm/Comm: Minutes, Ypsilanti Routes

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen addressed the board about the way his comments during public commentary at the board’s previous meeting had been portrayed in the official minutes – which the board would be asked to approve at that night’s meeting. He allowed that when you’re trying to say things within the confines of a two-minute time period, you have to appeal to allusions and other devices and sometimes things could get lost in the translation.

He had commented on the financial arrangements between the University of Michigan and the AAATA with respect to service to the east Ann Arbor medical center. He read aloud from the proposed minutes: “Mr. Mogensen commented on the perception of a lost opportunity not having service to the east Ann Arbor medical center related to express ride.” What he thought he had conveyed, Mogensen said, was a lost opportunity to have more money from the University of Michigan relating to the east Ann Arbor medical center service, not that the service had not happened.

And at the end of the previous meeting, Mogensen continued, when he had talked about changes to the service schedule that were made in August, there had been proposed changes to the Route #6B and Route #11. The unclear communication by the AAATA had not been about how the process was handled, he said. The problem had arisen when the decision was made not to make the changes to the Route 11 service. What happened at Chidester Place, where he lives, is that residents did not realize that those changes had not actually been implemented. So there was confusion about that, he said. As a follow-up, he said, there had been a problem with the printed schedule.

Summing up the current situation, Mogensen said, “It’s all alright, we’ve got it figured out.” He’d worked with AAATA staff to distribute copies of the correct schedule for the residents’ newsletter at Chidester Place. So everybody knows that the bus will not come at eight minutes after the hour but rather at 15 minutes after the hour. That matters for people who are trying to make connections, he concluded.

Susan Baskett inquired how Mogensen’s comments about the minutes would be handled. Board chair Charles Griffith suggested that the minutes be altered to conform with Mogensen’s description of what he’d said his remarks were intended to convey. The board approved the amended minutes.

Comm/Comm: Briarwood Mall Bus Stop

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford said the new bus stop at Briarwood Mall is complete and is operational. He described operations there as going “quite well.” Responding to some of the concerns that had been raised about the width of the boarding area – concerns raised during public commentary at the August board meeting – Ford reported that it was 10 feet wide. The Americans with Disabilities Act minimum width requirement is 8 feet, he said. Briarwood Mall had originally proposed 5 feet, but by working with the mall, that had been expanded to 10 feet. He described the development of the new bus stop as a cooperative effort between Briarwood Mall and AAATA. The mall had done the construction of the bus stop, and the AAATA had provided the shelter.

Later during question time, Jack Bernard reported that he’d watched the previous meeting of the board, and that’s why he felt he could vote on approval of the minutes. The remarks made during that meeting by Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Center for Independent Living, had caught his attention. She had talked about the new bus stop out at Briarwood Mall. Bernard told Ford that he thought Ford had addressed Grawi’s concerns quite nicely – except for the part related to things like garbage cans and newspaper distribution boxes. Grawi expressed apprehension about such items cluttering the space. Bernard allowed that it was not a space that the AAATA would be able to control all the time. So he hoped that dialogue can be maintained between the AAATA and Briarwood Mall to make sure that the space is actually effective. Ford indicated that the AAATA has a good relationship with Briarwood Mall and could follow up.

Comm/Comm: Fair Fares

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Jim Mogensen addressed the board on the topic of the financial arrangement between the University of Michigan and the AAATA for the M-Ride program. It results in $1 of revenue to the AAATA per ride. That had reminded him, he said, of the health care debate. You hear during the debate on health care that the problem is people go to the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for them, he said. But if you’ve ever been a low-income, uninsured person, he said, you know that’s not what happens.

If you go to the emergency room and you are a low-income person and you don’t qualify for Medicare Medicaid then you get a bill – you get a very big bill, he said. And you get a payment plan. But it’s not free. There have been some proposals to limit the amount that people who are uninsured would have to pay, but the operators of health care systems say: You can’t do that – we’ll never be able to make our budget work if you cap it at what Medicaid pays!

The question came up when bus fares were raised: Did the University Michigan have to pay the additional fare? And the comment that was made was that the AAATA couldn’t do that, Mogensen said, because it would make it difficult for the University of Michigan to budget. He quipped that low-income people have no difficulty budgeting. He related his experience getting on the bus one day when a University of Michigan student said to him: I don’t have to pay anything to ride – what do you have to pay? Mogensen said that he did not give the student a lecture. But he had to admit, he said, “It was a moment!”

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Jack Bernard.

Absent: Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013 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!

Adding Ypsilanti Township would expand the AAATA board from nine to 10 members. The additional seat would be appointed by the supervisor of Ypsilanti Township – an elected position held currently by Brenda Stumbo – with the approval of the township board.

If the Ann Arbor city council does not object, this would be the second expansion of the AAATA board this year. The item is expected to be on the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 21 agenda. The earlier expansion was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

Ann Arbor’s additional board seat on the AAATA was filled when the Ann Arbor city council appointed Jack Bernard. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. The city of Ypsilanti’s seat was filled with Gillian Ream Gainsley. Ream Gainsley is communications and development director at the Ypsilanti District Library.

The “resolved” clause of the AAATA board’s Sept. 26 resolution makes the approval of the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA contingent on approval from the city of Ann Arbor and other parties [emphasis added]:

… approves Amendment 3 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, except that, in the event that Ypsilanti Township, or the City of Ypsilanti, or the City of Ann Arbor declines to approve said Articles as described above, the AAATA Board directs staff to reconvene those parties to reconcile any differences relative to the Articles and to bring a new draft to the AAATA Board and all other parties. [.pdf of AAATA complete resolution on admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member]

The sequence of events leading to the possible admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the transit authority would be slightly different from that leading to the admission of the city of Ypsilanti. The initial resolution adopted by the AATA board on the admission of the city of Ypsilanti was simply an acknowledgment of the request. The first formal action on approval of the amended articles of incorporation – which included the city of Ypsilanti – was taken by the Ann Arbor city council.

However, the resolution considered and approved by the AAATA board on Sept. 26, 2013 already authorizes the amended articles of incorporation by the AAATA, partly contingent on the approval of the amended articles by the city of Ann Arbor. A timeline overview:

• April 19, 2013: Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock addresses the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board during its regular meeting to alert the AATA to the probable request by the city of Ypsilanti to join the AATA as a member.
• April 23, 2013: Ypsilanti city council passes resolution requesting admission as a member of the AATA.
• May 16, 2013: AATA board approves resolution acknowledging city of Ypsilanti’s request to join AATA.
• June 3, 2013: Ann Arbor city council approves change to articles of incorporation, admitting city of Ypsilanti as a member of AATA and increasing board membership from seven to nine members, with one of the additional board seats to be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.
• June 18, 2013: Ypsilanti city council approves amended articles of incorporation for AATA.
• June 20, 2013: AATA board approves resolution formally admitting city of Ypsilanti as a member of the board, ratifying articles of incorporation, including a name change to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.
• Sept. 9, 2013: Ypsilanti Township board passes resolution requesting membership in AAATA.
• Sept. 23, 2013: Ypsilanti Township board passes resolution approving amended articles of incorporation with membership for Ypsilanti Township.
• Sept. 26, 2013: AAATA board approves amended articles of incorporation with membership for Ypsilanti Township, contingent on concurrence from other parties.
• Oct. 15, 2013: Planned city of Ypsilanti city council agenda item on amended articles with membership for Ypsilanti Township.
• Oct. 21, 2013: Planned city of Ann Arbor city council item on amended articles with membership for Ypsilanti Township.

Historically, other jurisdictions – the city of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township – have obtained some transit services from the AAATA through purchase of service agreements (POSAs). They have used general fund money authorized by the governing boards to pay the AAATA for that service. In November 2010, however, voters in the city of Ypsilanti approved a dedicated transit millage by a roughly 3:1 margin.

So the city of Ypsilanti has used the proceeds of that 0.987 mill tax to pay toward its POSA agreement. Now that the city of Ypsilanti is a member of the AAATA, the revenue from that 0.987 mill tax isn’t recorded under the POSA line item in the AAATA’s budget, but rather under the line item for local, millage-generated revenues.

The expansion of AAATA one jurisdiction at a time comes in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County in one step. Since then, work has continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor – to expand and increase the frequency of service and to establish reliable funding for that improved service.

The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – but the AAATA has historically not done that. Rather, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have dedicated transit millages, which are levied by the cities and transmitted to the AAATA.

Chart by AAATA. Contributions of AAATA members, with impact of successful 0.7 millage, if Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member. The hollow blue box indicates the amount paid by Ypsilanti Township for its purchase of service agreement (POSA), which would be supplanted (and exceeded) by the 0.7 millage if it were to be approved.

One possibility for funding improved transportation services in the Ann Arbor area is through an additional tax levied by the AAATA. The amount of the millage that would be required to pay for the increased services is estimated at around 0.7 mills. In the event that the AAATA were to win voter approval of a 0.7 mill transit tax – a request that might be put on the ballot in May 2014 – the city of Ypsilanti’s existing millage would remain in place, as would that of the city of Ann Arbor. The 0.7 mill tax would need approval among a majority of voters in the geographic area of member jurisdictions – which would include the two cities (Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti) as well as Ypsilanti Township, if it is admitted as a member.

Ann Arbor’s city transportation tax is levied at the rate of 2.053 mills, and currently generates $9,565,000 annually, according to AAATA. The 0.7 mill additional tax would generate $3,230,007 in additional revenue in the city of Ann Arbor for a total Ann Arbor local contribution of more than $12.7 million. According to AAATA, Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage generates $274,000, which is less than its POSA agreement called for last year. The 0.7 mill tax would generate around $189,785 in additional revenue in the city of Ypsilanti, for a total contribution in the city of Ypsilanti of around $464,000.

Ypsilanti Township pays $329,294 annually for its POSA agreement. If a 0.7 mill tax were approved, that would generate around $707,969 in the township. Based on the amount of expanded services that the township would receive, the township contribution would be defined as just that $707,969.

The proposed expansion of service does not depend on the nascent regional transit authority (RTA) – a four-county authority for southeastern Michigan, which includes the city of Detroit and the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb. The RTA was established in late 2012 in a lame duck session of the Michigan legislature. According to the AAATA’s Sept. 26 informational packet, the RTA has so far spent just $98 of the $500,000 in the budget that was initially allocated to it. The RTA could ask for voter approval of a property tax or a vehicle registration fee to generate transit funding.

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AAATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The AATA board takes a vote at its June 20, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

In the last two weeks the city councils of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor had voted unanimously to support the changes to the articles. The vote on the AATA aboard was also unanimous among the five members who were present. Sue Gott and board chair Charles Griffith were absent.

The change to the articles will also expand the board to nine members, with one of the two additional seats to be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority will now reflect the fact that the geographic boundaries extend beyond Ann Arbor by changing the name to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA).

While the change in governance does not in itself have any financial implications, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way for the two cities to generate additional revenue supporting transportation – in addition to the local millages that the cities already levy, which are specifically dedicated to transportation and transmitted to the AATA. An additional millage could be levied by the AAATA – a statutory right also enjoyed by the AATA, but never exercised. The AAATA could put a millage proposal on the ballot, but it would require voter approval.

The board does not have a meeting scheduled for the month of July, but CEO Michael Ford indicated that one might be convened, to handle some routine items as well as next steps related to the addition of Ypsilanti to the AAATA. That would need to be noticed to the public as a special meeting under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

In other business, the AATA board agreed to raise fares for its commuter express service from Canton and Chelsea. The increase in fares, in combination with a one-time agreement with the University of Michigan to defray costs of the fare increase for its employees, allowed the Canton service to continue. Fares were also increased on a certain subset of rides taken on the AATA’s NightRide – a shared taxi service that operates after the AATA regular buses stop running. The fare for NightRide will remain $5 for all rides except those that have origins and destinations both in Ann Arbor, and for those that are made with an advance reservation. However, if a ride has either an origin or destination outside Ann Arbor and no reservation is made in advance, then the cost will be $7. The board also approved a number of other route scheduling changes.

In addition, the board approved the purchase of battery refresher kits for up to 20 of its hybrid electric buses. And the board authorized the sale of an older bus to the Ann Arbor Community Center for one dollar.

The board held a public hearing on its federal program of projects, and received updates on several items. Board members also heard an update on the delayed deployment of the AATA’s new website, an optimistic report on the possibility that around $800,000 of state funding would be restored, and a status report on the connector project. The connector project is still in the planning stages, and could result in high-capacity transit along the corridor that runs from US-23 and Plymouth Road through downtown southward to Briarwood Mall.

The board also took care of some internal housekeeping items at the meeting, electing Eli Cooper as treasurer, who replaces David Nacht. Nacht recently ended his 10 years of service on the board.

Admission of Ypsilanti to AATA

The board was asked to give the final approval necessary to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member municipality of the transportation authority. As part of the move, the name of the organization will be changed to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

The geographic footprint of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is shown in green: the two cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The city of Saline and the townships of Pittsfield and Ypsilanti have also been part of recent active discussions about committing to a more stable funding mechanism for existing service and expanded service.

The change to the articles of incorporation also gives Ypsilanti the right to appoint a member of the board – which will expand from seven to nine members. The city councils of the two cities had already approved the change. The Ann Arbor city council voted on June 3, 2013 to approve the change in governance, while the Ypsilanti city council took its vote on June 18. Both councils voted unanimously to support the move. [.pdf of new AAATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of old AATA articles of incorporation]

While the change to the articles will affect the governance of the AAATA, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – something the AATA does not currently do. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AAATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

Based on information provided to Ann Arbor city council members for their June 3 meeting, the local share of Ypsilanti’s transportation services – the part for which Ypsilanti is responsible – would come to $325,983 for FY 2014. Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage, which is levied at a rate of 0.9789 mills, generated about $308,000 in FY 2012. So there’s some interest in establishing an additional funding source, just to maintain existing levels of service.

However, current discussions indicate that the intent is to increase levels of service – both frequency and the hours of operation – within the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city boundaries. The additional amount of local funding for the planned increases in service would be the equivalent of around 0.6-0.7 mills. One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

An AAATA millage proposal would require voter approval. There’s an outside chance for the AAATA to place a millage on the November 2013 ballot, but that decision would need to be made by late August. [Ballot language must be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013.] The practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign mean that a decision to make a millage request would likely need to come sooner than late August, however.

On a possible millage question, AATA staff and board members are currently having “feeler” discussions with some members of the community who have strong interests in transportation.

Regarding the name change, customary pronunciation of the current name is to sound out each letter: A-A-T-A. One possibility that’s been suggested for the new Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is to pronounce the new letter sequence Triple-A-T-A. Another possibility is A-3-T-A.

The proposal to include Ypsilanti in the AAATA came in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County. Since then, conversations have continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor. The next such meeting is scheduled for June 27 at Pittsfield Township hall, starting at 4 p.m. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear."]

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, responding to an emailed inquiry from The Chronicle, indicated that he hoped the Ypsilanti appointment to the AAATA board could be confirmed by the council by late July or mid-August.

Admission of Ypsilanti to AATA: Board Deliberations

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Eli Cooper noted that Jerry Lax – outside counsel for the AATA – had attended the committee’s meeting that month. Lax had answered questions from committee members about the legal ins and outs of the move. There’s some continued interest on financial issues, which he’d keep an eye on as treasurer, Cooper said. The committee, however, was clear about the fact that the change to the governance was separate from the financial issue. The sense of the committee, he concluded, was that adding Ypsilanti is a positive step forward.

AATA board member Eli Cooper.

Cooper characterized the addition of Ypsilanti to the AATA as a “wonderful opportunity.” He pointed out that the AATA is an Act 55 transit authority, serving Ann Arbor since the 1970s. It’s really been an authority that has served the Ann Arbor area, he noted. The step of moving Ypsilanti into the AATA is a recognition of the regional nature of AATA’s services, Cooper said. He allowed that this is less than the countywide area that the authority had been pursuing last year, but it’s a recognition of the growth of the AATA and the Ann Arbor metropolitan area.

It’s one small step forward in establishing a footprint to serve the transit needs of the community, said Cooper, who also is the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager. He hoped it’s the first of many similar steps, taken incrementally as other communities become interested in having a more formal relationship with the AATA. “Make no mistake about it: The city of Ypsilanti, by moving forward with a transit millage a few years back, is really a partner with us.” So he’d be voting in support of bringing Ypsilanti in and moving forward with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Roger Kerson echoed what Cooper had said. He called it a really good step forward in terms of regional thinking. Travel needs don’t stop at municipal boundaries, he noted. Kerson was especially looking forward to having representation from Ypsilanti on the board. He appreciated the fact that Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, as well as Ypsilanti councilmember Pete Murdock, had attended recent meetings of the AATA board.

Kerson allowed that there’d been “fits and starts” in the effort to expand transit services. He was glad Ypsilanti had jump-started the process. Kerson was also glad the Ann Arbor city council supported the move. Kerson stressed that having Ypsilanti join the AATA doesn’t exclude anyone else, saying that other communities might also want to become full partners. He was very happy to support the resolution.

Eric Mahler echoed what Cooper and Kerson had said. He offered his compliments to the AATA staff and outside counsel Jerry Lax. It was nice to have a willing and full partner who wants to be a real partner. It’s one thing to have a relationship, but it’s another one to have a real partner, he said.

Before proceeding to a vote, Anya Dale indicated she agreed with Mahler, Kerson and Cooper.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution adopting the revised articles of incorporation, admitting the city of Ypsilanti as a member of the AATA.

Admission of Ypsilanti to AATA: Next Steps

During his report to the board, Michael Ford told them that details of their availability had been requested in anticipation of a possible special board meeting to be held in July, in connection with next steps related to adding Ypsilanti to the AATA. Other items that might need board approval at a potential special meeting in July include a print job contract, relocation of a fire hydrant, and purchase of vans for the VanRide program expansion.

Meetings among nearby jurisdictions – including the cities of Ypsilanti and Saline, and the townships of Ypsilanti and Pittsfield – have continued after the end of an effort in 2012 to expand the AATA’s service and governance area to the entire county. The smaller group of government units has been presented with a set of increased services and various funding and governance options. Among those options was the possibility of Ypsilanti and other nearby jurisdictions joining the AATA. Previous Chronicle coverage: “Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear.”

The next meeting of the urban core group is June 27 at the Pittsfield Township hall, 6201 W. Michigan Ave., starting at 4 p.m. At the AATA board’s June 20 meeting, Ford announced that the June 27 meeting would include an unveiling of the “build out” of a plan and analysis of the urban core. The information will be for informational purposes only, Ford said, to inform stakeholders. Any funding proposal would eventually come before the AATA board for deliberation, he noted.

Ford also reported that the AATA is considering fielding an opinion survey to follow up on one that was conducted in November 2011. The previous survey had focused on the idea of countywide service, but this new one would focus on the “urban core” communities, Ford said.

Fare Increases: NightRide, Express

The board was asked to approve fare increases for two of the AATA’s services – NightRide and ExpressRide.

The NightRide is a shared cab service with a basic fare of $5, which is available weekdays from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and weekends from 7 p.m. to 6:45 a.m.

The board was asked to approve a proposal that keeps costs at $5 per rider for any trips that have their origin and destination within the city of Ann Arbor. And the current $5 per rider will continue to apply to any rides taken with an advance reservation – a system the AATA will be implementing, using vans. However, a $2 premium – for a total of $7 – will apply to rides with a destination or origin that’s not within the city of Ann Arbor, if no advance reservation is made. The move was proposed as a result of increased ridership on the service, after the AATA expanded the service to include the city of Ypsilanti.

The geographic coverage area of AATA’s NightRide was expanded eastward to Golfside Road in March 2011 and further to downtown Ypsilanti in January 2012 – as part of a broader effort to improve work transportation between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Many downtown Ann Arbor restaurant workers live in Ypsilanti. Ridership increased dramatically.

Chart showing NightRide ridership for fiscal years 2008 into 2012.

That increase in ridership resulted in higher costs – due to an adjustment in the contract between Blue Cab and AATA, which the board authorized on July 16, 2012.

At its June 20 meeting, the board was also asked to approve fare increases for express services – from Canton and Chelsea. The proposal was to raise fares from $99 to $125 for a monthly pass; from $40 to $62.50 for a 10-ride ticket, and from $5 to $6.25 for a single trip. According to documentation on that fare increase provided to AATA board members, the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority have agreed to split the cost of subsidizing the fare increase. UM already subsidizes fares for its workers to ride the service.

At its March 6, 2013 board meeting, however, the DDA declined to include the requested $18,000 subsidy that AATA had requested for Canton and Chelsea express service support. That request had come in the context of AATA requests for other support – for the go!pass program for downtown commuters. The DDA board did agree to $610,662 of support for that program.

The fare increases will be effective in August 2013.

Fare Increases: NightRide, Express – Meeting Deliberations

In introducing the NightRide item to the board, AATA manager of service development Chris White described the service as a “victim of its own success.” He stressed that there are no changes proposed within the city of Ann Arbor. The premium fare applies only to those rides that have either an origin or destination outside of Ann Arbor – and are not made with an advance reservation.

In reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson made clear the Canton service had been “on the chopping block,” but UM had provided the resources necessary to continue the service. In his remarks, Kerson stressed that financing the express services for out-of-town commuters did not rely on any Ann Arbor taxpayer dollars. The funding from UM is for only a year, and the AATA is hoping that the new southeast Michigan regional transit Authority (RTA) – which includes Washtenaw County – would provide funding in future years.

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford made a special note of the fact that the university had agreed to cover the cost of the express ride service to Canton, which avoided eliminating the route. A formal request had been made to the regional transit authority (RTA) for support of the commuter express ride services. The RTA couldn’t meet that request, because the new authority doesn’t have funds for operating transit at this time. Ford said he was very appreciative of UM’s willingness to step up and offer its support for the Canton service.

Kerson said UM’s last-minute provision of the resources to keep that service going indicated the value that UM places on reducing congestion and parking needs. The riders are paying some of the extra cost, Kerson pointed out, through the fare increase. At the end of the day, the AATA still provides the service but no local taxpayer money is used to subsidize out-of-town commuters, Kerson stressed, saying he knew that had been a concern.

AATA board member Eric Mahler.

A question from Eric Mahler later in the meeting clarified that the commitment from UM was for one year only. Ford indicated that in future years, the AATA hoped to continue the discussion with the RTA. Ford characterized the situation as the UM contribution giving a little bit of a reprieve, but the AATA will continue to work diligently to identify funding sources.

Chris White noted that the proposed change had included the potential for eliminating the Canton service. But that turned out not to be necessary. The fare increase was the result of working on a financing plan, White said, which had included conversations with riders about their willingness to pay an additional fare. Riders are “anxious to maintain the service” and are willing to pay some of those costs, he said.

So the issue the AATA faced was increasing fares versus losing riders, White explained. The increase comes to about 25% increase. The great majority of riders – more than 90% – have half their fare paid by UM or by the DDA through the getDowntown program, White said. So instead of a $26 increase, it works out to a $13 increase per month for those riders, he concluded.

Eli Cooper moved for approval, saying that it’s important to note that both the Chelsea and Canton services were new – when introduced using federal demonstration funding. He’d recalled the debate and the compromise that had been reached on the appropriate fare. The services have been years in developing ridership, he said.

Cooper recalled that when he served his first term on the board in 2005, he used to say: “I can get anywhere in Ann Arbor, but I can’t get outta here. And if I’m not here, I can’t get in here unless I have a car.” The express services respond directly to that challenge, he said. Combined with AirRide, the express services give the AATA a metropolitan area reach. The fact that AATA staff, employers and riders have come together to find stable financial footing for at least the next year reflects a real value that the service represents to all stakeholders, he said.

Cooper was also pleased to hear the RTA accepted the AATA’s request, but just doesn’t have the funding available. The AATA needs to continue to work with the RTA to understand the positive working relationship that can be established to give benefit to Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority riders, he said. It’s the culmination of a lot of hard work over a number of years, Cooper noted. It’s not serving the largest number of riders, he allowed, but it’s a new service. He looked forward to continued marketing and expansion of the service as the community grows.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the fare increases and the service changes on three separate votes.

At its June 20 meeting, the AATA board also approved several non-fare-related service changes to different routes. All except one was considered minor. The major change was to Route 12 in Ann Arbor, which changed its departure times from Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

“Sale” of Bus to Community Center

The board was asked to approve the sale of an older bus to the Ann Arbor Community Center. Under Michigan Dept. of Transportation guidelines, a transportation authority can sell a bus to a nonprofit at a cost of $1. That’s what the AATA board was asked to do.

AATA board member Roger Kerson.

The vehicle was a 1999 Gillig low-floor bus originally purchased by the AATA in October 1999. That means the bus has served its minimum 12-year useful life. According to AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black, the bus had about a half-million miles on it. The AATA had previously sold a bus to the community center in 2008 – also for $1. However, replacement parts for that bus are difficult to find.

Roger Kerson noted that buses reach a point where they go out of service and can’t be used by the AATA. But the Ann Arbor Community Center won’t use it that much, compared to the number of miles the AATA would put on it.

No transit authority would be able to use it, given the number of miles on it. It’s a way to support an organization that’s provided support to the community for 90 years, Black said.

Eli Cooper got clarification that the bus would receive a paint job (purple), making it clear that the vehicle was not an AATA bus. Susan Baskett indicated her support for the move, and felt that the community center is grateful for the support.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the sale of the bus.

Hybrid Bus Battery Refreshers

The board was asked to approve the purchase of refresher battery kits for up to 20 hybrid electric buses at a total cost of $675,000. The board had discussed the item at a previous meeting, on April 18, 2013.

At the April 18 meeting, the board lamented the fact that no U.S. company, and more specifically no Michigan company, had bid on the AATA’s request for proposals to replace the battery kits for its hybrid electric buses. But board sentiment was that a larger purchasing consortium for such kits might eventually be achieved through the newly-created southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) – which includes the transit agencies in Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. And that larger consortium might make it worth the while of a Michigan company that’s part of the state’s nascent battery industry to invest in the capability to produce bus battery kits.

The board delayed voting on the item in April due to the non-U.S. source – because board members wanted to be certain that federal funds could be used. The only bid had been from W.W. Williams of Dearborn, Mich., which distributes a product sold by Allison Transmission. The kits are fully assembled in Japan by Panasonic, but are programmed by Allison for use in the energy storage system used in AATA buses. So Allison was pursuing a Buy America waiver from the Federal Transit Administration – as its existing waiver had expired.

The AATA also inquired directly with the FTA. From the AATA staff memo on the results of that inquiry:

AATA requested clarification from the FTA on April 16, 2013 and received approval on June 4, 2013 from the FTA to purchase the battery refresh kits using grant funds. Approval from FTA came as a result of a determination that while the energy storage system (ESS) is a component of the Allison propulsion system, it is comprised of many subcomponents e.g., battery sub packs, relays, fuses, pre-charge resistors, etc. In the FTA’s opinion, components (ESS) of the propulsion system must be manufactured in the United States without regard to the origin of its subcomponents. In the FTA’s determination subcomponents may be of domestic or foreign origin. The purchase of the battery refresh kit is not a purchase of the entire ESS component, but a purchase of a subcomponent that does not require a waiver to be eligible for purchase using grant funds.

In the fleet of 80 AATA buses, 52 use hybrid battery technology.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson commended AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black. Kerson noted that AATA was an early-adopter of the technology for its buses. It’s easy to say, “Go buy a hybrid,” but it’s not easy when you’ve never run that kind of bus, and nobody actually has done that before.

In introducing the item for a vote, Kerson reiterated that it’s necessary to maintain hybrid bus batteries to keep them on the road. It’s being done in advance of the failure of any battery packs, he noted, so the AATA is addressing this proactively.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the hybrid electric bus battery refresher kits.

Board Organization

The AATA has three officers – chair, treasurer and secretary. Absence of board chair Charles Griffith at the June 20 meeting, and the recent departure from the board of treasurer David Nacht, meant that some housekeeping activity was required at the start of the June 20 meeting.

Due to the chair’s absence, board secretary Anya Dale presided over the meeting. But that meant an acting secretary needed to be appointed. Eli Cooper served as secretary for the duration of the meeting.

The two standing board committees were also set. The planning and development committee (PDC) will consist of: Sue Gott (chair), Eli Cooper and Eric Mahler. The performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee will consist of: Roger Kerson (chair), Anya Dale and Susan Baskett.

Because Nacht had left the board after 10 years of service, his position as treasurer needed replacement. Dale, presiding over the meeting, called Nacht’s replacement “in position only.”

Kerson nominated Cooper for the job. Kerson noted that Cooper was now in his second term of service on the AATA board. Cooper has a great deal of professional experience in transit, Kerson continued. He said that based on conversations on the board and off the board, Cooper is a “dedicated and rigorous guardian of public funds.” The AATA board and the taxpayers would be well-served with Cooper as board treasurer, Kerson said. Baskett seconded the nomination.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the appointment of Eli Cooper as treasurer of the AATA board.

Federal Program of Projects Application

The AATA held a formal public hearing on its annual federal program of projects.

Federal Program of Projects Application: Background

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, explained the background of the federal program of projects. A public hearing is a required component each year for the AATA’s application to the Federal Transit Administration for grants. But the public hearing is the last step of the public input process, White said. Earlier opportunities for public input are provided in the planning process that includes development of a long-range plan – working with the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), White said.

The next step in the development of AATA’s transportation improvement program is a four-year program. In order to be included in the FTA grant application, White said, a project must also be included in the long-range plan and the four-year plan. The public has also had previous opportunity to weigh in on the capital and categorical grant program – which is adopted each January. The capital and categorical grant program is a five-year program – which forms the basis of the application for the FTA grant funds.

The AATA receives funds from different formula sources, White explained. The primary source of funds is from Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Program), which totals a little over $6 million this year, White said. The AATA had also received about $700,000 in funds from a new program – Section 5339 (Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants), which is a capital-only program. On the list is also about $1.15 million for CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) funds for the replacement of two buses. Other funds on the list include some from the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program and the New Freedom Program – which helps fund transportation for people with disabilities.

After describing the sources of the funds, White then ticked through the items on the list. The items, sorted by the amount of federal funds requested, is as follows:

Federal Share  Project  
=================================================
$1,680,000     Preventive Maintenance 
$1,474,000     Operating Assistance    
$1,156,320     2 Large Buses (replacement)  
$1,046,400     Blake Transit Center (final funding)      
$1,040,000     2 Large Buses (service expansion) 
  $500,000     25 Vans (vanpool)  
  $400,000     Ypsilanti Transit Center   
  $320,000     Planning  
  $311,760     Job Access Transportation
  $256,000     Bus Components  
  $240,000     Subcontracted Service  
  $151,724     New Freedom Mobility Transportation   
  $120,000     Computer (hardware, software)   
   $72,000     4 support vehicles  
   $64,000     Bus Stops (shelters/benches)

-

The two buses for service expansion are to be used on Route 5, where service was expanded in January 2013. The Blake Transit Center fund is the “last shot of funding” for the BTC reconstruction. The funding for the Ypsilanti Transit Center is called “rehabilitation” by the feds, but White would call it “renovation.” Design will be done this year (2013) with construction planned for next year (2014). The YTC is about 23 years old, White said, and is in need of some renovation.

The bus stop improvements are mostly shelters. White highlighted the “operating assistance” item, and pointed out the AATA had not been eligible for federal operating assistance for about 15 years. But now that the urbanized area for the AATA has a population of over 200,000, in combination with the MAP 21 rules, that means AATA is now eligible for operating assistance. So the AATA is applying for $1.47 million of operating assistance.

Later in the meeting, Roger Kerson asked what the AATA was planning to spend the additional $1.47 million on. White explained that this money is for FY 2013, the current budget year, so it’s already been budgeted.

The JARC funding, White explained, will be used to continue the NightRide service, and the trip assistance program AATA operates, called MyRide. JARC and New Freedom are programs the feds are looking to help leverage private funds, White said. So the AATA is looking to form partnerships with other agencies to help leverage those transportation funds.

White noted that the comments from the public hearing will be included in the public record, and would be included as part of the grant application.

Federal Program of Projects Application: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge said he was there to advocate for the members of the community who need and deserve vital transportation, who aren’t well served currently. He was concerned about the lack of funding to meet the needs of seniors and disabled people.

Partridge asked that the application “go back to the drawing board” before it’s submitted to the federal government.

Allison Stroud introduced herself as a public policy intern for the summer at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She appreciated that the AATA is trying to make the transit system accessible to everybody with disabilities. But there are many more improvements that can be made. So she asked the board to give consideration to additional improvements, in those areas where the distance to a bus stop is too far, as an example. She also suggested additional transit options, and keeping the bus fares as low as possible so that everyone can afford the services.

Connector Update

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford gave an update on the public engagement process for the connector study.

Rick Nau of URS, the consultant that’s conducting the connector study, presented information at a June 18 session held at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. (Image links to the poster Nau is holding)

By way of background, the AATA is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor. A key finding of the feasibility study was that the demand for high-capacity transit is clear in the “core” of the corridor – primarily between the University of Michigan’s north campus, medical facilities and central campus. The demand was found to be less intense on the corridor’s “shoulders.” That basic finding is now evident in the color shading on the draft route alignment map for the current phase of the study, which indicates the density of trips.

At the June 20 AATA board meeting, Ford relayed a point of information that had also been conveyed at a public engagement session held on June 18 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library: the alternative of an elevated guideway system is not longer among the mix of options that the consultant is considering.

A final report on a locally preferred alternative is expected for this phase of the study sometime in the winter of 2014.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its June 20 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: State Operating Assistance

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford gave an update on supplemental state funding that is on its way to the governor’s desk for signing. By way of background, for the current budget year, the AATA’s anticipated local bus operating assistance from the state of Michigan was about $800,000 less than anticipated, due to the application of a formula governing the allocation of such funds.

AATA was not the only transit agency negatively impacted, and the state legislature took action to make an additional appropriation. Ford said that initial calculations indicate the AATA will receive about $887,000. That could be subject to change.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said that if the funding comes through, it would put the AATA’s budget in better shape than it was a couple of months ago. The AATA had dipped into reserves to fund expanded service on Routes #4 and #5, he noted, without an identified funding stream. The restored funding is not finalized, and “Lansing is an exciting place,” he allowed. But if it does get done as expected, he said, it would put the AATA in much better shape.

Comm/Comm: Website Launch

CEO Michael Ford advised the board that the launch of the AATA’s new website has again been delayed. “Surprise, surprise!” he quipped. The project has been delayed for several months.

From left: Jan Hallberg, AATA information technology manager, and Chris White, AATA manager of service development.

The problem is in integrating real-time information with the rider tools. The AATA is working closely with the developer to resolve the remaining issues, he said. “We’re almost there,” and the website is really dynamic. In another month or so, it would be ready, he ventured. When it’s launched, Ford added, it will bring a lot of benefit to riders.

Later during the meeting, Eli Cooper asked for some further clarification on the delay of the website. Jan Hallberg, AATA’s manager of information technology, provided more detail. The AATA has routes that start in the morning and continue all day, she explained. So the route makes several “trips” in a day. At the end of a trip and the beginning of a trip, it’s difficult to see the change in status. For example, if Route #4 is arriving at Blake Transit Center, you can see that the direction of the bus is “to Ann Arbor.” But if its status stays “to Ann Arbor” until it leaves the BTC, at that point it’s too late to tell the rider that the bus is headed back to Ypsilanti. So what they’re currently working to fix, Hallberg explained, is to make sure the real-time information changes to “to Ypsilanti” while the bus is still waiting at BTC. The AATA’s previous developer was never able to fix this, and now Hallberg wants to make sure that the issue is addressed before the website is launched.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

CEO Michael Ford gave an update on AirRide service, between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said that the AATA is again on pace to have a record number of riders this year. The projection right now is for a 2% increase over last year’s record year.

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority

Regarding the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), CEO Michael Ford reported that the RTA had recently drafted a master agreement between the RTA and local service providers. Ford characterized the language of the draft agreement as similar to and in the same spirit as a proposed memorandum of understanding that the AATA had drafted earlier. Staff from all the transit providers had given feedback on that at an RTA committee meeting earlier in the week. The master agreement will officially make the RTA the designated recipient of funds per state statute, and outlines the working relationship between transit service providers and the RTA, and the maximum local bus operating assistance the RTA would receive from the state.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center Construction

CEO Michael Ford gave an update on the new transit center construction in downtown Ann Arbor – north of William, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Utility work continues, and steel is being erected. The beams are expected to be placed in July. The first floor concrete is expected to be poured in the next few days.

Comm/Comm: LAC Report

Rebecca Burke reported from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a group that provides input and feedback to AATA on disability and senior issues. The group had reviewed the A-Ride application and the User’s Guide, and discussed those two documents at its meeting.

Comm/Comm: Ad Litigation

At its June 20 meeting, the board voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation connected to its advertising program. A status conference with the court was held on June 17, and another one is scheduled for June 27. Nothing has happened since the court’s latest ruling, in early June. Recent Chronicle coverage: “Judge: No Anti-Israel Ad on Bus for Now.”

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge told the board he has been a long-time advocate for open and transparent AATA meetings – as far as holding the meetings at sites that can be recorded and broadcast. He asked that all the committees also meet at a similar location so that they can be broadcast. He followed up with a turn of public commentary at the end of the meeting, reminding the board that it’s the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s visit to Detroit.

Present: Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Absent: Sue Gott, Charles Griffith.

Next regular meeting: While no regular monthly meeting is currently scheduled for July, CEO Michael Ford indicated at the June 20 meeting that a special meeting might be called sometime during the month. The next scheduled regular meeting is Thursday, Aug. 15, 2013 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 geographic footprint of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is shown in green: the two cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The city of Saline and the townships of Pittsfield and Ypsilanti have also been a part of recent active discussions about committing to a more stable funding mechanism for existing service and expanded service.

With the change to the articles of incorporation, Ypsilanti will also have the right to appoint a member of the board – which is being expanded from seven to nine members. The city councils of the two cities had already approved the change. The Ann Arbor city council voted on June 3, 2013 to approve the change in governance, while the Ypsilanti city council took its vote on June 18. Both councils voted unanimously to support the move. The AATA board took the final vote at its June 20 meeting. [.pdf of new AAATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of old AATA articles of incorporation]

At the AATA board meeting as CEO Michael Ford asked board members for their support, he said: “It’s time for us to take the reins.”

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, responding to an emailed inquiry from The Chronicle, indicated that he hoped the Ypsilanti appointment to the board could be confirmed by the council by late July or mid-August.

While the change to the articles will affect the governance of the AAATA, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – something the AATA does not currently do. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti currently levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AAATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

Based on information provided to Ann Arbor city council members for their June 3 meeting, the local share of Ypsilanti’s transportation services – the part for which Ypsilanti is responsible – would come to $325,983 for FY 2014. Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage, which is levied at a rate of 0.9789 mills, generated about $308,000 in FY 2012. So there’s some interest in establishing an additional funding source, just to maintain existing levels of service.

However, current discussions indicate that the intent is to increase levels of service – both frequency and the hours of operation – within the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city boundaries. The additional amount of local funding for the planned increases in service would be the equivalent of around 0.6-0.7 mills. One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value of a property.

An AAATA millage proposal would require voter approval. There’s an outside chance for the AAATA to place a millage on the November 2013 ballot, but that decision would need to be made by late August. [Ballot language needs to be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013]. The practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign mean that a decision to make a millage request would likely need to come sooner than late August, however.

On a possible millage question, AATA staff and board members are currently having “feeler” discussions with some members of the community who have strong interests in transportation.

The change in the articles of incorporation also results in a name change – to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA). Customary pronunciation of the current name is to sound out each letter: A-A-T-A. One possibility that’s been suggested is to pronounce the new letter sequence Triple-A-T-A. Another possibility is A-3-T-A.

Ypsilanti’s inclusion in the AAATA came in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County. Since then, conversations have continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor. The next such meeting is scheduled for June 27 at Pittsfield Township hall, starting at 4 p.m. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear."]

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The specific action taken by the council was to approve changes to AATA’s articles of incorporation. The AATA itself and the Ypsilanti city council will also need to approve the document. Given the unanimous vote of the Ypsilanti city council requesting membership – and the AATA board’s generally positive response to the request – it’s expected those two bodies will also vote to approve the revised articles of incorporation. [.pdf of proposed AAATA articles of incorporation][.pdf of existing AATA articles of incorporation]

Ypsilanti’s request for membership came in the context of a demised attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County. Since then, conversations have continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor.

In addition to admitting the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the revised articles expand the size of the board from seven to nine members. One of the new seats will be appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear."]

While the change to the articles will affect the governance of the AATA, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – but the AATA does not currently do that. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti currently levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

A millage proposal would require voter approval. There’s an outside chance for the AATA to place a millage on the November ballot – if the change to the articles of incorporation are also approved in straightforward fashion by the AATA board and the Ypsilanti city council. Any decision to place a millage request on the November 2013 ballot would need to be made by late August. [Ballot language needs to be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013]. But the practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign mean that a decision to make a millage request would likely need to come sooner than that.

The change in the articles of incorporation also calls for a name change – to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA). Customary pronunciation of the current name is to sound out each letter: A-A-T-A. One possibility that’s been suggested is to pronounce the new letter sequence Triple-A-T-A.

The Ann Arbor city council’s June 3 resolution on the AATA articles of incorporation was co-sponsored on the agenda by mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Along with Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), the three have participated in ongoing meetings among the “urban core” communities. The next such meeting is scheduled for June 27 at Pittsfield Township hall, starting at 4 p.m.

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!

Charles Griffith looks at a budget spreadsheet during the Sept. 27, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board. (Photos by the writer.)

Compared to an earlier draft budget, the one approved by the board was diminished on the revenue side by $800,000 in less-than-expected state operating assistance. Subsequent reductions in expenses still resulted in the need to use $300,000 in reserves to cover the gap. The reduction in state operating assistance for the AATA is related to a dramatic budget decrease by a Detroit transit agency – the state’s formula for making its allocations is sensitive to that.

The meeting’s budget discussion overlapped with conversation about the new transit authority, which is likely to be incorporated next week on Oct. 3. That’s the day after the AATA board is scheduled to meet in a special session, when it’s expected to request formally that the Washtenaw County clerk file articles of incorporation with the state. The new transit authority is to be called The Washtenaw Ride. Before any assets could be transferred from the AATA to The Washtenaw Ride, voters would need to approve a funding mechanism, likely through a millage to be placed on the ballot as soon as May 2013.

AATA board members made a point to stress that the planned operating deficits for the year that’s now ending (about $1 million) and the upcoming year ($300,000) are not sustainable. Instead, those budgets reflect an early implementation of some expanded services – like increased frequency on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – which the AATA would like to implement more permanently in the context of the broader governance and service area of a new transit authority. Some currently expanded services might need to be scaled back if the new authority winds up being dissolved at the end of 2014 – a possibility if voters do not authorize the necessary funding.

The incorporation of the new authority has statutory implications. Because the incorporation of a new transit authority will include by default all the jurisdictions in Washtenaw County, the filing of the articles opens a 30-day window for jurisdictions to opt out of participation. That can be accomplished through a vote by a jurisdiction’s governing body.

The possibility of several jurisdictions opting out prompted the introduction of a resolution at the Sept. 27 meeting that was not originally on the agenda. That resolution was meant to clarify that the AATA board is keen to allow all the constituencies to be represented on the new authority that have been represented for about a year on the as-yet-unincorporated board – up to the point when a millage is placed on the ballot. That is, the current AATA board members – who will also serve on the new board – do not intend that their first response to opt-outs would be to alter the new board’s composition.

The articles of incorporation for the new authority specify an initial board membership of 15 members in eight districts. Altering that membership would, by the articles of incorporation, require a 4/5 majority (12 votes). So the resolution floated at the Sept. 27 meeting was intended to give assurance that the seven AATA board members – as future members of the 15-member board – would not want to alter the composition of the new board until a decision is made about putting a transit millage on the ballot. At that point, a change likely would be made to avoid the possibility of “representation without taxation.”

Representatives of three of the seven non-Ann Arbor districts in the new authority attended the AATA’s Sept. 27 meeting and participated in the discussion: Karen Lovejoy Roe (Southeast District); Bill Lavery (South Middle District); and David Read (North Middle District). Lovejoy and Read reacted to the uncertainty that the resolution was meant to address by questioning the timing of the planned incorporation.

Another significant business item transacted at the meeting was the contingent approval of a contract with URS Corp. to continue studying a possible transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor. The authorization of the contract is conditional on additional local funding – in the amount of $60,000. The $60,000 would be part of a total $300,000 local match for a $1.2 million federal grant. The Ann Arbor city council had voted initially to reject a request that it provide the $60,000, but then reconsidered and postponed the question until Oct. 15. In the meantime, the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has indicated some willingness to make a contribution – $30,000 of the requested $60,000.

The AATA board’s Sept. 27 meeting marked Jesse Bernstein’s final meeting as chair. He’s led the board for the last two years. At the meeting, Bernstein alluded to the tradition of rotating the chairship of the board, a tradition he wanted to continue. The board elected Charles Griffith as chair.

FY 2013 Budget

On the board’s agenda was approval of the FY 2013 budget and work plan. The AATA’s fiscal year runs from October through September.

FY 2013 Budget: Background

The draft AATA budget provided on Sept. 12 to the Ann Arbor city council as a communication item for the council’s Sept. 17 meeting showed a surplus of $22,692 over the budgeted expenses of $33,344,048. The need for the AATA to use $300,000 of unrestricted net assets – to cover the difference between expenditures and revenues – was prompted by notification on Sept. 14 by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) that the formula determining the state’s operating assistance would reduce AATA’s assistance by $803,500.

The possibility of the reduction in funding was known previously. At the board’s Aug. 16, 2012 meeting, Charles Griffith had reported from the performance monitoring and external relations committee on the topic.

About half the reductions in expenses in the final budget, compared to the draft, were made in wage reductions – a total of $294,473. Percentage-wise, the budget for management wages was reduced by 2.79% compared to a 1.24% decrease in non-management wages. That reflects a wage freeze for non-union employees. According to CEO Michael Ford, no reduction in service was required in order to balance this year’s budget. [Google Spreadsheet compiled by The Chronicle showing contrast by category between draft and final budget.]

Last year, the AATA adopted a budget with a deficit of close to $1 million. At the time, AATA board members characterized the strategy as making investments in service expansion in advance of the transition of the AATA to a new authority incorporated under Act 196 of 1986. The AATA has called a special meeting of the board for Oct. 2, 2012 to make a formal request of Washtenaw County to file the articles of incorporation for the new authority under Act 196.

Based on the draft budget projections for the draft FY 2013 budget – which used the first nine months of actual expenses and revenues with seasonal adjustments – the AATA expected to finish FY 2012 with a much smaller deficit of $296,378. That’s about one-third of what was budgeted at the start of last year. But figures through the first 11 months of the year, included in the Sept. 27 board meeting information packet, show that the AATA has thus far incurred a deficit of $1,077,250.

The AATA’s fund balance policy requires it to maintain reserves equal to at least three months’ worth of operating expenses.

Also at its Sept. 27 meeting, the board was asked to approve its work plan for the upcoming year. Key goals include the implementation of the transit master plan (including new governance under Act 196 and securing voter-approved funding), negotiating a new labor contract, building a replacement for the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor, and developing a new model for paratransit services.

The work plan also calls for continued cooperation with the Ann Arbor Public Schools to expand student transportation options.

FY 2013 Budget: The MDOT Formula

What AATA board members described as a “change” in MDOT’s formula appears not to be so much a change in the allocation formula as it is a case of the formula’s peculiar sensitivity to the financial situation in other transit authorities in the state.

In slightly more detail, which still glosses over much of the formula’s complexity, the amount of funding MDOT had available to allocate to transit agencies statewide this year was the same as last year – $166.6 million.

Transit agencies are divided into two groups based on population: (1) urban areas with populations over 100,000; and (2) urbanized areas with populations under 100,000 and non-urbanized areas. The first split of the $166.6 million was a proportionate allocation between those two groups. That proportion is based on the total of eligible expenses in each agency’s submitted operating budget.

Ann Arbor falls into the first of those groups – along with the transit authorities in cites like Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Detroit. This year, the FY 2013 budget for the Detroit Dept. of Transportation (DDOT) dropped from $159 million to $124 million – a reduction of $35 million. That meant a proportionate drop for DDOT’s group – to which Ann Arbor belongs.

Consequently, instead of last year’s $122.2 million allocation, the group that includes Ann Arbor received about $4 million less – $118.5 million.

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Jean Ruestman – manager of the program administration section in MDOT’s office of passenger transportation – described that first split as the one that had the most impact on the AATA’s allocation of state operating assistance. That initial reduction – for the group of transit agencies to which the AATA belongs – was further amplified by another provision in the formula.

The formula provides a “floor” that guarantees a transit agency at least the amount of state operating assistance it received in 1997. Because of the drop in its budget, DDOT’s strictly proportionate share within its group this year would have been less than the 1997 “floor” – by $8 million. So the formula required that DDOT be made whole with respect to that floor. If the “floor” provision did not exist, that would have resulted in $8 million more for non-DDOT members of the group to split up. [.pdf of briefing memo on MDOT allocations]

FY 2013 Budget: Ford’s Report

Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, reviewed the timeline for the evolution of the budget. At the September planning and development committee meeting, a balanced budget had been reviewed with a small surplus. Later on that week, the AATA had received official notice from MDOT about the reduction in state funding of around $803,000. That possibility had been mentioned at the previous month’s committee and board meetings, he noted. The AATA had reached out to legislators and the MDOT staff to try to convince them to alter the formula. Ford characterized the MDOT’s actions as unexpected, given that the legislature had approved the same amount of operating money in the last several years. So the AATA had expected the state’s allocation to the AATA would be similar to what it had been in the last years.

However, Ford said, MDOT had acted in a way that had resulted in a significant reduction in funding to the AATA. The balanced budget presented to the board that evening reflected spending cuts, a wage freeze for AATA non-union employees, and the use of some federal funds now available for day-to-day operations. No reduction in service is planned, he stressed. The ability to use federal funds in this way, he said, was made possible through a recent transportation bill approved by the U.S. Congress – called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st century (MAP-21).

Another key part of the plan to balance the budget in the face of the reduction in state operating assistance is the use of $300,000 of reserve funds – funds that are intended to be used to address unforeseen financial setbacks. AATA will continue to work with its peer transit authorities, Ford said, to lobby the legislature.

Legislation was introduced last week that could restore that funding. Ford said he would keep the board updated on the progress of those efforts. In the meantime, he was asking the board for their support of the balanced budget that night.

Later during board deliberations, Eli Cooper was keen to see the legislative effort maintained. Cooper appreciated the fact that the staff was shouldering the burden of the $800,000 in reduced funding. But he ventured that the AATA is not alone in Michigan, so he wondered what the AATA and the Michigan Public Transit Association are doing to coordinate to make sure that the state continues to be a good partner in providing transportation for all the citizens of the state.

Ford reiterated that legislation has been introduced in the last week. Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and about 10 other urban systems are “in the soup” with the AATA with respect to the reduced funding. Cooper wanted those efforts to be redoubled to make sure that legislators understand the difficulty that it’s creating for transit organizations across the state.

FY 2013 Budget: Board Deliberations

Charles Griffith wanted to hear more details about how the budget had been balanced to respond to the reduction in state operating assistance.

AATA board members David Nacht and Sue Gott.

Ford described the staff as actively involved – having met at least three times to go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb. He characterized it as a team effort. Each department gave up something, he said. Some of it related to staffing, consulting, IT, or communications. It was a matter of looking through every department and asking them what they could give up to help balance the budget.

Ford described a phase of organizational analysis that would be put off, and noted that wages as well as bonuses had been affected. “That’s not always a great topic to talk about,” he said. Bus parts, electrical use, water use, postage – every nook and cranny of the budget had been examined to see what could be given up to “stem the tide” for right now, Ford said.

Nacht characterized the current phase of the organization as an “investment phase.” The AATA is taking federal dollars – not local Ann Arbor transit tax dollars – and using those to invest in some services that provide opportunities to demonstrate what can be accomplished in the direction of countywide service, he said. That works in the short term and in a fiscally sound manner, but it’s not a long-term sustainable approach, he allowed.

The long-term use of those federal dollars, Nacht said, will need to be allocated in other areas to maintain “our bread-and-butter operations for the taxpayers of Ann Arbor” and for the other jurisdictions with whom the AATA has purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs). He felt the staff had done an admirable job in dealing with the situation – which had not been a complete surprise, but was nonetheless a bit of a shock, he said – to maintain the investment in the countywide initiative, to honor the investment of the Ann Arbor taxpayers, and to keep the budget in a fiscally sound prudent manner.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, offers some clarification. In the foreground is board member Sue Gott.

Asked to clarify some remarks made by Jesse Bernstein, Chris White, manager of service development at the AATA, stressed that the AATA is not deferring any capital replacement – and that the AATA’s capital replacement program is intact. The federal money that has been redirected for operating expenses would have gone to implementation of the transportation master plan, White said.

Nacht stressed that it’s important for the public to understand what will happen if the AATA does not receive additional funding to support countywide service. If that happens, the steps the AATA has taken to provide additional services outside of the Ann Arbor service area – steps that are moving in the direction of countywide service – might need to be curtailed. As an example, he gave the more frequent service now offered from Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor along Washtenaw Avenue, which is not an inexpensive service, he said. But that service can be offered now, Nacht said, as an investment to demonstrate to the broader community that the AATA can readily handle that service and perform it admirably, and hopefully persuade a significant number of people to become riders.

But Nacht said without additional funding, the AATA is not in a position to sustain into the indefinite future the projected level of service that it’s going to be offering the public outside of Ann Arbor in this next fiscal year. At some point, Nacht cautioned, the AATA will have to curtail its operations in order to preserve its ability to provide operations for the Ann Arbor taxpayers.

Bernstein pointed out that the AATA does get millage funding from the city of Ypsilanti, and receives money from Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township through purchase-of-service agreements. But he allowed that right now, the name of the authority is the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and currently that is the AATA’s core responsibility.

Nacht responded to Bernstein’s point by saying that the contributions that the AATA gets from its POSA partners are not sufficient to cover the current level of investments that the AATA is making in services that go in a countywide direction. He noted that there had been some discussion at the Ann Arbor city council table about commuter service from Chelsea and Canton into Ann Arbor. For the upcoming budget, he noted that the AATA is not using one cent of Ann Arbor taxpayer dollars to provide that service. [Up to now, the AATA has in part used local tax dollars to subsidize that service.] Federal dollars are being used to subsidize that service. But that allocation of federal dollars to those countywide services can only be done responsibly for a limited amount of time, he allowed. At some point, the AATA will have to scale back – if the community decides not to support those endeavors.

Nacht also said that in spite of the cutbacks in funding, he was proud of the fact that the AATA is not ignoring what’s going on in its core area. AATA staff are working on an expansion of service in the southeastern part of Ann Arbor – the Packard and Platt area, he said. And the FY 2013 budget contains funding for expanded operations for fixed route bus service in the Packard and Platt area.

FY 2013 Budget: Board Deliberations – Reserve

In the context of using $300,000 of the fund balance reserve, David Nacht said that in his capacity as treasurer he’d been very concerned about the reserve situation. He had kept an eye on it as the talks continued. He had received confirmation from Phil Webb, the AATA’s controller, that Webb expects there will be reserves to cover three months’ worth of operating expenses at the end of the coming fiscal year. Nacht felt comfortable that the amount of reserves is a reasonable and appropriate number, saying he felt that by historical standards, it was a very conservative number.

AATA board member Roger Kerson.

Roger Kerson wanted to know how much three months of operating reserves is, measured in dollars. The answer he got from Webb was about $8 million. Webb noted that even if the state operating assistance went to zero, it would not mean that all of the AATA’s revenue sources would disappear. So the question of how long the AATA could run if all revenue were to be eliminated was not easy to answer.

Eli Cooper also inquired in more detail about the reserve balance. Looking at the budget sheets for the last couple of years, the expenses had exceeded revenue – $400,000 in 2011, $1 million in 2012, and now another $300,000 in 2013. He asked for additional clarification on the projected balance at the end of 2013.

Nacht characterized the AATA as an organization with a $32-million-a-year operating budget. Historically, the organization has run balanced budgets or budgets that had slight surpluses, he said. The fiscal management by staff has been terrific, he said. The board has been willing to make cuts as necessary in order to keep things fiscally sound, he said. The last couple of years, the organization has been moving explicitly in the direction of dipping a little bit into the reserves in order to invest in the direction of the countywide program. And there’s still no question that it’s reasonable to expect the organization will have three months of cash and reserve at the end of fiscal 2013, Nacht concluded.

However, he felt that a more serious conversation would be necessary if there is not additional funding at the end of the year, in order to plan for fiscal year 2014. The organization would need to look at things more programmatically, and would have to look at contributions by other partners. Nacht did not feel that the AATA needed to have that conversation right now. Past prudence is benefiting the community now, he contended, because the AATA is able to have a sustained period of investments.

Cooper came back to the initial draft budget with its $20,000 surplus as contrasted with the $300,000 deficit in the now-proposed budget. He sought confirmation from Nacht that the AATA could maintain its policy position on the minimum reserve balance, and continue to provide the service it’s currently providing, and still meet all of the organization’s financial responsibilities. Nacht’s answer to Cooper: “Absolutely.”

Nacht noted he had served on the board for nine years. It’s a predictable cash flow – because the AATA knows when it receives big chunks of money from the city, and the AATA knows what its expenses are like. And the organization has a fair amount of control over the timing of big-ticket items, he said.

The $800,000 drop was a shock, but in the context of a $32 million budget, it’s not an enormous piece, Nacht felt. Bernstein agreed with Nacht that the AATA staff is doing an excellent job in managing the money. But he felt that the AATA is now at the end of its ability to fund anything else beyond the regular service. Further, said Bernstein, if the AATA gets hit with more surprises like the $800,000 reduction from the state, the AATA might have to look at cutting back on some of those investments that have already been made. Bernstein noted that the board has a policy of not providing service for which it could not pay.

Nacht’s response to Bernstein was somewhat more optimistic in tone. Nacht felt there would be serious conversations about the core status of some new offerings. But he felt it might be realistic to bring other partners on board to contribute. The AATA already partners with other organizations like governmental entities. Other transit systems have had success partnering with nonprofits, he said – hospitals and educational institutions, for example.

As the AATA demonstrates the value of its services and as it attracts more riders, fares could be adjusted for particular kinds of services, Nacht ventured. He allowed that there are federal regulations, as well as market forces that apply to all of that, and there is due process involved. He wasn’t suggesting that fare increases would just be sprung on people. But he stressed his hope that rather than simply cut back on a service, the AATA would take a more flexible approach – which included generating more revenue and controlling expenses so that the organization can continue to do what it’s trying to do.

Nacht did not want to just say, “We ran out of energy and we swam into the ocean and now are just going to drown. We’re not going to do that.” The AATA is also looking to see which investments will bear fruit, Nacht said. The transportation service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport – AirRide – is bearing some initial fruit, Nacht said. If that changes, and people stopped riding AirRide, then that’s not something the organization should keep. But right now AirRide seems like it’s a good success, he said.

FY 2013 Budget: Board Deliberations – What Got Cut?

Roger Kerson wanted to know what the biggest ticket items were for the reduction to the budget. Michael Ford told him that wages and consulting were among the big bigger items. Jesse Bernstein asked for a listing out of all the cuts.

Sue Gott wanted to know some examples that might have been on the board to cut, but had instead not been cut. She wanted to know what items would have been cut if reserves had not been available to use. Ford and Bernstein initially indicated a somewhat unclear understanding of Gott’s query. Ford eventually pointed to the desire not to cut any service from existing levels. So it appears that if no reserves had been available, the AATA would have opted to reduce service levels.

FY 2013 Budget: Board Deliberations – Work Plan

Nacht characterized the work plan as very sound, but felt that if there are additional fiscal shocks, then the board would need to look at adjusting the work plan in order to continue to run the organization in a fiscally sound manner consistent with its fiduciary duty to the larger community.

Outcome: On separate votes, the board approved the FY 2013 budget and work plan.

Future of the Board(s)

Two items considered by the AATA board related directly or indirectly to the planned formal request next week – at a special meeting of the AATA board scheduled for Oct. 2, 2012 – that the Washtenaw County clerk file articles of incorporation under Act 196 of 1986 for a new transit authority to be called The Washtenaw Ride.

Not on the agenda that was included in the board’s information packet was a resolution meant to give reassurance that representation on the new board would continue to be as inclusive as possible, even if some jurisdictions opt out of the new transit authority.

The second related item was the board’s meeting schedule.

Future of the Board(s): Background

The incorporation of the new authority under Act 196 of 1986 has statutory as well as contractual implications.

On the statutory side – because the incorporation by Washtenaw County of a new transit authority will include by default all the jurisdictions in Washtenaw County – the 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 – a township board or city council, for example.

The contractual side is already reflected in the filing of the articles. That is, the request made by AATA to Washtenaw County to file the articles of incorporation would be handled under a four-party agreement – which was ratified earlier this year by the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, and the city of Ypsilanti. That same contractual agreement would then govern the transition from the current AATA to The Washtenaw Ride.

The transition would potentially not take place at all, unless a voter-approved funding source for the expanded services were identified by the end of 2014.

The drafted resolution considered by the AATA board at its Sept. 27 meeting was meant in part to address possible concerns about what might happen if a large number of local governments in Washtenaw County opt out of the new transit authority.

The membership of the new authority’s board can be altered only with a 4/5 vote on the 15-member board – based on the articles of incorporation. So the resolution discussed by the AATA board at its Sept. 27 meeting would have, in some sense, expressed the position of current AATA board members as follows: When they become Act 196 board members, they would not go along with a restructuring of the Act 196 board, even if several jurisdictions opt out during the 30-day period – until the point of asking voters to approve a millage.

According to its articles of incorporation, the new authority will have a 15-member board, representing eight different districts in Washtenaw County. The Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti districts include just their respective cities – each city a single jurisdiction. Those two cities are not expected to opt out. Another single-jurisdiction district – Pittsfield Township – is not expected to opt out. 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 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. [Note: The articles were amended in all other references to changes in membership to require a 4/5 majority vote. It's not clear if this instance was intentionally left intact or if it reflects an oversight.]

It’s essentially the Section 4.02(c) condition that the AATA board’s Sept. 27 resolution was meant to address.

Once incorporated, the Washtenaw Ride would still not have any assets or be able to offer any service. That transition would depend on voter approval of the funding source. The AATA has indicated that a possible scenario for funding is to ask voters in Washtenaw County to pay for the new transit authority with a property tax of 0.584 mills – in an election that could come as early as May 2013.

Based on discussion at a Sept. 25 meeting of Ann Arbor’s district advisory committee (DAC) – which helps advise the as-yet-unincorporated authority – a transition to a new authority could take several months. Even if a millage vote were to be held in May 2013 and approved by voters, it would still likely take until Sept. 30, 2013 – the end of the AATA’s fiscal year – to complete the transition.

So the AATA board will need to continue to meet in its current guise through the end of a meeting schedule approved on Sept. 27. The general pattern is to meet on the third Thursday of the month, with a starting time of 6:30 p.m. The meetings are held in the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, located at 343 N. Fifth Avenue. So possibly the last-ever meeting of the AATA board is scheduled for Sept. 19, 2013. [.pdf of AATA FY 2013 meeting schedule]

Future of the Board(s): Meeting Schedule

Jesse Bernstein noted that the board is looking at some potential changes in governance in the coming year. He wanted to underscore the fact that the meeting schedule is the current AATA board’s commitment to continue its work.

At such time that there is a transition to a new board, it will set up its own schedule and agenda, Bernstein said. The AATA board is also committed to having district representatives from the new authorities sit with it during its meetings.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the FY 2013 meeting schedule.

Future of the Board(s): Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen told the board during public commentary that he did not think it was a good idea to incorporate a new Act 196 authority next week. He cited cultural as well as structural reasons. He explained the cultural side of things by telling the board what he had told the University of Michigan board of regents on a previous occasion: “One of the roles of senior staff is to allow the regents to believe that they are making the decisions, without allowing them to screw things up too much.”

The University Michigan is such a large organization that decisions of the regents become a technical thing, Mogensen said. In the same way, he said, the AATA has a very technical culture and has approached the transition in a technical way. On the other side, Mogensen said, if you look at the Ann Arbor city council or the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, they have a different culture that governs how things operate. The entire transition process of the AATA reflects a clashing of those two kinds of culture, he contended.

Mogensen felt it had taken the last 4-5 months to get things sorted out, and that things were still, in fact, being sorted out. People haven’t entirely processed what is going on, he said. So he did not think it was a good idea to proceed with incorporation of a new authority next week – which was not to say that he felt it would never be a good time to do that.

On the structural side, Mogensen felt it’s important to think carefully about purchase-of-service agreements. If a jurisdiction has such an agreement, he said, that did not mean it was in fact purchasing transportation. If board members didn’t understand what he was talking about, he advised, they could look at the operating statement and looked under the “fixed route” column: The expenses listed under purchased transportation show zero dollars. They are purchasing other kinds of transportation, but not fixed route transportation.

So he asked board members to consider a scenario where Ann Arbor Township decided to opt out of the Act 196 authority. Would we still have service to Washtenaw Community College? What’s happening with the purchase-of-service agreements, he said, is more like “opting in” than not. He felt like that had not been entirely sorted out.

Future of the Board(s): Act 196 Incorporation – CEO’s Perspective

On the topic of incorporation, AATA CEO Michael Ford said in his oral report to the board that he felt the time is right. The five-year transit program, guided by the 30-year master plan, envisioned clear benefits for all local governments and citizens in the county, he said. Ford wanted to be clear that the AATA would continue its relationship with each local government in the county – whether it participates in the Act 196 process or not. To get to the point where the process is today, he said, the AATA has conducted extensive outreach over the last year and a half or longer – listening and responding to questions, concerns and requests. Deletions and adjustments have been made to the plan, he said, in light of that input.

The “big ask,” Ford said, is for the whole team – the AATA board and the district representatives – to make a request of the county clerk next Tuesday, at the Oct. 2 special meeting, to incorporate. Ford indicated that the request would be for the Washtenaw County clerk to start the incorporation process on Oct. 3.

Future of the Board(s): Act 196 Incorporation – Resolution of Reassurance

In the latest round of district advisory committee (DAC) meetings, Bernstein reported, uncertainty had been expressed by many people about what might happen under different scenarios where different jurisdictions might opt out. Bernstein was keen to emphasize throughout the ensuing discussion that he was optimistic about the level of participation.

The resolved clause of the resolution read:

Now therefore be it resolved, the Act 55 [current AATA ] board members and the district representatives agree and commit to maintain the current representation of the new Act 196 board until such time as we have to present a service plan to the committee and request a millage.

Bernstein felt it was important to pass such a resolution because it was important to say to new partners: We’ll be with you as long as we can; and we’re not going to just arbitrarily and quickly make decisions.

Left to right: David Read and David Nacht.

The AATA wants to keep the district representatives at the table as long as it possibly can – to continue having their input and their linkages to their communities – even those that might have initially opted out.

Bernstein hoped that even if some communities initially opted out, that by the time the newly-incorporated authority decided to put a millage on the ballot, the full participation of the county could be achieved. Bernstein reported that Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, who serves as the city of Ypsilanti district representative on the as-yet-incorporated Act 196 board, had indicated his support of the resolution.

Representatives of three of the seven non-Ann Arbor districts in the new authority attended the AATA’s Sept. 27 meeting and participated in the discussion – Karen Lovejoy Roe (Southeast District); Bill Lavery (South Middle District); and David Read (North Middle District).

Read contemplated the possibility that a district representative “loses its constituency” because all of the municipalities in the district opt out. Do we actually have to dismiss that member from the board? he wondered. Is it written into the Act 196 statute or Act 7 or the articles of incorporation?

Bernstein told Read that he hoped that situation would not arise. What the resolution is trying to convey is that the current AATA board wants to keep everybody at the table as long as possible. If there were a situation that led by law to a required membership change, the change would have to be made. But if that change could be avoided or delayed, that’s what the resolution would do, Bernstein said.

Lavery said it sounded like a positive action, and one that would help in the educational effort. Lovejoy Roe indicated a generally positive attitude toward the resolution.

Karen Lovejoy Roe expressed some concerns about the representation on the future board of the new transit authority. Looking on is AATA board member Anya Dale.

Sue Gott wondered if input from the AATA’s legal counsel might be needed to understand clearly if the resolution works in the spirit of Act 196. Bernstein felt it was important to state what the board would like to see happen – and if there are legal issues that arise, those can be dealt with. As long as there is one jurisdiction that has not opted out of the district, then the representative of that district could represent the district, Bernstein said – at least that was Bernstein’s understanding from the AATA’s attorney.

Like Read, Charles Griffith felt there was not actually any requirement that representation be removed from any districts as a consequence of jurisdictions opting out. The new board would have the ability, he observed, to change the membership, which would require a 4/5 majority vote. So there are already protections, he noted. Bernstein allowed that the resolution might amount to “belt and suspenders.” Still, he felt it was important to make the statement now.

Eli Cooper was not comfortable with the wording of the resolved clause, saying that he didn’t feel he could resolve something on the behalf of others. So he wanted references to the district representatives. David Nacht expressed concern about making a resolution that might not be legally enforceable. He felt it would be better for the board to say exactly what it wants to do. He suggested replacing the existing resolved clause by the following: “We support the concept of representation of those communities on the 196 board that are currently represented.”

Nacht was concerned that the entire resolution might be legally void. Still, he wanted to make a record that is supportive of what Bernstein wanted to accomplish. Bernstein responded to Nacht by saying he felt the issue was about timing – when the board felt it was appropriate to take action on adjusting the Act 196 board membership. He wanted to go on record as saying that they would wait as long as possible before making those adjustments.

The conversation at the table continued at some length. Roger Kerson felt it made sense to let everybody keep coming to the meetings rather than cutting people off at some early stage. Lovejoy Roe expressed concern that representatives of districts that had opted out would be making decisions about levels of service and the timing of a millage.

Read wondered if it made sense to pursue incorporation as early as next week. He said he was concerned about a possible “rush to incorporate,” but allowed that for many people it’s not a rush to incorporate, but rather more a feeling that “finally we’re getting it done.” He felt there needs to be a way of figuring out how to keep the board balanced based on population.

Nacht drew an analogy to the first Constitutional convention, where no one had any idea that there would be political parties and that such political parties would dominate political life. The Constitutional convention has been held on the issue of transit, he said.

Outcome: Eventually the resolution was withdrawn, with the possibility that it would return on Oct. 2 when the board will meet in a special session to formally request that the Washtenaw County clerk file articles of incorporation for the new transit authority.

Connector Study

At its Sept. 27 meeting, the AATA was asked to give conditional authorization for a $1.5 million contract for further study of a transportation connector between the northeast and south sides of Ann Arbor.

Connector Study: Background

The authorization is conditional on additional local funding – in the amount of $60,000. The $60,000 would be part of a total $300,000 local match for a $1.2 million federal grant.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study is to result in identifying a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops.

The Ann Arbor city council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject the $60,000 request, but reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. On reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

In the meantime, some of the requested $60,000 might actually be provided by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Initial indications to the AATA were that the DDA’s budget constraints would not allow a contribution to the local match. But at a Sept. 26 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, it was decided that the full DDA board would be asked to consider a connector study funding resolution at its Oct. 3 meeting. The DDA resolution would specify a $30,000 total contribution by the DDA, in two $15,000 payments to be made in each of the next two years. Members of the DDA’s operations committee wanted to make the $30,000 contingent on the city of Ann Arbor providing the other $30,000.

So the original resolution included in the Sept. 27 AATA board information packet specified the city of Ann Arbor as the source of that $60,000. However, the resolution was altered to specify more generally some other local funding – to accommodate the possibility that the Ann Arbor DDA might make a contribution as well.

The $60,000 is a portion of $300,000 in local funding that has been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year to the AATA for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support was originally intended to be: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

The timeline for completion of the study, which would be done by URS Corp., would be about a year and a half. Part of the AATA board’s rationale for moving ahead with the contingent authorization of the contract relates to the time that has elapsed since receiving a bid from URS to do the second phase of the study. According to an AATA staff memo, URS has held the price for the work at the original bid price – for now.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed by URS. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit. That study had been funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor DDA, University of Michigan and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

Connector Study: Board Deliberations

Reporting from the planning and development committee, Anya Dale reviewed the history and status of the project. She noted that to some extent it’s important to get the project moving – because even though the contractors held the original bid price, costs have been increasing. She hoped that it would go back to the city council and there would be more discussion about it.

Jesse Bernstein said he thinks there is a “movement afoot” to see if the Ann Arbor DDA might contribute to the funding of the study. So the language had been simplified to refer just to a local share instead of the city of Ann Arbor specifically, he said. He noted that $150,000 is coming from the University of Michigan and $90,000 from the AATA, with the remaining $60,000 from a local share. That total of $300,000 is the local match for a $1.2 million federal grant to conduct the analysis, he said. It would run from northeast Ann Arbor through the university and downtown Ann Arbor to Briarwood Mall and possibly beyond, he said. He characterized it as a very major corridor. He reminded his board colleagues that the feasibility analysis had shown that the utilization in the middle section of the corridor would justify a fixed-rail type technology.

David Nacht makes a point during the Sept. 27 AATA board meeting.

Eli Cooper asked for an amendment to one of the whereas clauses to mirror the same consideration as the amendment to the resolved clause – to refer more generally to a local share.

David Nacht described it as “rather unfortunate” that the project has become the subject of politicization at the Ann Arbor city council. It’s not inappropriate for the city council to consider the issue in a serious way, he allowed. Consideration of transit in Ann Arbor is an appropriate thing for the city council to consider, he continued. But the city council had actually done that in the past, he contended. The AATA, University Michigan, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city of Ann Arbor – those four partners – had been working for “not months, but years” in a direction to try to figure the project out collaboratively, he said.

If you’re a taxpayer, Nacht said, you want the government, whoever they are, to do something with that money they’re collecting. He called it a “wonderful thing” that different units of government – the AATA, which gets a lot of federal money; the University Michigan, which is a “separate beast”; the DDA, which is a creature of the city with its own tax base; and the city – are working together with a coherent vision of figuring out what is the best bang for the taxpayer buck. How can we move people around efficiently in order to help get people to and from work, to and from school? What is rational and efficient? he asked.

The connector project study uses federal dollars with a small amount of local dollars, he pointed out. That’s because the feds say: If you really want to improve transit, let us know you care – by putting in some local money to study it. And so up to this point, a lot of work had been done to do that. “This is not controversial, it shouldn’t be controversial,” Nacht concluded.

Nacht asked Eli Cooper to put on the public record some comments about why the study is so important. Cooper responded to Nacht by noting that the connector project was one of several strategies that was included in the transportation master plan update adopted by the city council in 2009. The process for updating the plan had included consideration of what Cooper called the “do nothing” alternative. It would be possible to allow the community to continue to grow without making investments in enhanced transportation, he ventured. And the decision not to fund the study amounts to a decision not to invest, he said.

The analysis of the “do nothing” alternative that went into the city’s 2009 transportation master plan update showed that there would be an erosion in the quality of life – congestion on many, if not all, of the radial corridors serving the downtown. That erosion of the quality of life was deemed to be unacceptable in the course of the planning process, so a variety of different alternatives were studied – connector-type service, enhance local transit, or ideas for bringing commuters in from greater distances – all to relieve the stress and strain on local streets. All those kinds of elements were woven into the fabric of the city’s transportation master plan.

Now is an opportunity to recall the importance of these investments, Cooper said. He noted that questions had been asked by Ann Arbor city councilmembers who were not familiar with that background, so he would be providing that to them on Oct. 15 when the council reconsiders the connector study funding. Cooper said it’s important for city councilmembers to understand the relationship between the various initiatives, the investments, the timing of those investments, and the anticipated benefit of making those investments. So he will be presenting to the council a scenario for what might happen if the city council decides not to make those investments.

Questions also been asked about how the connector relates to commuter rail and how that relates to the transportation master plan. Cooper noted that the 2009 transportation master plan lays out a long-term strategy that describes how all of the various initiatives fit together to result in the maintenance or enhancement of the city’s current quality of life. He characterized the various initiatives as “the lubrication that keeps the transportation system moving.” And by the “transportation system,” he stressed, he did not mean simply buses, but rather pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, buses and trains. As a city staff member, he felt he needed to do a better job in making sure that the policy leaders, who are worrying mightily about the investment, can understand what the costs are of failing to act. He needs to make sure they also understand what the benefits are of moving forward. He couldn’t predict where the council might decide, but the information would be framed for them at their Oct. 15 meeting, Cooper concluded.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the conditional contract for the connector study.

Routine MDOT Processes

In front of the board for its consideration was a resolution to authorize the AATA’s chief executive officer to sign and execute contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) without seeking a separate board resolution – as long as the contracts are less than $1 million.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, there are 10-15 separate agreements between MDOT and AATA. A staff analysis of the resolution allows that there’s a risk to the practice – that the board might not be aware of the contracts that the CEO is executing. That risk is meant to be mitigated by a new practice of reporting all such contracts to the board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee.

Also on the agenda for the board’s consideration was a grant agreement with MDOT for a contract of over $1 million. MDOT is providing the local match – which totals $2.414 million – for AATA’s FY 2012 federal Section 5307 grant. [.pdf of FY 2012 expenditures for Section 5307 program]

At the meeting, the two items were summarized as part of the performance monitoring and external relations committee report. The report was given by Roger Kerson, who had been the only board attendee at the committee meeting that month. There was not a lot of debate on any of the resolutions, he quipped: “Most days I agree with myself, but not every day.”

On the blanket authority given to the CEO for contracts under $1 million, Kerson noted that this authorization is done on an annual basis. It turns out to be a more efficient way to run the routine business – given that in the course of the year there are up to a dozen or so such agreements. The board gets a report of each agreement that is executed, he noted.

Outcome: Both votes related to MDOT contracts were unanimous.

CEO Severance Clause

Not originally on the board’s agenda was an item related to CEO Michael Ford’s compensation agreement. David Nacht reported that a committee of the board, consisting of Roger Kerson and Sue Gott, is negotiating with CEO Michael Ford on his new compensation agreement.

Left to right: Eli Cooper and Michael Ford.

There is no new agreement yet, Nacht reported. The compensation agreement contains a severance clause, and Nacht said that Ford was willing to work without a written compensation agreement, but wants to make sure that his severance clause stays in effect even though there is no new compensation agreement. So Ford had asked that the board vote on that – and Nacht felt that it was a reasonable position for Ford to take.

The resolution the board considered extended the severance clause in the compensation agreement for the next year, or until such time as a new compensation agreement was made, which would supersede the resolution.

Eli Cooper indicated that he couldn’t support the resolution – because he was not familiar with the contract or with the compensation agreement and their terms. He explained that he was appointed after those agreements were made, he did not feel he had enough information to make a decision.

Outcome: The board voted, with dissent from Cooper, to extend the severance clause in the CEO’s compensation agreement.

Election of Officers

The AATA elects board officers to one-year terms in sync with the fiscal year, which runs from October through September. Jesse Bernstein has served as board chair for the last two years and will continue to serve on the board. The board was asked to consider a nomination of Charles Griffith as chair.

Griffith is climate & energy program director for the Ecology Center. He has already served for six years on the board, and his current appointment lasts another four years. He was re-appointed to the board on May 2, 2011 to a five-year term after first being appointed on Sept. 19, 2006.

Election of Officers: Board Deliberations

As is typically the case, David Nacht reported, an elections committee was established – consisting of himself and Charles Griffith. The first thing that happened, he said, was that Jesse Bernstein had indicated to the committee that he was not interested in continuing as chair of the board. A “strenuous effort was made” to get Bernstein to reconsider, but Bernstein had “stuck to his guns,” Nacht said.

Nacht explained that it wasn’t the case that Griffith was being nominated because Griffith had been on the elections committee. It was due to the fact that Griffith is a senior member of the organization, Nacht said. Griffith has served as an active board member for many years, but has not served as chair, Nacht observed. He noted that he himself had served a stint as chair of the board. And Griffith is willing to serve as chair, Nacht continued.

Nacht said he had spoken outside of Griffith’s presence with various people on the board, e-mailed with various people, and heard comments from a variety of people. And it’s the committee’s recommendation that the board put forward Griffith as the chair, Nacht said. But Nacht felt it was important to take nominations from the floor in case anyone else wanted to offer to serve.

No one else made a different nomination, so Bernstein offered some explanation for his decision not to continue as chair. He has served for two years as chair, and he believed the position needs to be rotated: “My feeling is we really need to rotate that and give everybody a chance at the joy and happiness of being in that role.” That was his rationale for not wanting to serve a third term as chair. It was organizational and procedural and had nothing to do with anything else, he said.

The vote for Griffith as chair was unanimous, with Griffith abstaining.

Nacht went on to describe the two other board officer positions – treasurer and secretary. He noted that he himself had been serving as treasurer for the last few months at the chair’s request – and he was willing to continue to do that, though he had no tremendous to desire to do so. “If anyone else likes to spend a lot of time looking at numbers, I would absolutely be honored to cede….” Nacht continued: “Are there any nominations from the floor. Please?” About entertaining nominations, Bernstein quipped, “David, that’s my job.” Nacht was then elected as board treasurer by unanimous vote.

Nacht described the office of secretary as largely ceremonial – but allowed that theoretically it might not be ceremonial because the signature on a document might prove to be important for some reason. Nacht said that for the position of secretary he had sent an e-mail asking for interest in serving in that capacity. The first response he received that he saw was from Anya Dale. Nacht also noted that a willingness to serve as secretary had been indicated by Eli Cooper. However, Nacht reported that Cooper had deferred to Dale. Based on that, the elections committee recommendation was for Dale as secretary. Dale was elected unanimously as board secretary.

Outcome: The board elected Charles Griffith as chair, David Nacht as treasurer, and Anya Dale as secretary.

The AATA board has two working committees: the planning and development committee, and the performance monitoring and external relations committee. Membership was not decided at the Sept. 27 meeting. Griffith said he knew he was going to be nominated as chair, but he did not want to be presumptuous – so he had wanted first to talk to board members individually about their interest in serving on the two different committees of the AATA board. But he wanted to make the committee appointments as soon as possible. He thanked everyone for their support. He said he was humbled but also reassured, because he would be serving with two former chairs – Nacht and Bernstein. He felt he would get plenty of guidance and corrective action if he strayed off course: “We’ll have an exciting year, I think.”

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Sept 27 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

In his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said that even though the news about the budget had not been good, that had been counterbalanced by news about ridership. It’s increasing in every area, he reported. Part of that is due to a national trend of increasing use in transit.

Comm/Comm: New Website

The new AATA website is getting close to completion and would be ready to be unveiled soon, Roger Kerson reported from the performance monitoring and external relations committee. He felt that timed well in terms of the implementation of the transit master plan – because riders would have more and better ways to access information about bus arrivals, departures and scheduling.

Comm/Comm: LAC

The local advisory council (LAC) is a group that provides input and feedback to AATA on disability and senior issues. Cheryl Weber noted that there had been some continued discussion at the last meeting about the ability of riders to bring groceries onto vehicles. The group had received a visit from a representative of the University of Michigan Health System in response to concerns that LAC has expressed about access to the hospital. The driver appreciation program has yet to be implemented, but Weber hoped that it would be put in place in some form in the near future.

Comm/Comm: Advocacy for Most Vulnerable

During public commentary at the start of the Sept. 27 meeting, Thomas Partridge advocated for the rights of the most vulnerable residents of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the state of Michigan. They should have access to affordable public transportation, including accommodations for disabled people and senior citizens, he said.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge said he was an advocate for those who need public services the most – middle-class residents, senior citizens, and disabled people. Because the meeting had run long, and was pushing towards the nine o’clock closing time of the Ann Arbor District Library, Jesse Bernstein limited closing public commentary turns to one minute instead of the usual two minutes. Partridge objected to that, as did Carolyn Grawi, who followed Partridge to the podium at the conclusion of the meeting.

Grawi is director for advocacy and education at the Center for Independent Living. She congratulated Charles Griffith on his election as chair and thanked Jesse Bernstein for his service as chair for the past two years. She also thanked members of the community who had attended the district advisory committee meetings representing the disability community.

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

Next special meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

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 proposal came in the context of an initial board vote to levy an annual tax of 0.05 mills, unchanged from the current rate. The Michigan statute authorizing this millage (Act 88 of 1913) predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, so no voter approval is required. The board can levy the tax directly.

Ken Schrader, a PC technician with Washtenaw County, explained to the county commissioners that recently installed new microphones are more sensitive than the older ones. He jokingly warned them that they should be careful what they say now, because “you can’t take anything back.” Later in the meeting, the county’s information technology department was presented with an award from the Center for Digital Government.

The current rate is expected to bring in about $683,095 in 2013, and is allocated to a variety of organizations, including the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000) and its Ypsilanti office SPARK East ($50,000). Smith and county administrator Verna McDaniel serve on SPARK’s executive committee.

Smith, a Democrat from Ann Arbor, suggested that by raising the rate to 0.06 mills, property owners would see only a slight increase in their annual taxes. For the average taxpayer, he estimated it would increase from $4.25 to $5.10 per year, while the amount raised countywide would increase about 20% to $838,577. He also proposed that the office of community and economic development – a joint county/city of Ann Arbor department led by Mary Jo Callan – should be given the authority to allocate the funding, rather than having the county board earmark amounts for specific organizations.

No formal amendment was made, but Smith circulated a three-page memo the following night outlining his proposal. [.pdf of Smith's Act 88 memo] It’s likely the board will take up this proposal as an amendment before a final vote at its Sept. 19 meeting. Initial approval was given on Sept. 5 for the current rate of 0.05 mills on a 7-to-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Another pre-Headlee tax – for support of indigent veterans – also got initial approval from the board, at a slightly increased rate. The initial approval increases that tax from 0.025 mills to 0.0286 mills. Staff of the county’s department of veterans affairs say the increase is needed because of rising claims and services from veterans due to a struggling economy, an anticipated increase in the number of returning soldiers, and a drop in property values. The millage is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues during 2013.

In other action related to tax revenue, commissioners gave initial approval to an ordinance governing the county’s natural areas preservation program. The change would remove the current restriction that only 7% of millage funds can be used for management or stewardship. The intent is to provide more flexibility in managing the funds, allowing the county to build a reserve for long-term stewardship. It’s viewed as an important goal, in the event that the NAPP millage is eliminated in the future. Yousef Rabhi, a Democrat who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor, proposed an amendment that would set a minimum of 25% to be spent on stewardship. The amendment failed on a 1-9 vote.

In an item viewed largely as a formality, county commissioners “ratified” the articles of incorporation for a new countywide transit authority. The document had been slightly revised from what the board had previously approved on Aug. 1, 2012 – on a 6-4 vote. This time, the vote was 6-3, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Ronnie Peterson were absent. Rob Turner, who had previously voted against the articles of incorporation, supported the item on Sept. 5.

Also approved was a resolution to support a policy change in the city of Ann Arbor related to affordable housing. The item was added to the Sept. 5 agenda during the meeting by Democrat Leah Gunn of Ann Arbor, and was not discussed by commissioners at the meeting. The resolution “encourages the Ann Arbor City Council to direct proceeds from the sale of the city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown to the city’s Housing Trust Fund, to be used to support sustainable, affordable housing.” [Earlier in the day, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had passed a similar resolution of support. Gunn is chair of the DDA.] Dan Smith abstained from the vote. The following night, at a board working session, Alicia Ping announced that she had intended to vote against it, but had cited the wrong agenda number in casting her no vote.

Other action at the Sept. 5 meeting included initial approval of the county’s public health budget, which projects a 3.5 net increase in jobs. Voting against the budget were Alicia Ping and Dan Smith, who cautioned against adding new jobs as the county faces a deficit in 2013. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting.

Seth Best, a former resident of Camp Take Notice, addressed the board during public commentary about the need to tackle the root causes of homelessness. The homeless encampment had been evicted this summer from its most recent site in Scio Township.

And highlighting a letter that the county had recently received, commissioner Felicia Brabec raised concerns about the intent of Paxton Resources LLC to drill an exploratory oil and gas well in Saline Township. The board will likely revisit the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” at a future working session. Yousef Rabhi, who chairs those meetings, suggested wrapping it into a session he plans regarding the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane plume. He sees a tie-in to the issue of industrial environmental contamination.

Millages: Economic/Agricultural Development, Indigent Veterans

Two taxes – for economic/agricultural development and indigent veterans services– were on the agenda for initial approval. Because the Michigan statutes that authorize these millages predate the state’s Headlee Amendment, they can be approved by the board without a voter referendum. Commissioners also were asked to set public hearings on these millages for the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, when a final vote will be taken.

Millage: Economic/Agricultural Development – Board Discussion

The 0.05 mill tax for economic development and agriculture is authorized under the state’s Act 88 of 1913. It will cost homeowners $5 for each $100,000 of their home’s taxable value. The millage amount at this point would be unchanged from the current tax.

The anticipated $683,095 in millage proceeds would be allocated to the following local entities in 2013, and are generally the same amounts that the groups received this year: Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000), SPARK East ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($140, 331), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H ($82,500), Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show ($15,000), and MSU Extension, to support economic development in the local food system ($15,000).

Board chair Conan Smith introduced this item by saying that the county is facing an interesting phenomenon. The average household income is increasing steadily, he contended, but taxable values of homes have been decreasing. That means that there’s less money for local governments, which receive revenues from property taxes. So funding for government services has decreased. It’s unusual to be in a county where families are experiencing greater prosperity, while local governments struggle, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 10), chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

This was background for his proposal to look at increasing the Act 88 millage from 0.05 mills to 0.06 mills. Average taxpayers are paying about $4.25 annually, he said, and it would increase to $5.10. The increase would help to maintain the solvency of the fund and support for the agencies that are funded through it, and would allow the county to do even more economic development, he said.

Smith cited an ongoing concern about the recent consolidation that created the office of community and economic development (OCED). He felt that the move pulled together several economic development activities under one umbrella, but there’s only one staff person dedicated to coordinating those services. It’s a challenge, he said, especially when you think about the synergies between economic development, community development and workforce development – which are now all handled by OCED.

In addition to providing more revenues for economic development, Smith hoped the board could consider allocating all Act 88 revenues to OCED, and giving that department the authority to analyze and distribute the funds, rather than having the board allocate specific funding for each agency. Instead, OCED could make recommendations to the board each year, in the same way that OCED staff handles allocations to local nonprofits through the coordinated funding approach.

Smith said he wasn’t prepared to make any amendments to the Act 88 resolution that night, but he hoped the board could have this conversation in a couple of weeks at its Sept. 19 meeting.

Leah Gunn expressed her support for the idea. Rolland Sizemore Jr. told Smith he hoped to see a proposal before the Sept. 19 board meeting, to give everyone a chance to review it.

Turning to the resolution at hand, Wes Prater expressed frustration that he didn’t know how these organizations being funded by the Act 88 millage were performing. There needs to be a report of results from the previous year, he said. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that the information is available. She noted that Skip Simms from Ann Arbor SPARK was at the meeting, and that she and Conan Smith served on SPARK’s executive committee.

Sizemore said he was tired of not getting this kind of information in advance of the board meeting. McDaniel apologized, saying that the information is online, but not provided in one centralized report.

Prater specifically asked about the accomplishments of the Eastern Leaders Group (ELG), which is getting $100,000. He also wondered why the county was paying $65,264 to promote heritage tourism – why weren’t the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus doing that? [Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor CVB, attended the Sept. 5 meeting but did not formally address the board.]

Tony VanDerworp, who serves as OCED’s business development specialist, highlighted a three-page report that had been included in the board’s meeting packet. Information about the ELG is given, he noted. In general, the report provides details about jobs created, funds that were leveraged, and new programs over the past year, he said. VanDerworp added that he’d be happy to provide additional information as well.

Prater replied that he’d seen the report, but that it didn’t talk about how the county’s funding had been used. He wanted to know specifically what was accomplished with the dollars that the county had levied and spent.

Sizemore thanked Bob Tetens, the county’s parks and recreation director, for taking leadership on the ELG – it’s moving forward faster than it had been, he said. Sizemore also praised Shamar Herron, the county’s workforce development manager. Sizemore is more concerned about people who are making $10-15 an hour, rather than the jobs that Ann Arbor SPARK focuses on, which are at a higher salary level.

As chair of the board’s working sessions, Yousef Rabhi reported that he planned to schedule a working session later this fall focused on the Food System Economic Partnership and MSU Extension program, to explain how their allocations will be spent. He suggested including representatives from other agencies funded by Act 88 as well.

Regarding Conan Smith’s proposal, Rabhi said he wasn’t sold on it yet but he’d be interested in hearing from OCED’s director, Mary Jo Callan.

Smith responded to Prater’s concerns about evaluating performance. Current analysis of the Act 88 grantees isn’t being done, he acknowledged. But OCED has developed a process to evaluate the grantees for human services, who receive money through the coordinated funding approach. That process should be easily replicable for economic development funding too, he said, and would allow for greater oversight of those funds.

Outcome: The initial vote on the Act 88 millage passed on a 7-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent. A public hearing is set for the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, where a final vote is expected, with the possible amendment mentioned by Conan Smith.

The following night, during the board’s working session, Conan Smith emailed commissioners a three-page memo outlining his proposal. [.pdf of Smith's memo] Smith projected that the proposed increase in the tax – to 0.06 mill, compared to the current 0.05 mill – would represent a 20% increase in revenues, raising an additional $139,762 for a total of $838,577 in 2013.

Millages: Support for Veterans – Board Discussion

Also on the Sept. 5 agenda was a tax to support services for indigent veterans. The proposal called for an increase to 0.0286 mills, to be levied in December 2012. That rate is expected to raise $390,340 in revenues for use during 2013. The current 0.025 mills brought in $344,486 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the increase is needed because of rising claims and services from veterans due to a struggling economy, an anticipated increase in the number of returning soldiers, and a drop in property values. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked why an increase is needed. Michael Smith, the department’s director, reviewed the reasons stated in the staff memo. He noted that when the millage revenues were first collected in 2009, the tax brought in about $393,000. Each year that amount has decreased, while costs have increased. The office helps indigent veterans pay for things like utility bills, gas and food. A $300 food voucher doesn’t buy as much as it did just a few years ago, he said, so the county’s veterans affairs committee – which the county board appoints – decided it was time to ask for an increase. They were very cautious and debated the decision at length, he said.

Smith described other services that his office provides. They help veterans pursue getting benefits from the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, for example, and pay $300 toward the burial costs for veterans or their spouses. In addition, veterans are entitled to a free memorial marker, but sometimes cemeteries require a base for those markers. And the cost for the base varies widely, he noted, from $35 in Manchester to more than $800 at United Memorial Gardens.

Smith also cited the uncertainty about how many veterans would be returning to Washtenaw County as the military demobilizes. About 300,000 soldiers are expected to be coming home nationwide, he said. Army reserve units will be returning as well.

Several commissioners expressed support for the work of Smith and his staff. Alicia Ping asked Smith to review the history of the millage. Smith explained that the state legislature had passed a law in 1899 to support indigent veterans, mandating that counties levy this tax. [Today, few counties actually levy the millage. Washtenaw County did not levy it until 2008, when former commissioner Ken Schwartz notified the board that the option existed. Previously, the county's department of veterans affairs was supported by the general fund.] Public Act 214 reads in part:

…each county shall annually levy, a tax not exceeding 1/10th of a mill on each dollar, to be levied and collected as provided by law… for the purpose of creating a fund for the relief of honorably discharged indigent members of the army, navy, air force, marine corps, coast guard, and women’s auxiliaries of all wars or military expeditions … and the indigent spouses, minor children and parents of each such indigent or deceased member.

If the county levied the maximum rate, the full 1/10th mill would raise more than $1 million in Washtenaw County, Smith said, which is more than is needed. In times of emergency, the county has the authority to levy as much as 2/10ths of a mill, he noted.

Sizemore also wondered why the department had decided to lock its doors – he was concerned about that. Smith explained that the department had been short-staffed, because two employees unexpectedly decided to retire at the end of last year. He didn’t have the staff to handle the office’s normal walk-in hours, he said, and he had to figure out how to manage their work flow.

In addition, the office – located at 2155 Hogback Road – is in a building that’s not very secure, and they work with a population that can be volatile, he said. The office is co-located with the county’s facilities warehouse. Deliveries are made there frequently and people are walking through the building unsupervised. The department has files with sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, Smith said, so he decided to lock the office doors. A sign is up indicating that people can knock for service, and most of the work is handled through appointments. They’ve never turned anyone away, he said. New employees are being trained, and he plans to return to full walk-in service in the future.

Sizemore responded, saying that if security is a problem, perhaps the county should find a more suitable location for the office. Wes Prater also expressed concern, saying that it had been a very hot summer and they don’t know what the winter will be like. He hoped that veterans wouldn’t have to wait outside in the cold. Smith agreed, saying he was working toward the goal of full walk-in service again.

Outcome: An initial vote to increase the millage for veterans relief passed unanimously. A final vote and public hearing is set for Sept. 19.

Natural Areas Preservation

An amendment to the ordinance governing the county’s natural areas preservation program was on the Sept. 5 agenda for initial approval.

The change would remove the current restriction that only 7% of millage funds can be used for management or stewardship. The Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission had been briefed on the proposal at its May 8, 2012 meeting. At that time, the proposal would have raised the limit from 7% to 25%. Now, however, the proposed ordinance amendment would eliminate all percentage restrictions on set-asides for management and stewardship.

The proposal would amend Section 8 of the NAPP ordinance (deleted text indicated in strike-through):

SECTION 8: Natural Areas Acquisition Fund

Available funding for the purchase of natural areas land shall be deposited in a special fund in the office of the Washtenaw County Treasurer (“Acquisition Fund”). Money in such Acquisition Fund may be temporarily deposited in such institutions or invested in such obligations as may be lawful for the investment of County money.

The revenues from the deposit and/or investment of the Acquisition Fund along with the revenues from the sale of any natural areas property purchased pursuant to this Ordinance shall be applied and used solely for the purchase, stewardship and administration of natural areas land (75%) and agricultural development rights (25%) under this Ordinance, however, that no more than 7% of increased millage funds used to purchase land under this Ordinance may be used annually to administer a land preservation program or maintain lands purchased under this Ordinance.

From left: Curt Hedger, Bob Tetens, and Tony VanDerworp. Hedger is the county’s corporation counsel. Tetens is parks and recreation director, and VanDerworp serves as business development specialist with the office of community and economic development.

According to a staff memo that was part of the county board’s Sept. 5 meeting information packet, the goal would be to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship. By 2020, when the current millage expires, that annual investment is expected to have built a dedicated reserve of $6 million.

Though no percentages are identified in the revised ordinance, $600,000 would work out to about 25% of annual millage revenues.

Voters first approved NAPP funding in 2000 and renewed it in 2010, each time for 10 years. The current millage – at 0.2409 mills – will expire in 2020. It generates about $3 million annually.

Natural Areas Preservation: Board Discussion

Conan Smith said he was very supportive of this change, because it provides greater flexibility. He also floated the idea of eliminating a separate ordinance requirement for allocating 75% to the acquisition and maintenance of natural areas and 25% for agricultural land. He hadn’t consulted with parks and recreation director Bob Tetens about this yet, Smith said, but if commissioners are interested, he’d bring forward a formal proposal at a future meeting.

Yousef Rabhi said he had some reservations about eliminating the 75/25 allocation, but was very supportive of the proposal that was on the table that night. Rabhi then asked Tetens to describe what kinds of maintenance activities are done in the county’s natural areas.

The work varies by preserve, Tetens explained, but includes trail maintenance, removal of invasive species, trash pickup and other activity. Rabhi hoped to see the balance of activities tip in favor of ecological restoration. He acknowledged that public accessibility was part of the program’s mission, but noted that increasing the health of the ecosystem is another important role. Tetens replied that the staff’s work is tilted toward that ecosystem aspect.

Rabhi then clarified with Tetens some information in the staff memo, which indicated that $240,000 annually would be used for stewardship. That’s an internal goal, Tetens replied. The current proposal grew out of discussions that occurred when the staff talked with commissioners and others prior to the NAPP millage renewal in 2010. Even with the 7% cap on spending for stewardship, he said, the program has set aside about $2 million for future stewardship activity.

The intent of the ordinance change is to to set aside even more dollars, so that by 2020 – when the county board has to decide whether to put a renewal on the ballot again – they’ll have some options. The assumption is that land acquired by the county through NAPP will be protected forever, Tetens said. They need to save more money so that they’ll be in a position to take care of the land in perpetuity, regardless of whether there’s a millage to support it.

Natural Areas Preservation: Board Discussion – Amendment

Rabhi said that as someone who works in the field, he understand the crucial role of stewardship. [Rabhi, a Democrat representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, works with the city's natural area preservation program.] He believed that instead of eliminating percentages completely, the ordinance should indicate a minimum of 25% for stewardship. He proposed that as an amendment to the resolution. It was seconded by Barbara Bergman.

Leah Gunn noted that she had been on the board when the original NAPP ordinance had been passed in 2000, and said she had worked hard campaigning for the millage to support the program. She said she couldn’t give enough praise to the parks and recreation commission and the staff, and she trusted them to do their jobs. Gunn told Tetens that the board should “let you do what you think is best, and if we find we’re dissatisfied with it, we’ll probably let you know,” she quipped.

Dan Smith weighed in, saying that the intent of changing the original ordinance was to simplify it. Ordinances should be crafted to last a long time, he said, and including percentages makes that more difficult. By adding back in a different percentage, Rabhi’s amendment adds complexity to the ordinance that’s unnecessary. [Smith is one of three county commissioners who serve on the parks and recreation commission. Others are Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Barbara Bergman.]

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11).

Smith read from the current ordinance, noting that the parks and recreation commission is an agency of the county. The ordinance gives the county board a lot of leeway to give direction to the parks and recreation commission, if it chooses. For those reasons, he did not support Rabhi’s amendment.

Wes Prater clarified with Tetens that none of the proposed changes would increase NAPP’s budget. Responding to another query from Prater, Tetens said that the issue is how to allocate the millage revenues. While the parks and recreation commission has a certain amount of discretion over NAPP’s budget, it doesn’t have authority to make ordinance revisions – only the county board of commissioners can do that.

Bergman praised the parks and recreation commission and staff, and said it’s important to maintain the county’s natural areas, especially regarding invasive species. To her, the amendment was meant to be advisory in nature, sending a message to future commissions.

Felicia Brabec asked Tetens what the impact would be on administering the program, if hard percentages are in the ordinance. When the ordinance was originally developed, the percentages were relatively arbitrary, Tetens replied. Regarding the proposed minimum 25% spent on stewardship, right now the program probably wouldn’t need to spend that much, he said. And depending on how much additional land is acquired in the future, they might need to spend more than that in the coming years. It’s important to keep manageable the amount of land that the county owns, he said, and to ensure that the county has sufficient funds to sustain maintenance indefinitely.

Conan Smith felt that Rabhi’s intention was “spot on,” and perhaps one way to address it would be to add language to the ordinance that expresses a commitment to maintenance. He did not make a formal motion to add such language, however.

At this point Alicia Ping called the question, a parliamentary move aimed at ending discussion and forcing a vote. The motion to call the question passed on a voice vote.

Outcome on amendment: The amendment failed on a 1-9 vote, with only support from Yousef Rabhi. Ronnie Peterson was absent.

Natural Areas Preservation: Board Discussion – Final Comments

Wes Prater asked about the current fund balance for NAPP. About $1.9 million is set aside for stewardship, Bob Tetens said. The total fund balance for NAPP is between $7-8 million, he added.

Leah Gunn said the purpose of the ordinance change is to set policy. It’s not to take control of the budget. She trusts the parks and recreation commission, which is appointed by the county board, to make decisions about NAPP’s budget. The program is also overseen by another group, the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), she noted. The board needs to trust the people they’ve appointed to do the right thing, she concluded.

Outcome: The initial approval for changes to the NAPP ordinance passed unanimously. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting.

Later in the meeting, Rabhi stressed that he doesn’t distrust the parks staff or administration. He said he was simply trying to ensure that maintenance was financially supported at an adequate level. He understood that the staff is very well-qualified, as are members of the oversight bodies.

Countywide Transit Accord

In an item viewed largely as a formality, county commissioners were asked to “ratify” the articles of incorporation for a new countywide transit authority. The document was slightly revised from what the board had previously approved on Aug. 1, 2012 – on a 6-4 vote. The effort to more toward a broader public transit entity is being led by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA).

From left: County commissioners Dan Smith (R-District 2), Wes Prater (D-District 4), and Felicia Brabec (D-District 7).

The ratification of the articles of incorporation does not incorporate a new transit authority. Rather, it establishes the document that will be used to incorporate a new authority. The articles of incorporation will be filed by Washtenaw County with the state, when the AATA requests that it do so. After incorporation, the new authority – to be called The Washtenaw Ride – would not receive a transfer of AATA assets until a voter-approved funding mechanism has been approved.

The Sept. 5 agenda item to re-approve the articles of incorporation was prompted indirectly by the board’s action on Aug. 1, when it voted to amend the document that had already been approved by three other parties in a four-party transit agreement. Those other parties include the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Because of the amendment, the articles of incorporation had to be re-authorized by the other three parties.

The county board’s Aug. 1 amendment made a change to the size of the majority needed, in order for the new transit authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation – from 2/3 to 4/5 of the 15 board members. When the amended document was sent back to the Ann Arbor city council, the city’s legal staff made additional changes that were driven by a desire to harmonize the county board’s amendment with the rest of the document, as well as with Act 196 of 1986 – the act under which the new transit authority will be incorporated.

For example, the 4/5 majority requirement for changes to the articles of incorporation is at apparent odds with one kind of change to the articles specifically mentioned in Act 196 – a change in jurisdictions that are part of the authority. Act 196 explicitly indicates that a 2/3 vote is required. So an administrative change undertaken after the board’s Aug. 1 meeting was to add the clause: “… unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196.”

Although it wasn’t clear whether the changes required a re-vote by the county board of commissioners, some commissioners were concerned that the changes might be construed as substantive and contrary to the intent of the county board, which could become an unnecessary point of contention down the road. For more details on this series of changes, see Chronicle coverage: “Washtenaw Board to Re-Vote on Transit Accord.”

Earlier in the day on Sept. 5, the AATA board released a final draft of a 5-year service plan as part of a possible transition to The Washtenaw Ride. An 0.584 mill tax to support expanded service could be placed on the ballot by May 2013. [See Chronicle coverage: "Revised 5-Year Transit Plan: More Service, Cost."]

Outcome: With no discussion, the board voted 6-3 to ratify the articles of incorporation, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Wes Prater and Dan Smith. Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Ronnie Peterson were absent. Rob Turner, who had previously voted against the articles of incorporation, supported the item.

Public Health Budget

A net increase of 3.5 full-time-equivalent positions was part of the 2012-2013 department of public health budget on the Sept. 5 agenda for initial approval.

Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, and Jennifer Brassow, the public health department’s finance director.

Seven full-time-equivalent positions (a combination of part-time and full-time jobs) are being reclassified in the proposed budget. Last year, the department eliminated a net of nearly seven FTEs. The $10,998,870 budget includes a $3,553,575 allocation from the county’s general fund – unchanged from the previous year. Of that general fund allocation, $548,052 will be used to fund the county’s medical examiner program, according to a staff memo.

Unlike the county’s general fund budget, which is aligned to the calendar year, the public health budget runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, in sync with the state’s fiscal year.

This coming year, the public health budget also includes two new vaccines that can be administered at the department’s clinics. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, meningococcal vaccines will be available at $120 per child and $125 per adult. HPV vaccines will be administered for $140 per child and $145 per adult. [.pdf of full fee schedule]

Public Health Budget: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director, about possible state cuts to the budget, and what the impact might be on clients served by the department. Fleece replied that there are concerns about across-the-board state budget cuts – that’s part of the uncertainty that the department faces. Some new grants the department is seeking are seen as promising, as well as current grants that are typically renewed. But none of those funding sources are finalized. As for the impact of possible funding cuts on clients, Fleece said it wasn’t possible to know until those cuts are determined – the department will have to make adjustments during the year, as necessary.

Fleece also noted that the department is projecting that it will end the year without needing to tap its fund balance.

Wes Prater pointed out that the positions reflect increased pay grades, which will cost the county in the long-term. He wondered why they couldn’t hold the line with pay grades. Fleece replied that for several of the positions, the increases will be covered by billing Medicaid. He noted that the department tried cutting some nursing positions during the previous budget cycle, but it had been hard to manage without them. That’s why this budget calls for two public health nurse positions. Currently, the department is turning away clients because there aren’t enough nurses to handle the demand for services.

Barbara Bergman described the funding from Medicaid as important – if the county didn’t take advantage of that, it would be like “leaving money on the table,” she said. She also defended the higher pay grades, saying that the county has been hemorrhaging staff and that at some point, people won’t be able to afford to work for the county.

Yousef Rabhi clarified with Fleece that no jobs were actually being eliminated – positions are simply being reclassified, or created.

Dan Smith said he’d be voting against this budget because it created a net of 3.5 new positions. The county is facing a budget deficit, and in that context, no new positions should be added.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered if the budget cost the county more money. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that there’s no increase in general fund support for the department. Fleece added that the general fund support is the minimum that’s necessary in order to receive state funding.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the budget on a 8-2 vote. Voting against the budget were Alicia Ping and Dan Smith. Ronnie Peterson was absent. A final vote is expected at the board’s Sept. 19 meeting.

Food Policy Council Appointment

One appointment was made by commissioners at their Sept. 5 meeting. Sharon Sheldon of the Washtenaw County public health department was appointed to replace Jenna Bacolor on the Washtenaw County Food Policy Council. The slot is designated for someone in the public health sector. Sheldon also serves on the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) board and is a former board member of the nonprofit Growing Hope. She currently works as a program administrator in the county public health department’s health promotion/disease prevention division.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Sharon Sheldon to the food policy council.

Two appointments to fill vacancies on the Washtenaw County Historic District Commission had originally been on the Sept. 5 agenda but were pulled by board chair Conan Smith. Both slots had been for members of the general public. The board’s meeting packet had indicated that John McCurdy, an Ypsilanti Township resident and associate professor of history at Eastern Michigan University, was to be appointed to a term expiring on Dec. 31, 2012. Courtney Miller was to be appointed to a term ending on Dec. 31, 2013. She lives in Ypsilanti and previously served as a preservation planner with the city, serving as staff to the Ypsilanti Historic District Commission.

Smith stated that “technical” reasons resulted in the decision to remove the appointments from the agenda. Wes Prater asked Smith whether it was because the positions hadn’t been advertised, and Smith indicated that this was the case.

In an email to The Chronicle following the meeting, Smith clarified that although there is no requirement to “notice” these vacancies, he had “pledged to the commissioners that they would receive the appointments information further in advance and that I would personally vet them with staff. I hadn’t had a chance to do that when these two came to the board this evening.”

Ann Arbor Land Sale Policy

An item added to the Sept. 5 agenda during the meeting was a resolution to support a policy change in the city of Ann Arbor related to affordable housing.

From left: Commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Elaine Holleran, administrative analyst.

The resolution “encourages the Ann Arbor City Council to direct proceeds from the sale of the city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown to the city’s Housing Trust Fund, to be used to support sustainable, affordable housing.”

Earlier in the day, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had passed a similar resolution of support. County commissioner Leah Gunn (D-District 9) is chair of the DDA, and brought the resolution forward for the county board’s consideration.

At the city council’s Sept. 4 meeting, councilmember Sandi Smith –  who also serves on the DDA board – had announced her intent to bring a resolution to the council on Sept. 17 that would establish a policy of depositing proceeds from city-owned land sales into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The policy Smith is calling for would represent a return to a previous policy that was rescinded in 2007. That policy dates back to 1996. [For detailed Chronicle coverage, see: "City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy."]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners voted 8-1 to approve the land sale resolution. Dan Smith abstained. Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr. were absent.

At the board’s Sept. 6 working session, Alicia Ping announced that she had intended to vote against the land sale resolution. But she had stated the incorrect agenda item number when she cast her dissenting vote, and had voted unintentionally against the board’s approval of claims. She hoped the record could be clarified.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there are multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice

During public commentary, Seth Best told the board that he now lives in Ann Arbor, but he’s a former resident of Camp Take Notice. He was identified as a female at birth, but he’s been male in his mind and heart, he said. In 2006, he made a life-affirming decision to transition to become male. It cost him his job, and by 2008 he was homeless. He was in the South at the time, where the faith community had a lock on providing services for the homeless, he said. But because he was transgender, he was not welcome.

He came back to Michigan because he’d heard that the Delonis Center would accept him. They did, but had a 90-day limit on his stay there. That passed quickly, and again he found himself at the mercy of the faith community, he said. After a few weeks he learned about Camp Take Notice, and asked if he could join. He found himself where his gender didn’t matter. He was among like-minded people in a safe, drug-free place. He felt empowered as the camp grew, and it helped him. He’s no longer on the streets.

Best told commissioners that homelessness can’t be ended with just a house or a job. The root causes need to be addressed, and that’s related to mental health issues, he said, including drugs and alcohol.

Communications & Commentary: Camp Take Notice – Board Response

Several commissioners responded to Best’s commentary. Yousef Rabhi thanked him for coming, and called his story inspiring. Barbara Bergman noted that she serves on the board of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), and she hoped their outreach efforts had been of some assistance.

From left: County commissioners Rob Turner (R-District 1) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rob Turner said he’d first met Best at a recent town hall meeting regarding Camp Take Notice. The meeting had been hosted by the University of Michigan School of Social Work, and led by emeritus professor Bill Birdsall. It had been held on a Sunday, Turner said, because every Sunday the camp members have dinner together, followed by a town hall meeting. [For some of the history of Camp Take Notice, including the tradition of those Sunday gatherings, see Chronicle coverage: "Laws of Physics: Homeless Camp Moves" and "Laws of Physics II: Homeless Encampment."]

Turner said he’d been struck by the sense of community among members of the camp, which had been dislocated this summer from its most recent site in Scio Township. [The camp had been set up on property owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, off of Wagner Road near M-14.] Turner recalled that the county had helped fund assistance to provide housing, but several people were still without housing.

There are more than 4,000 homeless people in Washtenaw County, Turner said. The camp had been a place where people could feel safe, if they couldn’t stay at the Delonis Center. He said that several elected officials had been invited to the meeting at UM, including state Rep. Mark Ouimet, state Sen. Rebekah Warren, and sheriff Jerry Clayton. No county commissioners had been invited, Turner said, but he was the only elected official who came – he’d read about the meeting in the Chelsea Standard, and had brought his two daughters.

Recidivism into homelessness is high, Turner continued, because people often don’t have the ability to follow up with services that might help them stay in housing. Without community support, it’s hard. Turner said he’s impressed with the community that Camp Take Notice has built, but it’s not a perfect solution. He’d like to talk to their leadership, and try to tap into their volunteerism and community support to help some of the county’s programs. It could be a wonderful resource, he said.

Rabhi thanked Turner for attending the meeting at UM, and said he had also been involved – he’d gone out to the camp when the members were evicted, and had participated in a working group of people that included law enforcement, neighbors and others. Camp Take Notice worked hard to have a good relationship with the community, he said.

Bergman noted that the county has already provided considerable resources to Camp Take Notice. She felt that ending homelessness probably won’t happen, and curbing homelessness is a better goal.

Communications & Commentary: Fracking

Felicia Brabec highlighted a letter that was included in the board’s meeting packet from Paxton Resources LLC, indicating that the company has filed an application with the state to drill an exploratory oil and gas well in Saline Township. [.pdf of Paxton letter]

Brabec said she was very concerned. A Paxton representative had attended a working session earlier this year, and Brabec characterized his remarks about the board’s concerns regarding fracking as very dismissive and flippant. She wanted to revisit the issue.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he plans to schedule a session on the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane contamination. That situation involves decades-long industrial contamination at the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing plant in Scio Township, now owned by Pall Corp., that spread to the aquifer. The company has implemented court-ordered remediation, overseen to some extent by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. Rabhi said he planned to invite members of the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD) to address the board.

He indicated that there might be a tie-in to the fracking issue, and that it could be handled in the same working session.

Communications & Commentary: IT Award

Kevin Moore was on hand to present the county with a 2012 Digital Counties award from the Center for Digital Government, Digital Communities program and the National Association of Counties (NACo). Washtenaw County ranked 9th in the the category of counties with a population between 250,000 to 499,000. Moore noted that Washtenaw County has ranked in the top 10 for 9 of the past 10 years.

Andy Brush, who leads the county’s IT staff, thanked Moore for coming into “hostile territory.” [Moore works for Quest Software, which is based in the Columbus, Ohio area. So it was an allusion to a college football rivalry between the university in that city and one located in Ann Arbor.] Brush also thanked the board for their support of technology, which he said helps make democracy accessible.

Leah Gunn thanked the IT staff for being gracious in helping “technological idiots like me.” Barbara Bergman also thanked the staff, noting that people in her generation are “digital immigrants,” unlike children who are “born with mice in their hands.” Conan Smith joked that he’d like to see the county advance above 8th place next year. [This is apparently a standard joke. When the county was awarded the 4th place ranking in 2011, Smith said he looked forward to the day that the county would be ranked No. 3.]

Communications & Commentary: Voting Rotation

During the meeting, Alicia Ping noted that in the past, votes had been taken by calling the commissioners’ names in rotation – that is, each roll call vote began with a different commissioner, so that the same person wouldn’t end up voting last each time. Now, the rotation doesn’t change, and Ping expressed a desire to return to the former practice. It makes a difference, especially on controversial votes, she said.

The task for administering the board’s roll call votes falls to Pete Simms of the Washtenaw County clerk’s office. Responding to an email from The Chronicle, Simms said the decision about rotating the vote is made by the county clerk [Larry Kestenbaum] clerk at the meeting. [Simms currently fills that role.] In the future, the voting order will be rotated, he said.

Communications & Commentary: November Election

Thomas Partridge spoke during the both opportunities for public commentary. He noted that it was an historic day – the eve of the Democratic National Convention’s nomination of the first African American U.S. president, Barack Obama, for a second term. It’s important to support Obama and all progressive Democratic candidates in the Nov. 6 election, he said. It’s important to put forward a plan that puts services for people first, and cast aside the Republicans and their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who put money before people, Partridge said. He also called for a commitment to end homelessness, and support for public transit. During his second turn at public commentary, Partridge said he planned to be a write-in candidate for either the District 53 state representative or Ann Arbor mayor. [Partridge had previously lost to incumbent state Rep. Jeff Irwin in the District 53 Democratic primary on Aug. 7.]

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Ronnie Peterson

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Once again on the agenda for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting on Sept. 5 will be the articles of incorporation for a new transit authority. It’s expected to be a stamp of approval for some administrative changes, not a chance to change the document or rescind the board’s previous decision to approve the document.

Instead, the point of re-introducing the agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the board to affirm the administrative changes to the articles of incorporation that took place after the board’s Aug. 1 vote.

The administrative changes were already included in the documents by the other three parties to the four-party agreement when they subsequently ratified the document. Those parties are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is leading this effort. The Ann Arbor city council voted (for a third time) to approve the articles of incorporation at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting; the Ypsilanti city council voted at its Aug. 14 meeting (also for a third time); and the AATA board voted (for a second time) at its meeting on Aug. 16.

News of the agenda item came from an email sent by Washtenaw County board chair Conan Smith to other commissioners on the evening of Aug. 22. It’s not entirely clear whether the board will: (1) take a vote that affirms the administrative (non-substantive) nature of the changes that were made after the board approved the document on Aug. 1; or (2) take a vote that amends the document to match the version approved by the other three parties.

Previous re-votes have been driven by substantive amendments made by one of the parties to the agreement. For example, the Ypsilanti city council amended the four-party accord after the Ann Arbor city council first voted, on March 5, 2012. That amendment involved service charges applied to the respective cities’ existing millages. When the agreement went back to the Ann Arbor city council, that body amended the document further – which meant that it returned to the Ypsilanti city council for its approval again. The AATA board then ratified the agreement.

It was expected to be approved by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners without further substantive amendment. But on Aug. 1 the board made a change to the size of the majority needed, in order for the new transit authority’s board to change the articles of incorporation – from 2/3 to 4/5 of the 15 board members. That triggered the most recent round of approvals by the various bodies.

But those approvals incorporated some changes that were driven by a desire to harmonize the county board’s amendment with the rest of the document, as well as with Act 196 of 1986 – the act under which the new transit authority will be incorporated. For example, the 4/5 majority requirement for changes to the articles of incorporation is at apparent odds with one kind of change to the articles specifically mentioned in Act 196 – a change in jurisdictions that are part of the authority. Act 196 explicitly indicates that a 2/3 vote is required. So an administrative change undertaken after the board’s Aug. 1 meeting was to add the clause: “… unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196.”

The view of legal counsel for the four parties was apparently that it’s not actually necessary for those changes to be explicitly re-voted and affirmed by the county board of commissioners. However, there is at least some sentiment on the county board that the changes might be construed as substantive and contrary to the intent of the county board, which could become an unnecessary point of contention down the road.

The AATA is current finalizing the details of a five-year service plan that will need to be published as one of several conditions that must be met before the AATA could transition into the newly incorporated authority, to be called The Washtenaw Ride. This week, the AATA board called a special meeting for Sept. 5 to unveil that service plan.

Earlier in the year, the AATA had hoped to be in a position to possibly place a transit millage proposal on the ballot this November. But at this point, that won’t be possible. Any transit millage proposal will come at a later election.

After the jump, this report describes the administrative changes in question and possible misinterpretations.

Text of the Changes

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners made the following change to the articles of incorporation on Aug. 1:

SECTION 10.01: AMENDMENTS
These Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) four-fifths (4/5) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. [Amendment by Washtenaw County board]

That drove additional changes made by city of Ann Arbor legal staff before the Ann Arbor city council voted on the amended document. The staff memo from the council’s Aug. 9, 2012 meeting characterized the nature of the additional changes as following logically from the amendment that the county board had made on Aug. 1: ” … however, the implementation of 4/5th requirement necessitated changes to Section 5.01 to recognize no change was being made to the 2/3 vote of the Board related to budgets and since amendments are referenced in Section 5.01 the inclusion of the change to 4/5 vote for amendments.”

Text of Changes: Ordinary Votes

The first administrative change involves the basic rule that decisions of the board of the new transit authority require a simple majority – with two exceptions: (1) votes on the budget, and (2) votes to change the articles of incorporation. Because the Washtenaw County board changed the threshold from 2/3 to 4/5 on amendments to the articles in a subsequent section, the following section was changed to be consistent with that intent. Added text is in bold italics. Deleted text is in strike-through.

SECTION 5.01: PUBLIC MEETINGS
… Each director shall have one vote. Decisions of the Board require a majority vote of the directors appointed and serving at a Board meeting having a quorum present, except approval of the budget which requires approval of 2/3rds of all directors and amendment of the articles each which requires approval of 2/3rds 4/5th of all directors. [Administrative change.]

Text of Changes: Conflicts with Act 196

The second administrative change is related to the clause in Act 196 that describes how a local governmental unit not originally a part of the authority can join it. Here’s the section from Act 196:

124.457 Membership after formation of public authority; resolution; approval, execution, filing, and publication of amendment to articles. Sec. 7.
A political subdivision or a portion of a city, village, or township bounded by lines described in section 4 may become a member of a public authority after the public authority’s formation under this act upon resolution adopted by a majority vote of the members elected to and serving on the legislative body of the political subdivision requesting membership for all or a portion of the political subdivision and upon resolution adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members serving on the board of the public authority approving an amendment to the articles of incorporation of the public authority adding all or a portion of the political subdivision. The amendment to the articles of incorporation shall be executed by the clerk of the political subdivision, all or a part of which is being added and shall be filed and published in the same manner as the original articles of incorporation.

So that section of Act 196 explicitly calls for a 2/3 vote for changes to the articles that involve the addition of another political subdivision. The amendment made by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners raises that threshold for all votes on the articles. The administrative change interprets the board’s intent as not to raise the threshold to 4/5 for that specific type of change to the articles of incorporation, by adding a kind of savings clause:

SECTION 10.01: AMENDMENTS
These Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196.

Potential for Misunderstanding

The second administrative change depends on one interpretation of the county board’s intent – that it did not mean to lump the membership decisions into the kind of votes that would require a 4/5 majority. But the legislative record of that body might support the contention that the county board’s intent was, in fact, to apply the 4/5 majority requirement to all decisions involving the articles of incorporation – even those involving admission of an additional political subdivision into the transit authority.

That legislative record includes the following amendment, which was considered by the county board but rejected on July 11, 2012:

Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority. All amendments must comply with applicable state and federal laws. All amendments to the Articles of Incorporation become effective only after they are executed jointly by the Chairperson and by the Secretary of the Board of the Authority, ratified by each member political subdivision and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, filed with the recording officer of the Washtenaw County Clerk, and filed and published in the same manner as the original Articles of Incorporation.

Based on that rejected amendment – which was supported by only 4 of the 11 county commissioners – it’s possible to imagine an argument that the board’s failure to include the savings clause in a later amendment, which it actually passed, was in fact a conscious and deliberate choice by the board.

Had the board made that conscious choice, and had the other three parties ratified the articles without that savings clause, it’s possible to imagine a dispute arising out of the following scenario:

Township A opts out of the new Act 196 transit authority when it’s initially formed. Later, the township board of Township A decides that it would like to be admitted into the new authority – and takes a unanimous vote. Then the board of the new transit authority votes 10-5 to admit Township A into the authority.

Does Township A get in?

The board of Township A might well argue that under 124.457 Sec. 7 of Act 196, the conditions have been met for admission into the transit authority, and that it’s therefore entitled to be admitted. But a resident of Township A, who is opposed to paying the associated property tax, might well argue that the requirement in the articles of incorporation that a 4/5 majority be achieved has not been met for changing the articles of incorporation – a change made necessary by the admission of Township A.

That kind of legal dispute would be settled through interpretation of Act 196. Does Act 196 set forth conditions under which a political subdivision is entitled to be admitted into the transit authority? Or does Act 196 set forth minimum conditions that must be met before a political subdivision can be admitted into the transit authority?

The administrative change made by city of Ann Arbor legal staff eliminates the possibility of that kind of dispute.

And by taking some kind of vote on Sept. 5, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners has an opportunity to make its intent absolutely clear.

Coda

The text of the document attached to the Ann Arbor city council’s agenda on Aug. 9, which the council voted to approve, was the following, including the trailing extra period:

These Articles of Incorporation may be amended only upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the directors appointed and serving on the Authority unless another vote of Board is required under the terms of these Articles or provided for in Act 196..

It’s not clear if on Sept. 5 the county board will undertake an administrative change to eliminate the extra punctuation, and if so, which one of the two periods will be struck from the text.

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

The articles of incorporation are part of a four-party agreement to establish a framework for the possible expansion of governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The four-party agreement is between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The most recent iteration of the Ann Arbor city council’s approval came in response to an amendment made by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting.

The county board’s amendment changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board to change the authority’s articles of incorporation. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes). With a 7-4 vote, the Ann Arbor city council adopted the county’s change. Dissenting were Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

The council had already re-approved the transit documents once before, at its June 4, 2012 meeting, in response to a change to the four-party agreement that had been made by the Ypsilanti city council. The Ann Arbor city council had initially given its approval to the four-party agreement at its March 5, 2012.

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]