The main part of the adjustment was a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment was attributable to expenditures out of the housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board at the same meeting in a separate vote.

The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

County administrator Verna McDaniel and her finance staff had presented the budget on Oct. 2, 2013.

The $103,005,127 million budget for 2014 – which represents a slight decrease from the 2013 expenditures of $103,218,903 – includes putting a net total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs on “hold vacant” status, as well as the net reduction of a 0.3 FTE position. The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

McDaniel had previously indicated that the county would need to find $3.9 million in structural savings in 2014. On Oct. 2, she reported that $4.13 million in operating cost reductions had been identified.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

A total of 8.47 full-time-equivalent jobs will be put on “hold vacant” status, and a 0.3 FTE position will be eliminated.

The recommended budgets for the following years are $103,977,306 in 2015, $105,052,579 in 2016, and $106,590,681 in 2017. The budgets are based on an estimated 1% annual increase in property tax revenues. [.pdf of draft budget summary]

McDaniel had previously indicated that the county would need to find $3.9 million in structural savings in 2014. On Oct. 2, she reported that $4.13 million in operating cost reductions had been identified. Those include: (1) $2.89 million in proposed departmental reductions; (2) $688,000 in estimated increased revenues from fees and services, (3) $450,000 in reductions to county infrastructure allocations, and (4) $100,000 in cuts to “outside agency” allocations.

Among the recommended departmental reductions, $819,000 is estimated to come from putting eight positions in the sheriff’s office on hold-vacant status. Another $1.1 million is expected to come from health insurance premium-sharing.

The outside agency reductions include decreasing the annual amount for mandated animal control services – paid to the Humane Society of Huron Valley – from $500,000 to $470,000. According to the county’s financial staff, the $30,000 difference will be made up from revenues contributed to HSHV by other local government units in the county.

Another $30,000 in cuts comes from the allocation to the Barrier Busters program – from $120,000 in 2013 to $90,000 in 2014. The budget calls for cutting that allocation to $50,000 in each of the following three years.

This year, the county is supporting the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor with $51,230 from the general fund budget. In 2014, that amount will increase to $160,000, then subsequently increase to $200,000 in each of the following three years. The county is counting the $40,000 difference between the 2014 budget and the 2015-2017 budgets as a “savings” in 2014 because the county, prior to 2012, had supported the center at $200,000 annually.

There are also several proposed changes to the county’s budget policies. Highlights include:

• preparing the budget in four-year cycles, rather than the previous two-year periods.
• increasing the amount of a professional services contract that triggers the need for board notification from $25,000 to $50,000.
• adding a provision to give commissioners a seven-day period in which to review any contract over $150,000.
• increasing the target of the general fund’s fund balance from 8% to 20% of general fund expenditures.

Commissioner asked a wide range of questions before their vote to postpone, and debated the merits of a four-year budget. They’re expected to take up the budget resolution again on Oct. 16. They’ll also be discussing budget-related issues at their Oct. 3 working session.

A public hearing on the budget is set for Oct. 16, with final board approval likely on Nov. 20.

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

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!

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

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

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

Gillian Ream is the city of Ypsilanti’s representative on the newly expanded Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board. (Photos by the writer.)

The board gave public notice through a formal resolution that the organization would start using the new name specified in its newly-amended articles of incorporation: “Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.”

Eli Cooper, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager, was among the board members at the meeting who noted the substance underlying the addition of the word “area” to the organization’s name.

That substance is a recently approved revision to the articles of incorporation of the AATA, which added the city of Ypsilanti as a member to the authority. The AATA board had given final approval for that change at its June 20, 2013 meeting, after the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti had already approved the change. The revision to the articles to include Ypsilanti as a member is intended 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 did not do.

The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AAATA. 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. While there had been an outside chance that a millage request could be placed on the ballot as soon as November 2013, it now appears likely for May 2014.

Board discussion reflected the fact that the new acronym for the organization is a challenge to pronounce letter-by-letter. Suggestions had been made to adopt a convention of calling the AAATA “A3TA” or “Triple-A-TA” – but the board’s resolution indicated only that “TheRide” will continue as the organization’s mark.

Gillian Ream is the city of Ypsilanti’s new appointee to the expanded board of the AAATA. The Aug. 15 meeting was the second one she’d attended – but her first as a voting member.

The draft FY 2014 budget, for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, already reflects the membership of the city of Ypsilanti – as the proceeds from Ypsilanti’s transit millage are recognized under “local property tax revenue” instead of “purchase of service agreements.” That draft currently shows about $33.3 million in both revenues and expenditures.

The FY 2014 work plan – which that budget is supposed to support – was the second ceremonial but still substantive item on the board’s agenda. In addition to maintaining a range of basic transportation services, the work plan includes a number of other initiatives. Among them are projects that have been widely discussed for a longer time – like increased services in the “urban core,” the east-west commuter rail, north-south commuter rail (WALLY) and a high-capacity connector between northeast Ann Arbor through the University of Michigan campus and farther south to the Briarwood Mall area. Projects included in the work plan that have not received as much publicity include traffic signal prioritization (in favor of public transit vehicles) and a unified fare media (payment) strategy.

Sue Gott noted during the meeting that the work plan had been under development for five months. The plan was met with general enthusiasm by board members, with Susan Baskett reflecting the board’s sentiment: “I just love this document!” It was adopted on a unanimous vote.

The other voting item on the agenda was authorization to use three different printers for small-scale print jobs over the next five years. The only wrinkle to approval of that item came in connection to adjusting the sequence of resolutions, so that the resolution formally adopting the AAATA’s new name preceded the printing contracts.

Also during the meeting, the board heard a range of public commentary. Among the points made by the public was the fact that despite discussions about possible changes to Route #11 in Ypsilanti, Route #11 will remain unchanged this fall. Also during public commentary, the passing of longtime disability activist Lena Ricks was noted. Ricks had served on the AAATA’s local advisory council.

Notification of Name Change

The board considered a resolution giving formal notification of a name change from the “Ann Arbor Transportation Authority” to the “Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.”

Notification of Name Change: Background

The resolution indicated that as of Aug. 15, 2013, the transportation authority will begin using the new name on all official communications and transactions. That’s the date when the filings with the state became official.

The board’s Aug. 15 resolution indicated that the organization will continue to use “TheRide” in its marketing and branding. That’s partly a response to the increased challenge of pronouncing the acronym of the new organization letter-by-letter. Suggestions had been made to adopt a convention of calling the AAATA “A3TA” or “Triple-A-TA” – but the board’s resolution indicated only that “TheRide” will continue as the organization’s brand.

The name change reflects a more substantive revision to the articles of incorporation of the AATA, which added the city of Ypsilanti as a member to the authority. The AATA board gave final approval for that change at its June 20, 2013 meeting. By that time, 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]

The change to the articles to include Ypsilanti as a member is intended 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 did not do. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AAATA. 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.

While there had been an outside chance that a millage request could be placed on the ballot as soon as November 2013, it now appears likely for May 2014.

The change to the articles of incorporation also gave Ypsilanti the right to appoint a member of the board – which expanded from seven to nine members. Gillian Ream was appointed to the board by the city of Ypsilanti, and cast her first votes as a board member on Aug. 15.

The other additional board seat is to be appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. At the Ann Arbor city council’s Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, Jack Bernard was nominated to fill that spot. The council will vote on that appointment at its Aug. 19 meeting.

The articles of incorporation might need to be revised again soon, to accommodate the possible addition of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. At the Aug. 14, 2013 meeting of AAATA’s planning & development committee, it was discussed that the township had indicated some preliminary interest in joining the authority.

The interest of Ypsilanti Township in joining the AAAATA comes in context of the more limited “urban core” initiative, which came after a demised attempt to form a functioning countywide authority in 2012. During his report to the board on Aug. 15, AAATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that since the last meeting of the urban core partners on June 27, meetings have continued internally and also with representatives of partner municipalities. Those include the city of Ypsilanti, the townships of Ypsilanti and Pittsfield and the city of Saline.

Eventually the board would be presented with a recommendation, Ford said. Work continues on the details of the service plan, he said, to answer questions of local jurisdictions about the service they would be provided.

Notification of Name Change: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living addressed the board on the topic of the organization’s name.

AAATA board chair Charles Griffith talked with Ann Arbor CIL director of advocacy and education Carolyn Grawi before the Aug. 15 meeting started.

She recalled that about two years ago at a planning retreat, the question had come up about the name of a possible new transportation authority. At that time, the comment she made was that the transportation authority should stick with TheRide.

It doesn’t matter what entities are added – it’s open to everyone, she said. TheRide logo already appears on the organization’s buses and in e-mails that are sent. She felt that continuing to use TheRide would be important to maintain consistency.

People do get tripped up on the extra As, she allowed.

Grawi’s consistent view on the name of the organization actually dates back even longer than she indicated during public commentary. From The Chronicle’s Oct. 16, 2008 board meeting report:

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

Notification of Name Change: Staff Comment

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford stated, “Today it’s official!” Ford explained that Aug. 15, 2013, was the official transition date from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. “It’s a great day. Gillian, we’re happy to have you aboard as a voting member now!” Ford told Gillian Ream, who is the city of Ypsilanti’s appointee to the expanded board.

In more detail, Ford described how the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had indicated there would be no hold up of grant funds to the transportation authority due to the name change. The amended articles of incorporation had been sent to the Ann Arbor city clerk’s office, who in turn forwarded them to the Office of the Great Seal in Lansing. That had taken place on Tuesday, Ford reported. As part of the process, Ford continued, legal counsel had been consulted to determine the timing of the official change. In order to help make notice of the change more efficient, Ford explained that a resolution had been added to the meeting agenda. That would provide a one-page declaration of the name change – instead of providing the full articles of incorporation, which include the new name.

Plans for transitioning to the new name include changing the name on buses, where it’s needed. Ford noted that 52 out of the fleet of 80 buses have lettering indicating only TheRide. The word “area” will be added to the other 28 vehicles over the next few months, Ford said. There’s also a matrix for making other updates, such as letterhead, payroll, checks, and fare media. Vendors of the authority will also be notified, Ford said.

Ford restated his appreciation for everyone’s hard work who had contributed to the achievement of the milestone. He called it a great accomplishment. Ford announced that some kind of celebration was planned for September and details of that would be shared as they become firmer.

Notification of Name Change: Board Deliberations

Commenting on the resolution about the name change, Eli Cooper said he been struggling over the past several months with the “proper articulation” of the name of the organization, trying out variants – Triple-A-TA, A3TA, AAATA. However you express the name of the organization, Cooper ventured that it’s important to acknowledge and respect that the Ann Arbor area now has a transportation authority. It’s no longer just the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, he continued. The move is much more significant than just a name change, he said.

From left: AATA board members Gillian Ream and Sue Gott.

Sue Gott noted that similar feedback to Cooper’s had come during public commentary at the previous day’s planning and development committee meeting. She agreed with Cooper that some time should be spent in thinking about what name the organization eventually “lands on,” and it should be intentional about what usage is adopted. Board chair Charles Griffith noted that that the resolution itself included the idea of promoting TheRide as the organization’s brand. It could also be the shorthand for the way the agency is described.

Eric Mahler allowed that he was not an intellectual property lawyer, but suggested that it might be appropriate to think about possible copyright issues. If the organization lands on something that it wants to use, it would be important to make sure that someone else’s copyright is not being infringed.

Griffith noted light-heartedly that he learned from Gillian Ream that there could be some competition for the name AAATA from a species of insect. Ream quipped that it might become a mascot. On a serious note, Ream felt that because the staff had suggested continuing to promote TheRide as a shorthand, she also felt that made a lot of sense.

Outcome: the board unanimously approved the resolution formally notifying the public of the name change of the organization to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

FY 2014 Preparations

Preparations for the start of the 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, were reflected in an agenda item on the work plan. The board was asked to vote on the work plan, but the budget will not be presented until next month’s regular meeting, on Sept. 26.

FY 2014: Budget

The budget picture for the coming year will be eased somewhat compared to last year, when the AAATA had to scramble to reduce its planned budget based on roughly $800,000 less in state operating assistance (local bus operating funds) than had been planned for. Over the last year, the state legislature approved supplemental funding for transit agencies statewide that more than erased the original shortfall. The AAATA’s share of the statewide allocation was $985,000.

Instead of a planned use of fund balance this year, AAATA controller Phil Webb is now projecting that the organization will end the year with a $400,000 surplus. Of that amount, $300,000 would be used to restore the AAATA’s operating reserves to the 3-month minimum required by board policy. That will leave the AAATA with a $100,000 net surplus this year for a budget that called for $32.7 million in expenditures.

Next year’s FY 2014 budget is forecast to be balanced, with a $22,000 surplus. It relies on state operating assistance levels that would remain consistent with what the AAATA received this past year, after the supplemental funding was approved. That’s an assumption that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation has indicated is reasonable, according to AAATA officials.

Initial look at AAATA expenses for FY 2014 in the draft budget. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA.)

Initial look at AAATA revenues for FY 2014 in the draft budget. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA.)

FY 2014: Budget – Staff, Board Comment

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the AAATA had received its portion of the additional appropriation made by the state legislature, which would increase the percentage of operating expenses subsidized by the state during the current fiscal year from 27.11% to 30.65%. That resulted in a surplus for the first 10 months of the fiscal year. The unrestricted net asset level – the fund balance reserves – was also now over the three-month minimum level for the first time this fiscal year, Ford said.

Susan Baskett, in reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, noted that the advertising revenue was over budget by $185,000, which had far exceeded expectations. Baskett gave the report from that committee, in the absence of the other two committee members – Roger Kerson and Anya Dale.

FY 2014: Work Plan

The board was asked to approve a work plan for the coming fiscal year. It’s organized under five broad categories: (1) transportation services; (2) research and development initiatives; (3) programs, partnerships, and external relations; (4) capital projects; and (5) management responsibilities and initiatives. [.pdf of AAATA work plan]

In addition to maintaining a range of basic transportation services, the work plan includes a number of other initiatives. Among them are projects that have been widely discussed for a longer time – like increased services in the “urban core,” the east-west commuter rail, north-south commuter rail (WALLY) and a high-capacity connector between northeast Ann Arbor, through the University of Michigan campus and farther south to the Briarwood Mall area.

Projects included in the work plan that have not received as much publicity include traffic signal prioritization (in favor of public transit vehicles) and a unified fare media (payment) strategy.

FY 2014: Work Plan – Staff, Board Comment

Michael Ford told board members that he appreciated the hard work of the staff and input from the board on the work plan. He called it a new, detailed and transparent work process.

Sue Gott described the work plan as quite a comprehensive summary of all the business and services conducted by the AAATA. She told other board members that even though the date on the document has been updated, it’s essentially the same document that the board had reviewed at its July meeting. No further substantial edits had been undertaken. She described the document as having been under consideration by the planning and development committee for the last five months. It’s an outcome of the board’s retreat, she said, and reflects a large amount of input from the staff and board members.

Board chair Charles Griffith said he was glad to see plans for a number of performance measures that would relate to the elements of the work plan. Susan Baskett said the document makes very clear what areas the staff is working on and makes it possible for anyone to come forward and ask: Who is doing what, and what are your priorities? “I just love this document,” she said. And she thanked the staff for putting it together.

Eli Cooper supported the resolution and felt it was important to highlight the items that were described as basic services. The organization’s goal is to move people around the community and that’s what the work plan focuses on, he said. But the work plan also includes a look ahead at the deployment of advanced technology – whether it’s signal priority systems, or evaluating “big data,” he noted

The basic core service in and of itself should be celebrated, Cooper contended, but the work plan is also a forward-looking program of work that will be done in the coming year – to prepare for many years to come. There’s a lot in the work plan to continue the excellent service that’s already provided within the community, Cooper said. But it also looks forward in a way that will continue to allow the AAATA to position itself as the “leading public transportation authority in the state.”

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the fiscal year 2014 work plan.

Printing Services Contract Authorization

The board was asked to authorize the purchasing of printing services for small print jobs over the next five years from possibly three different printers: Dollar Bill, Green Light Graphics and Print-Tech Inc.

Even though the resolution giving the authorization mentioned smaller print jobs of $3,000 or less, board approval was needed because the total cost was expected to exceed $100,000 for the five-year period. The threshold for required board approval is $100,000.

The Ride Guide, which contains all the routes and schedules, is printed under a separate contract from those the board was asked to authorize under the Aug. 15, 2013 resolution.

Printing Services Contract Authorization: Board Deliberations

The item on print jobs was listed first among the voting items on the agenda. When board chair Charles Griffith invited discussion on the item, Sue Gott wondered if the resolution wording should reflect the new name of the organization. In the board packet the resolution referred to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, without the word “Area.”

AAATA board member Eric Mahler.

Griffith observed that the board had not yet adopted the resolution formally notifying everyone of the name change. The situation elicited some laughs around the board table. Gott assured everyone she was simply seeking clarification. Griffith then ventured that a motion to table might be the correct parliamentary procedure. Eric Mahler noted that it was important procedurally to switch up the order. And he felt that the board had some flexibility to switch the order of the items. So the board first dispatched the item on the official name change of the organization.

When the board returned to the print job resolution, Griffith noted that the only reason it was coming to the board at all was that the cumulative total amount over five years was expected to exceed the $100,000 threshold triggering the requirement for board approval.

Susan Baskett asked for clarification about the protocol for passing resolutions, venturing that it might be appropriate to read the text of the resolution into the record. Even if it’s not protocol to read the entire resolution, she indicated it would be helpful to the public and the community at large to summarize the content of the resolution. Griffith invited Baskett to do that. So Baskett then reviewed the key points of the resolution. During this summary, she noted that the three companies were non-union, but they were local.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the resolution on print job contracts.

University of Michigan

The meeting included a number of threads tied either directly or indirectly to the University of Michigan.

UM: Board Appointment

Pending confirmation by the Ann Arbor city council to the expanded board of the AAATA is Jack Bernard, who’s 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.

Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

If Bernard is confirmed by the city council at its Aug. 19 meeting, that would bring the total of UM employees on the board to three, or one-third of the nine members. The other two UM employees on the AAATA board are Sue Gott (the university’s head planner) and Anya Dale (a representative in the office of sustainability).

UM: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen offered a comment on page 13 of the board’s information packet – a point made in CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the board. There is a paragraph, Mogensen said, about the ExpressRide service. [That service operates between Ann Arbor and Chelsea, and Ann Arbor and Canton. The University of Michigan had recent stepped forward to make up an operating deficit on the service to ensure its continuation for the next year. The majority of riders who use the service are UM employees, and their fares are subsidized by UM. The AAATA has adopted a policy of not using the local transit millage to support this service].

In describing refinements to the delivery model, Ford’s report stated: “… we are working to ensure that the role and funding level is fair and appropriate for the University of Michigan.” Mogensen told the board that he felt this is a public policy issue going beyond staff-to-staff type conversations, or even board conversations. Instead, Mogensen felt this issue needed to be thought through at the public level.

A while back, Mogensen told the board, he was trying to find out what the parking and transportation budget was for the University of Michigan. He’d gone through all the various public documents and a librarian had finally said that it’s not available in that much detail – and so he would have to go to the Fleming Administration building. So he did. They weren’t exactly sure what to do with him, Mogensen reported, but he told them what he was looking for. Finally he’d been told, “Sir, this information is available only on a need-to-know basis.” Quipped Mogensen, “And apparently I didn’t need to know!”

What he’d wanted to know was where the money comes from, what the various streams of funding are and how it’s allocated. By way of contrast to the University of Michigan, Mogensen said, if you go down to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, all that information is very much available. It’s important to have that kind of information, he said. He cautioned the board that this issue would come up again in a much more significant way, as discussions about the connector study move forward. The numbers connected to the connector study are likely to impact public policy issues and would change the system as a whole, he said.

UM: M-Ride Fares

At the planning and development committee meeting the previous day, Gillian Ream had pressed the question of why passenger fare revenues were down but ridership is going up. That question had arisen as the committee discussed the draft budget for FY 2014. AAATA controller Phil Webb responded to Ream’s question by attributing the phenomenon to the mix of passengers. About 50% of passengers are riders for whom someone other than the passenger pays the fare – such as the University of Michigan’s M-Ride or the getDowntown’s go!pass program. There are also other discount programs, Webb explained.

AAATA controller Phil Webb makes a literal point before the meeting. Seated next to him is Bill De Groot, an AAATA financial analyst and planner.

Webb described how the M-Ride agreement is structured, which pays for about 2.7 million rides per year. The arrangement between UM and the AAATA is structured to provide $1 per ride of revenue to the AAATA. Some of that $1 per ride is covered by state and federal matching money earned by the UM through its own transportation program, Webb said.

But there’s a two-year delay between the logging of the ridership in the national transit database and receipt of that money. For instance, Webb explained, in 2011 UM put the information in from the FY 2011 year, and in FY 2013, the university receives a certain amount of money because of that program, which is conveyed to the AAATA. And that reduces the amount of cash that the university pays to the AAATA. The AAATA still gets a dollar for each of the 2.7 million rides – it’s just that $1.2 million of it shows up as federal and state revenue. And the cash payment from UM to the AAATA is about $1.5 million. The cash amount – which the AAATA recognizes as passengers fares – went down this year because the federal portion went up.

UM: Connector Study

The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for possible high-capacity transit in 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.

Area of study for the connector. (Image links to study website.)

A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor. That feasibility relied on the large number of university-affiliated ridership anticipated in the center of the corridor.

Even among advocates of the project, there’s a strong consensus that the university should bear a substantial portion of the cost, because the university will reap a substantial amount of benefit.

During his report to the board, Michael Ford described how the staff had been working internally on the connector study to develop a matrix to assign responsibilities that would advance the project. Three subcommittees of the management committee had been formed, he reported: a government and finance committee; alignment and station location committee; and transit operations and land use.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Aug. 15 meeting, the AAATA 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: Passing of Lena Ricks

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, alerted the board to a loss in the community – Lena Ricks. Grawi described Ricks as a long-time local advisory council (LAC) member. [The LAC is a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues.]

The memorial for Rick’s was being held on Saturday, Aug. 17 at King of Kings Lutheran Church at 2 p.m. She hoped that the community would recognize Rick’s hard work and devotion to disability rights. Grawi described Ricks as the “matriarch of the disability movement,” beginning with work almost 40 years ago.

From a note forwarded to The Chronicle by Jennifer Chapin-Smith of Partners in Personal Assistance:

Lena Ricks, 76, a lifelong advocate for people with disabilities, died August 14. Until her death she served as the Executive Director of Partners in Personal Assistance (PPA), which she founded in 1999. The nonprofit ensures that people with disabilities live independent, self-governed lives by directing the personal assistance they receive.

Ricks moved from Tennessee to Ann Arbor, where she was one of the founders of the disability rights and service nonprofit organization Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living in 1976. She served as Washtenaw Community College’s Special Needs Office Associate Director in the 1980s. She worked as a counseling social worker for many years. She served on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s LAC and the Washtenaw County National Alliance on Mental Illness Board of Directors.

Ricks earned her Masters of Social Work at Eastern Michigan University in 1994 and a bachelor’s of business administration at Cleary University in 1984.

Ricks is survived by daughter Tammy and son-in-law Tommy Henderson, son Geno and daughter-in-law Ann Ricks, son Darrell and daughter-in-law Rhonda Ricks, grandchildren April, Charlie, Chad, Brandi, Kayla, Cassidy, Ranay, Jami, Michael, Kyle, Rachel, Jasmyne, great-grandchildren Chase, Carter, Geno II, Jordan, Libby, Jaxson, Korbin, Colt, several nieces and nephews, and special family friends Jody Burton-Slowins, Dr. Jennifer Doble, Daphne O’Garro and Awa Abdul.

Her husband Virgil Ricks, mother Vadie Sturgill, and siblings Glen, Kelly, Frank, J.D and June Sturgill predeceased her.

Ricks’ memorial service will be held at King of Kings Lutheran Church, 2685 Packard Ann Arbor, Saturday, Aug. 17 at 2 p.m.

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

Ford announced that the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA) board, at its Aug. 7 meeting, had approved a master agreement with local transit providers in the area of the authority. [The RTA was established by the state legislature in late 2012 as a transit authority encompassing a four-county region – Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties, plus the city of Detroit. The RTA could generate revenue for itself through vehicle registration fees or a property tax levy, if voters were to approve either of those measures. For its initial administrative operations, however, the RTA faces a revenue challenge.]

The master agreement included an agreement to use a reduced portion of the state’s local bus operating (LBO) funds for initial operations of the RTA, Ford reported. The master agreement also ensures that any “coordination penalties” would be returned to the local agencies, Ford said. Ford offered his thanks to local leaders as well as the Washtenaw County board representatives to the RTA [Richard Murphy and Liz Gerber] for their diligence and protection of the AAATA.

Also during the Aug. 7 meeting, the RTA board had interviewed candidates for the chief executive officer position, Ford reported. They’d voted to hire John Hertel, who’s the current director of SMART. From Ford’s written report to the board:

The Board interviewed three candidates for CEO, Al Martin (former DDOT director), Larry Salci (former SEMPTA director), and John Hertel (current SMART director). At the end there were six recommendations for Hertel (Wayne (2), Oakland (2), and Macomb (2) and 3 for Salci (Washtenaw (2), and Detroit (1).

Ford told the board that he and board chair Charles Griffith were scheduled to meet with Hertel later in the month. Ford said he also had meetings scheduled with the executive directors of the People Mover and Detroit Dept. of Transportation.

Ford noted that the RTA would be convening an October board meeting in Ann Arbor – on Oct. 2 at 2 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi – Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living director of advocacy and education – suggested that the AAATA step up its communication about the RTA with the Ann Arbor community. She wanted the AAATA website to include descriptions of activity at the RTA. She felt that local residents might not necessarily look outside of the AAATA to find out what’s going on with the RTA, but they would visit the AAATA website.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center Construction

Ford gave the board an update on progress toward completing the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

View of construction on the new Blake Transit Center from the Fourth and William parking structure, looking east. On completion of the new building, the existing structure and peaked awning will be demolished and the driveway will be configured to move bus traffic from Fourth Avenue eastward to Fifth Avenue – sometime by the end of 2013. (Photo and illustration by the writer on Aug. 16, 2013.)

Ford described the project as within budget. However, the target date for completion will need to be extended past the target of the end of October. He described the delay as resulting from difficulty in coordinating workers from different trades in a very small space, and a project that requires steps to be completed in sequence.

At the planning and development committee meeting held the day before, Terry Black – AAATA’s manager of maintenance, who is overseeing the construction project at the staff level – had described the project as within budget. However, he said the project had needed to use some of the contingency funds. Black also noted that the project has two phases – the completion of the new Blake Transit Center building, followed by the demolition of the existing building and the completion of the driveway that will connect Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue.

Black estimated the time from the date of completion of the new transit center building to the opening of the new driveway at about one month. During that committee meeting – when asked by Eli Cooper to characterize the delay in terms of weeks or months – Black indicated that the delay could be measured in weeks.

Factoring in the one month it would take to finish the driveway phase of the project, Black allowed that it might be close to Christmas before all components of the project are done.

Comm/Comm: AirRide Service

The AirRide service to Detroit Metro Airport remains steady, Ford said during his report to the board, averaging more than 1,200 rides for each of the last three weeks.

Comm/Comm: New Website

The launch of a new website for the AAATA has been delayed for a few months now. Ford indicated that the launch of the new website had been delayed by another week, as developers continue to work on outstanding issues. [The issues relate to real-time information that will provided about the exact location of buses. The remaining challenge is to convey accurately that a vehicle that has arrived at the end point of its route is ready to head back in the reverse direction.] Ford hoped that the new website would be ready by the end of August.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen suggested that the archive of meeting minutes and information packets be improved on the AAATA website.

Comm/Comm: Rail Demo at Heritage Festival

During his report to the board, Michael Ford noted that during the Ypsilanti Heritage Festival over the next few days, SEMCOG would be hosting a static display of rail cars in Depot Town next to the Ypsilanti Freighthouse – similar to the display that had been held in connection with the Mayor’s Green Fair in Ann Arbor in June.

Comm/Comm: Route Changes

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen reminded the board that on June 20, 2013, the board had approved the route and schedule changes. He hadn’t been able to attend that meeting. One of the proposed changes involved changes to Route #11, with plans to reconfigure it. As a result of public feedback, the decision was made not to make those changes.

As a resident of a facility that’s located on Route #11, he knew that there were a lot of people who ride that route who were interested in the issue. And now there’s a lot of confusion about what was going to happen. Mogensen noted that now there’s just a list of routes with the changes, and Route #11 is not included on the list. You really have to go into depth to figure out why and how that happened, he said. So he suggested that along Route #11, the AAATA could put up signs explaining what is happening.

After the meeting, AAATA manager of service development Chris White clarified for The Chronicle that the outcome of the process was that no changes were made to service on Route #11.

Comm/Comm: Briarwood Mall

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living reported that she looked at the new bus stop area that’s being created near Briarwood Mall. She shared some concern about the configuration of sidewalks and ramps. The sidewalk that has been built is 10 feet wide, which meets the minimum requirements, she allowed. But once you add in garbage cans and shelters and people waiting in line, she felt that there would not be enough room.

Grawi also suggested installing an additional ramp to eliminate the need of some commuters to traverse multiple lanes of traffic within the Briarwood Mall area in order to get to the existing sidewalk ramp.

Comm/Comm: General Complaint

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge addressed the board as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council. He was there to advocate for all those who need transportation services and all those who could benefit from those services. He suggested that all of the board’s committee meetings should be held on the same day each month, one after the other, so that people could easily attend all of them. He called for the end of discrimination by the city and county government. He called for a nondiscriminatory countywide transportation system. He also accused the SelectRide company of egregious repeated acts by their employees that should be ended.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Gillian Ream.

Absent: Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 26, 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 Area 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 AAATA’s fiscal year starts in October. So staff are working to finalize an FY 2014 budget to support that work plan. That budget will be presented to the board at its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting.

The budget picture for the coming year will be eased somewhat compared to last year, when the AAATA had to scramble to reduce its planned budget based on roughly $800,000 less in state operating assistance (local bus operating) than had been planned for. Over the last year, the state legislature approved supplemental funding for transit agencies statewide that more than erased that shortfall. The AAATA’s share of the statewide allocation was $985,000.

Instead of a planned use of fund balance this year, the AAATA controller Phil Webb is now projecting that the organization will end the year with a $400,000 surplus. Of that amount, $300,000 would be used to restore the AAATA’s operating reserves to the 3-month minimum required by board policy. That will leave the AAATA with a $100,000 net surplus this year for a budget that called for $32.7 million in expenditures.

Next year’s FY 2014 budget is forecast to be balanced, with a $22,000 surplus. It relies on state operating assistance levels that would remain consistent with what the AAATA received this past year, after the supplemental funding was approved. That’s an assumption that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation has indicated is reasonable, according to AAATA officials.

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

The millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution – approved by the council at its May 20, 2013 meeting – was 1.0969 mills. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage should have been listed as 1.10 mills. The corresponding correction from the total millage rate was from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

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

The decision came over dissent from two board members – John Mouat and Sandi Smith, who perceived the city council’s changes to the budget as arbitrary. They criticized the process – which is set forth by the state’s enabling legislation for downtown development authorities.

During the council’s debate on the city’s budget, of which the DDA is a component unit, councilmembers had argued about how to handle the additional tax increment finance (TIF) revenue that will be captured by the DDA this year. In the end, they modified the DDA’s budget by adding in the roughly $570,000 in additional TIF revenue – and by transferring $300,000 of that to the DDA’s housing fund. In its May 20 budget resolution, the council also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of TIF revenue on the replacement of light poles on Main Street.

Based on the DDA board’s discussion on June 5, little interest appears to exist on the DDA board for covering the difference between the $516,000 total estimated cost of the light pole replacement and the $268,000 left in the TIF fund after the $300,000 transfer to the housing fund. Based on the June 5 discussion, the DDA board feels that the city council should appropriate the difference out of the city’s general fund reserve.

Compared to the FY 2014 budget that the DDA originally submitted to the city, the TIF revenue now anticipated for FY 2014 is roughly $568,000 more – a total of $4,501,347. [.pdf of revised FY 2014 DDA budget]

At its meeting on June 3, 2013, the council passed a resolution encouraging the DDA board to consider allocating some of the discretionary funds in its FY 2014 budget to pay for three police officers to be assigned to the downtown area. Between the DDA’s TIF fund ($100,000) and the DDA’s parking fund ($300,000), the FY 2014 budget includes a total of $400,000 that’s labeled “discretionary.” The council’s resolution asked the DDA board consider that request for police funding at its “next regularly scheduled meeting” – which was June 5, 2013.

The board responded to the council’s request through a referral of the issue by board chair Leah Gunn to the DDA’s operations committee.

Also at its June 5 meeting, the DDA made final revisions to its current year’s budget to square it up with actual expenses and revenues to date. [.pdf of revised FY 2013 budget]

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Budget deliberations pushed the meeting until nearly 2 a.m.

The council considered several amendments to the FY 2014 budget. But the total impact on the general fund of all the successful amendments was not significant, leaving mostly intact the “status quo” budget that had been proposed by city administrator Steve Powers a month earlier. That was a budget with $82.9 million in general fund expenditures. [.pdf of one-page summary of possible amendments] [.pdf of longer detail on FY 2014 budget amendments]

Most of the successful amendments were voted through with relatively little debate, and involved amounts of $100,000 or less. For example, the Washtenaw Health Initiative received an additional $10,000 allocation, and the Miller Manor senior meals program received a $4,500 boost. Allocations to human services nonprofits were increased by $46,899. And the general fund balance was tapped to conduct a $75,000 study of sidewalk gaps so that projects could be prioritized.

The affordable housing trust fund received an infusion of $100,000 from the general fund reserve. The council also approved an amendment prohibiting the spending of $326,464 that was set aside in the FY 2014 budget for public art, in anticipation of a final affirmative vote on a change to the public art ordinance. A vote on amending that ordinance is likely to take place on June 3, before the fiscal year begins on July 1.

The “parks fairness” amendment, which came after deliberations on all other amendments, was a straightforward calculation in accordance with a city policy. The policy requires that any increase in general fund spending be matched by a parallel increase for parks. The council approved that $22,977 amendment with scant remark.

Just three issues took about 80% of the council’s roughly 4.5-hour budget deliberations: (1) the budget of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, (2)  the possible reduction of the 15th District Court budget in order to pay for three additional police officers, and (3) the proposed restoration of loose leaf collection in the fall.

Of the most time-consuming items, the change to the DDA’s budget was ultimately approved – after escalating political rhetoric led to a kind of compromise that had almost unanimous support. The DDA compromise budget amendment called for a $300,000 transfer from the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund to the DDA’s housing fund, and a recommendation to spend $300,000 of TIF money on the replacement of Main Street light poles. Only Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) dissented.

The lone dissenting vote on the budget as a whole was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who issued a verbal spanking of her colleagues and the city administrator – for proposing and approving a budget she did not feel reflected a priority on public safety. Countering Lumm was Taylor, who pointed out that roughly half of the general fund expenditures are related to public safety.

Budget: Time Overview

For a time-stamped chronological account of the deliberations that was posted live during the meeting, see “May 20, 2013 Ann Arbor City Council: In Progress.” The summary of deliberations below is presented in the rough order of time spent on each of the amendments.

FY 2014 budget: Time spent on deliberations, by topic. The proportionate times are estimated from time stamps from The Chronicle’s live updates. Time from the roughly 10-minute recess was assigned to the immediately preceding item of discussion, which was the DDA budget debate.

Occupying most of the council’s time – around an hour and a half – was discussion of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s budget. The council wound up with a compromise that transferred $300,000 from the tax increment finance (TIF) fund to the housing fund, and a recommendation from the city council to spend $300,000 on replacement of light poles on Main Street. The sole dissent on the compromise was Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The second-longest amount of time spent in the council’s budget deliberations related to a service previously provided by the city but discontinued a few years ago: collection of loose leaves in the fall. The loose leaf collection program invited residents to push leaves into the street, where the leaves were collected on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood schedule. That’s been replaced with collection through carts and bags – a purely “containerized” approach. The discussion lasted over an hour and did not result in the restoration of the mass leaf collection service. The proposal got support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

And taking a bit under an hour’s worth of deliberations was a proposal to reduce the 15th District Court’s budget by $270,000 and to use the recurring savings to hire three additional police officers. That proposal failed on a 5-6 vote – with support only from Lumm, Anglin, Kailasapathy, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). A proposal to fund a single police position – by eliminating an FTE in the city attorney’s office through a retirement – received shorter debate and less support, with yes votes coming only from Lumm and Kailasapathy.

DDA Budget: Background

In the summary of possible amendments compiled for the council before the meeting, there were competing amendments on the DDA budget – one championed by mayor John Hieftje, with the other put forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Both dealt with the fact that the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture is now expected to be $568,000 more in FY 2014 than the roughly $3.9 million on which the DDA based its FY 2014 budget.

Hieftje’s version of the amendment specified three areas on which the additional revenue was supposed to be spent: housing, replacement of failing Main Street lamp posts, and the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK. It specified a $100,000 transfer to the DDA’s housing fund. Kunselman’s version was confined to housing, and transferred $500,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

The council considered Kunselman’s amendment, and ultimately approved it in amended form – transferring $300,000 to the housing fund from the TIF fund and recommending that an additional $300,000 be spent on light poles on Main Street.

By way of background, the DDA is financially a “component unit” of the city. The DDA captures some of the taxes that would otherwise go to the jurisdictions that levy taxes within a specific geographic area. But it’s just the initial increment – between the taxable value of an unimproved property and the value of a property after improvements are built – on which the Ann Arbor DDA captures taxes.

The Ann Arbor DDA was established under a city ordinance in Chapter 7 of the city code, which appears clearly to limit the amount of the TIF revenue the DDA is supposed to receive to an amount that’s a function of the forecasted revenue in the TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA.

The Ann Arbor DDA has given Chapter 7 a different interpretation since 2011, when the implications of Chapter 7 were reportedly first noticed. On the Ann Arbor DDA’s interpretation, the relevant language does not actually limit the amount of TIF revenue that the DDA receives. That led to an attempt earlier this spring by the city council to clarify the language of the ordinance so that the DDA did not have the flexibility of interpretation in the future. At its May 6, 2013 meeting, the council postponed that effort at clarification until September 2013.

The Ann Arbor DDA also operates the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city. Under the terms of that contract, the city receives 17% of gross revenues from the parking system.

With respect to the DDA’s budget, the state’s enabling statute for downtown development authorities indicates that an authority is supposed to adopt its budget after the governing municipality approves it [emphasis added]:

125.1678 Budget; cost of handling and auditing funds. Sec. 28. (1) The director of the authority shall prepare and submit for the approval of the board a budget for the operation of the authority for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall be prepared in the manner and contain the information required of municipal departments. Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality. Funds of the municipality shall not be included in the budget of the authority except those funds authorized in this act or by the governing body of the municipality. (2) The governing body of the municipality may assess a reasonable pro rata share of the funds for the cost of handling and auditing the funds against the funds of the authority, other than those committed, which cost shall be paid annually by the board pursuant to an appropriate item in its budget

However, the Ann Arbor DDA board has typically adopted its budget before the city council approves the city’s fiscal year budget, of which the DDA’s budget is a component. That was the case this year as well, when the DDA board adopted budgets for FY 2014 and 2015 on Feb. 6, 2013. [.pdf of DDA FY 2014-15 budget]

DDA Budget: Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations by reminding his council colleagues of some proposals he’d mentioned at the council’s May 6, 2013 meeting. That was the occasion on which the council postponed the DDA ordinance amendments until Sept. 3.

On May 6, Kunselman had sketched out a number of possible proposals: (1) 10% of the DDA’s TIF capture would be earmarked for affordable housing; (2) the DDA’s housing fund would be reserved for affordable housing at 30% of the area’s average median income; (3) 50% of the city of Ann Arbor’s TIF “rebate” would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund; and (4) for the FY 2014 budget, $0.5 million of the DDA’s TIF would be transferred to the DDA’s housing fund.

On May 20, Kunselman continued deliberations by specifying how he wanted to see the DDA spend the $500,000 that his budget amendment would transfer into the DDA housing fund. Kunselman wanted it to be used on Miller Manor, an Ann Arbor housing commission property located at 727 Miller Ave. Miller Manor is not located within the DDA district.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The size of the dot is proportional to the number of units in the location. The largest dot is Miller Manor. (Map by The Chronicle. Image links to interactive map.)

However, under an adopted Ann Arbor DDA policy, investments of DDA TIF can be made outside the geographic boundary of the district, as long as they are within 0.25 miles of the boundary. The western edge of the DDA district boundary on Miller Road is Chapin Street, and Miller Manor is located about 0.21 miles from Chapin – within the area described in the DDA’s policy. But Kunselman noted that the city could not tell the DDA how to spend the money – saying the city could simply put the money into the housing fund. And that meant it would have to be spent on housing.

Leaving most of the additional money in the TIF fund – as mayor John Hieftje’s proposed amendment would do – still provided complete flexibility for the DDA to spend the money as it wished, cautioned Kunselman. Under his own amendment, Kunselman argued, the DDA would need to spend it all on housing. But he argued for spending the money on Miller Manor, because it was public housing stock, which was meant to be accessible to those with incomes of 30% of the area median income (AMI). Kunselman described the kind of housing the DDA had supported with City Apartments, a private development under construction at First and Washington, as supporting the 80% AMI level.

Kunselman also contended that it was not a surprise to anyone that the DDA would be receiving the additional $568,000, and he didn’t understand why the DDA had not put that additional revenue in its proposed budget when it was adopted in February. Kunselman called it a “lowballed” budget. The additional funds had not been brought up until he’d advanced his proposed amendment to the DDA ordinance earlier in the spring, he said. Kunselman’s contention was that the DDA could have reasonably known that its TIF revenue would be closer to $4.5 million than to the $3.9 million it budgeted near the end of February.

Hieftje invited city CFO Tom Crawford and Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to the podium to answer questions. Hieftje asked Pollay when the numbers for the tax assessment are available to the DDA. She said that the DDA saw the numbers when the council did – April 1. Pollay contended that the DDA is not privy to the estimates that are being formulated. So the DDA does its best to estimate based on previous years, she said.

Kunselman asked Crawford to confirm what Crawford had told Kunselman in response to the question of when estimates of assessed value were available – saying he’d been told it was Jan. 1. Crawford said there are a lot of things that go on between January and April. It’s closer to April when it’s final, explained Crawford. But Kunselman pointed out that the board of review notices are sent out in March, which means that the numbers are available before then. Crawford responded by saying that “they have to process that stuff.” It’s around April that the numbers are actually known. Crawford allowed that estimates can be done on fairly good data in January, but the final numbers are available in April.

Pollay then responded to Hieftje’s prompting about the nature of the DDA board’s discussion at a special meeting on May 13. Hieftje contended that the DDA achieved a quorum on that occasion and reached a consensus on the allocation of additional TIF revenue. A quorum would be seven of the 12-member DDA board.

Later in the meeting, Hieftje described his own resolution as based on the “DDA action last week.” [In an email to the council, DDA board chair Leah Gunn had characterized the May 13 meeting as "informal." That description is consistent with the fact that no resolutions were voted on or discussed. Gunn's email indicated that seven board members had attended. The Chronicle recorded only the following six board members as present: Leah Gunn, Joan Lowenstein, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Newcombe Clark.]

Pollay told the council that there’s an interest on the board in replacing the lamp posts on Main Street, which are rusting from the inside.

Ann Arbor Main Street rusted light pole. (Photo from April 2012 by city of Ann Arbor staff.)

Pollay also indicated that the DDA wants to support some affordable housing efforts and economic development, which are council priorities. She described the possibility of sending DDA board members and SPARK officials to other communities to find out what they’re doing better than Ann Arbor. Specific places to visit, for example, were Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and Madison, Wisconsin. [.pdf of DDA's summary of May 13, 2013 meeting]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the amendment proposed by Kunselman is to allot 100% of the additional TIF revenue to affordable housing. She asked Pollay how those funds would be used in the future.

Pollay responded by saying that that the DDA is planning to meet with housing providers in the near future, and that will help determine how the board might spend the $500,000 on affordable housing.

Briere asked if the DDA has a plan for housing that has criteria to determine how grants are made to housing. Pollay responded to Briere by describing the “full spectrum” of housing. The DDA is interested in housing at all levels for all people, Pollay said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) contrasted the alternative amendments – Kunselman’s compared to Hieftje’s. She wanted to see if they could be combined. She asked Kunselman if he’d consider lowering the amount to $300,000 – as a friendly amendment to his budget resolution. [Amendments that are considered friendly by the sponsors don't require a vote.] Kunselman rejected Petersen’s offer by saying he felt a vote should be taken on that.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reminded the council that the public hearing on the DDA ordinance – on April 15 and May 6 – made clear there’s a gap that’s perceived by the community in affordable housing. [Several members of the homeless community spoke during that hearing in support of the DDA.] Some residents have been left behind, she said. Not everybody is meant to be a Google worker. She wanted to stick with the $500,000 for affordable housing that was in Kunselman’s resolution.

Hieftje then invited public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium to talk about the urgent need to replace the light poles on Main Street. Hupy indicated that no provision has been made in the city’s budget to replace them. Up to now, Hupy said, the discussion has been centered on the idea of the DDA paying for the light pole replacement, because the DDA did the original installation. He identified the general fund as the source of the funding, if the city were to pay for the light pole replacement.

[At the May 13 gathering of the DDA board, Pollay indicated that she'd been informed that if the city undertook the installation, it would take a more functional approach and install a fewer number of replacement light poles – using "cobra head" fixtures, instead of the decorative lamp posts currently in place. That cost for the functional approach was estimated at $50,000.]

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Hupy described an interest in not having the same “design error” going forward. [At the May 13 gathering of the DDA board, Pollay had described how the light poles that are rusting sit flush on the concrete and may sit in water. A newer design has the base of the poles elevated on "fingers."]

The cost is estimated to be around $465,000, Hupy said. [In a follow-up email responding to a query from The Chronicle, Hupy indicated that no detailed specification and bidding has been done at this point. So the pricing is somewhat "soft," indicating that when staff puts initial estimates together, they try to make sure they can do the job for the price that's estimated.]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) got clarification from CFO Tom Crawford about how much the council could control in the DDA’s spending. Essentially, Crawford indicated that the council could make transfers between funds, but could not mandate which projects the money was spent on or in which year it was spent. Warpehoski said the light pole replacement is important – as they’ve been falling down. He proposed a change from $500,000 to $400,000 for the transfer to the DDA’s housing fund, with $100,000 for light poles. Kunselman indicated that would be a friendly amendment. Kunselman stressed that it would actually just reduce the amount of the transfer to $400,000, but not specify the $100,000 be designated to light poles.

Some back-and-forth ensued between Crawford and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) about the nature of one of the resolved clauses and the importance of recognizing the additional revenue to the TIF fund.

Briere drew out the fact that the unbudgeted TIF amount, not originally anticipated by the DDA in its budget, is actually $568,343. She wanted to know why the full amount is not being dealt with. City administrator Steve Powers explained that it’s because $500,000 is the amount Kunselman put in the resolution and city staff didn’t take the liberty of changing it. Briere wanted to change the amendment to reflect the actual amount. The council was amendable to revising the amount of additional TIF revenue recognized to $568,343.

Briere highlighted another project the DDA wants to undertake – South University improvements. Pollay also mentioned that the brick streets of North Fifth Avenue are “waiting for us” to be improved.

Kailasapathy described the additional TIF revenue as a “windfall.” Pollay countered Kailasapathy by saying that $3.4 million will go toward debt service. Pollay also brought up the $508,000 that the DDA gives the city annually – as part of an $8 million grant the DDA awarded toward the bond payments for the new Justice Center.

Warpehoski introduced an idea promoted by Dave DeVarti and Alan Haber – that the DDA would pay off the loan on the former Y lot, located between Fourth and Fifth avenues, north of William. Such an action would free up the proceeds of the eventual sale of that city-owned land to be dedicated to affordable housing. This approach has the advantage that the proceeds wouldn’t have to be spent on properties within the DDA district, he noted.

Alluding to Hieftje’s version of the DDA budget amendment, Briere indicated that she’s not a 100% fan of SPARK. But she’s still concerned about allocating funds for some kind of economic development.

Referring to a resolution approved by the council earlier in the meeting, Petersen indicated she’s not expecting the need for the economic development task force to incur expenses by traveling to other cities. The task force was not set up with a budget, she noted. She was grateful for the spirit of generosity in Hieftje’s amendment that would put the DDA in a position to provide those funds. But she figured any expenses would be nominal and would be shared among the entities represented on the task force – the city, the DDA, and SPARK.

Hieftje returned to the issue of the light poles on Main Street. Hupy indicated that it would not be possible to hang banners on the poles until the poles were replaced. Responding to Warpehoski’s idea that the light poles could be replaced over a period of time, Hieftje asked Hupy if efficiencies would be gained by replacing them all at one time. Essentially, Hupy’s response was yes. He identified issues like a need to inspect the light poles that were in need of replacement, and the possibility that replacing only selected poles could result in mismatches in the style of poles.

As far as other projects the DDA is looking to pursue, Hieftje returned to the issue of South University and Pollay described wanting to finish off the Fifth and Division street project in the Kerrytown area.

Hieftje then said he had some concerns about trying to tell the DDA what to do. He referred to Kunselman’s approach as a command-and-control strategy. He reiterated his concern about the light poles on Main Street.

Taylor concurred with Hieftje, saying that the resolution was an attempt to micromanage the DDA. Downtown is a complex place, Taylor said, and the city doesn’t understand the downtown as well as the DDA – “that’s just the truth.” He called on the council to approach the DDA’s budget with humility, in light of the fact that the council does not have all the information – but the DDA does. He contended that the amendments offered by Hieftje and Kunselman took different approaches. [The original amendments differed materially only with respect to the dollar amount to be transferred from the DDA TIF fund to the DDA housing fund – $500,000 versus $100,000. With the friendly amendment that was in place at the time of Taylor's remarks, the difference was $400,000 versus $100,000.] Taylor called Kunselman’s amendment a blunt instrument for a delicate task, and stated that he’d vote against it.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) responded to Hieftje’s characterization of the amendment as a “command-and-control” approach. She stressed the fact that the message the council had heard in response to the proposed DDA ordinance changes was clearly about affordable housing.

Kailasapathy disagreed with Taylor’s assessment of the DDA as a sophisticated organization. She quoted from an email Pollay wrote back in October 2008 to a resident. [The resident was Peter Zetlin, who subsequently pasted Pollay's email to him in a comment on The Chronicle's live updates filed from the meeting.] Pollay wrote:

For what it’s worth, the proposed parking structure would be paid for with parking revenues (not tax dollars), and unnoted in the local press, the demand for public parking has been increasing every year – including this year, where the numbers of people paying to park exceeds the numbers in all previous years.

Kailasapathy noted that it did not prove to be the case that the new Library Lane parking structure was paid for only with parking revenues. This year, she noted, 87% of the TIF dollars went to bond payments. She disagreed with the idea that the DDA was a sophisticated organization. She said it was good to have oversight of the DDA and important to give guidance.

Hieftje reminded Kailasapathy that she wasn’t serving on the council back in 2008: “Just to point out, Councilmember Kailasapathy, because I know you weren’t here, the underground parking structure was fully supported by city council.”

[The Feb. 17, 2009 vote on issuing the bonds for the underground parking structure was 10-1, with dissent from Mike Anglin. Hieftje's remark was reminiscent of one he made at the council's Dec. 1, 2008 meeting, in reminding Sandi Smith, Kailasapathy's predecessor in that Ward 1 seat, that she had not served on the council at the time the former YMCA property had been purchased.]

Kunselman then told Hieftje, “Of course, you’re not going to support anything that I bring to the table.” [Kunselman was in some sense echoing Hieftje's opening to an email that Hieftje had sent to Kunselman a few weeks earlier, which Hieftje began with: "I understand your need to automatically oppose anything I may be in favor of but wanted to reply just to try and put us all on the same page."]

Kunselman pointed out that there’s only a $300,000 difference between the amended amendment Kunselman was proposing and Hieftje’s proposal. Kunselman indicated he felt that Hieftje’s criticism of the approach as “command and control” could be applied to Hieftje’s own proposal. Kunselman contended that “This is about loyalty to the DDA; this is not about loyalty to the citizens of Ann Arbor.”

Kunselman pointed out that next year, the DDA’s bond payments made out the TIF fund will go from $3.4 million down to $2 million – $1.4 million less. That could be spent on all kinds of light poles, he said. Kunselman discounted the idea that $300,000 was a big difference in that context. He ventured that Hieftje would not have even proposed a DDA budget amendment if Kunselman had not indicated his intent to bring one forward.

Kunselman then addressed Hieftje’s description of the DDA’s board meeting on May 13 and the attendance by the press. From what Kunselman understood from the press, the board didn’t pass a resolution at that meeting, and the DDA didn’t amend its budget. He characterized it as “all talk.” Kunselman accused Hieftje of playing politics.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then said she was not opposed to putting more money toward affordable housing. But she was not sure that this support for affordable housing should come through the DDA. Even if the council transfers $400,000 to the DDA housing fund, the council has no guarantee that the DDA will spend that $400,000 in the way the council would like to see it spent. If the council really wants to support affordable housing, it should simply take money out of the general fund, she said, and put it in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. If the council wants the DDA to be independent, she didn’t see how the resolution did that.

Higgins noted that the light poles fell down a year ago, so she wondered why it had become a crisis situation that had to be dealt with. She didn’t remember hearing about how it was a crisis. She indicated a lack of support for either Kunselman’s or Hieftje’s amendment.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she had the words “micromanagement” in her notes as well. She wanted to work with the DDA collaboratively, not by directing the DDA. She wanted the city to be the entity that supports affordable housing. She didn’t want the city to tell the DDA “how to run their business.”

Briere responded to Kunselman’s remarks about the resolution being about “loyalty to the DDA” – saying she didn’t believe the vote is a litmus test on blind support for the DDA or not. She was disappointed by the direction the rhetoric had taken. Responding in part to Higgins’ question about why the light poles had suddenly become a crisis, Briere reported that she’s been nagging about the light poles for a year. City staff have said they don’t have it in the budget, she said. The Main Street Area Association asked the DDA if the DDA could pay for the light poles, and Pollay had responded by saying the DDA would have to find a way to pay for it, Briere reported. Briere stressed that the DDA is responsible for downtown infrastructure. For her, spending the money on infrastructure is the most important part of the DDA’s work.

Briere stressed the fact that the DDA’s housing fund is not specifically designated for affordable housing. She again rejected the idea that the vote on the resolution is a loyalty test.

Hieftje responded to Kunselman’s earlier remark by saying he didn’t disagree with everything Kunselman brought forward. Hieftje just wanted to make sure the light poles are fixed. He suggested a compromise, splitting the amounts between light poles and affordable housing.

Kunselman agreed to the split, saying it was a nominal difference anyway.

Lumm then proposed to divide the question on affordable housing and to vote separately on affordable housing and light poles. Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying that’s not what he was proposing to do.

The specifics of the compromise budget amendment resolution were to transfer $300,000 of the additional TIF to the DDA’s housing fund and to request that the DDA spend $300,000 on Main Street light poles.

Outcome: The council approved the DDA budget amendment, with dissent only from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). After the vote, the council went into a short recess.

Leaf Collection

By way of background, leaf collection is now provided as part of the city’s containerized compost pickup program. Residents can place yard waste, including leaves, in carts – which can be emptied with automatic robot-arm-equipped trucks. The city also collects yard waste in paper bags.

In the past, the city invited residents to push their leaves into the street after they fell every autumn. The pickups occurred on a predetermined schedule, with each area of the city serviced twice per autumn. The city then used street sweepers equipped with pusher adaptations to pile the leaves together, and then used front-end loaders to load dump trucks with the leaves. Eliminating the loose leaf pickup program was originally estimated to save $100,000 a year starting in FY 2011. According to the city, it’s proven to save closer to $300,000 a year.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and public services area administrator Craig Hupy.

The solid waste fund is supported by a millage levied at a rate of 2.4670 mills. A mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value. That millage generates roughly $11 million a year. The funds are used for compost collection, recycling collection as well as garbage collection. [.pdf of solid waste fund status]

Details of the resolution brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) were as follows: Use $395,000 of the solid waste fund balance to buy two street sweepers; use projected savings from reduced tipping fees and other expenses to cover the $311,000 annual recurring cost. The proposal also included the restoration of holiday tree pickup. It was essentially the same proposal she’d brought to the council last year, when it approved the FY 2013 budget. Last year in Lumm’s bid to have fall loose leaf pickup restored she was joined only by her then-wardmate Tony Derezinski and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

This year, Ward 2 was again unified in its support – with recently-elected Sally Petersen substituting for Derezinski. Anglin was also consistent in his support. The effort picked up one other vote – from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). So Lumm’s attempted resolution was defeated on a 4-7 vote, but not before the council took an hour and 10 minutes to debate the issue.

Leaf Collection: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the amendment, Lumm described her attempt the previous year, as well as the technical details of the funding. She contended that for some areas of the city, taking away the service had been a hardship. She contended that loose leaf pickup is a basic service that residents reasonably expect the city to provide – especially in light of the fact that they pay a dedicated solid waste millage that generates over $11 million a year. The holiday tree pickup, she allowed, might not be considered a “core” service, but she felt that it’s a nice, convenient service that can be provided cheaply, for $26,000 a year. Bagging and mulching for some residents isn’t a feasible option, she said. So residents still wind up paying someone to haul their leaves away, which loses the economy of scale that the city could achieve, Lumm contended.

She allowed that there are risks to the fund balance of the solid waste fund. [In round numbers, of the $28.6 million solid waste fund balance, only about $8.6 is "available" for use. Up to $9.4 million in risk has been identified by city staff just to cover the cost of building a replacement drop-off station and to cover requirements of GASB 68, a new accounting standard that must be implemented starting in FY 2015.] But Lumm felt that using $395,000 of the fund balance was appropriate, characterizing it as 4% of the fund balance. The recurring cost was only 2% of the revenue brought in by the millage, she said. Lumm saw value in restoring the service.

After the amendment was introduced by Lumm, Anglin was first to be called on to speak by mayor John Hieftje. Anglin said that in certain areas of the city, leaf pickup is a problem. Ward 2 makes a contribution to the city with its plentiful trees, he indicated, through regulation of stormwater runoff and temperature regulation. He said he wanted to see the amendment approved and “see how it works out.” He said he’d continue to rake his own leaves and put them in the compost carts – because he lives in that kind of neighborhood. In a limited part of Ward 5, he said, there’s a similar problem to Ward 2 for leaf pickup. He cited the stress that the aging population feels about the situation.

Kailasapathy argued from the perspective of economies of scale. She stated that the role of a local government is to provide good services to its citizens. She compared privatizing a certain part of the leaf collection to school busing: If you eliminate school busing, a few children might walk instead, or a few might ride their bicycles, but most parents will drive their children in cars. She stated that it’s more efficient to pick up holiday trees all at one time, instead of thousands of people taking their individual trees to a drop-off point.

Petersen, Lumm’s wardmate, also said she’d support the amendment. She compared the leaf pickup service in its monetary impact to that of the service the city provided recently – on Feb. 28 – when a storm hit and brought down a lot of branches. The city’s effort to pick up storm debris after that happened had been extended to residents citywide, Petersen pointed out, not just to Ward 2 residents. The city was able to absorb that into the budget, and she felt that the city could absorb leaf pickup into the budget as well. Leaves would fall onto the street, whether the city picks them up or not, so she figured it made sense to try to pick them up and take advantage of the economies of scale.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that she’d previously argued against continuing this kind of leaf pickup service. She noted that the city still provides leaf pickup, but it’s done differently now – with compost carts. She felt that the community’s values are in keeping the Huron River as clean as possible and in keeping the streets as clean as possible.

Responding to photographs that Lumm had circulated of piles of leaf bags, Teall said she was sorry that’s happening – but said she didn’t know why those leaves were in the street, because they were not supposed to be in the street. She noted that leaves can be raked every week and a few bags can be put out every week. “There are ways to do this.” She expressed concern about bike lanes – when leaves freeze in the street. She advised keeping holiday trees in your backyard for the birds. So there are ways to deal with the issue that don’t cost the city any money, she ventured.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje.

Teall argued against Petersen’s point about the city’s effort this year to pick up storm debris – by saying that if the city spends money on loose leaf pickup, it might not have the capacity in the future to implement pickup of storm debris as it did this year.

At Briere’s request, public services area administrator Craig Hupy and solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie came to the podium to field questions. Briere asked Hupy for an explanation of why the city had changed its policy. She reported she’d received emails from people that same day advocating for keeping things the way they were – with no loose leaf pickup. Hupy told Briere the change to the current system of containerized pickup originally had been advocated by those who were concerned about pollution loading to the streams, but that argument had never gained traction.

However, when the “Great Recession” occurred, the city was forced to look at it from an economic point of view, Hupy said. Using only the containerized approach had been expected to save $100,000, Hupy said. Now that the city has gained some experience with that approach, the city saves about $300,000, he said. Community feedback has been heard on both sides, he said. Some people miss being able to rake the leaves out into the street, Hupy said. Others say the streets are cleaner and neater. If he were asked which sentiment was more prevalent, he felt that unscientifically, the “cleaner streets” had it by a margin. But the reason for the change was the economic reality, he reported.

Briere ventured that the amount of compost collected has decreased as a result of the change in leaf pickup method. McMurtrie explained it’s been reduced in part because people mulch the leaves into their lawns or compost leaves in their backyards. Hupy also noted that the amount of leaves picked up by the city is measured by the ton. And when leaves sit in the street, they pick up moisture, making them heavier. When they’re bagged, they stay drier. So the staff believe, Hupy said, that less weight is being recorded on the scales due to drier leaves.

McMurtrie allowed that the tonnages have declined since the containerized program was implemented. He also added that there are seasonal variations. Briere offered an anecdote about a mother and her kids who now use a tarp to drag the leaves out to the back of the house into the woods.

Lumm asked about the private contractors who are now hauling leaves for people: Are they hauling the leaves to the city’s compost site? Yes, said McMurtrie. He noted that haulers are not being charged a tipping fee for bringing in the material.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) inquired about the quality of the composting product you get from a cart-based approach versus storing the leaves on the street for a while. He recalled reading in the city’s “Waste Watcher” publication that the advice to residents is not to put street leaves into their home compost. Hupy reported that the city has sampled the quality of the leaves. There’s not a difference revealed in the testing so far, he said.

Warpehoski’s question was motivated by the fact that the product resulting from the city’s composting operation is sold. Hupy said that nothing has triggered Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulations. Hupy indicated that the city’s concern was actually with the reduced amount of organic material that was swept up by street sweepers in the fall – because the leaves were not being swept into the street as a result of the leaf pick up program. So far things are ok, Hupy said. There’s one more round of sampling to be done this fall.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski asked about an anticipated revenue shortfall in the city’s solid waste fund. It’s anticipated to come in FY 2016, he said. Later clarification confirmed that a $375,000 shortfall is projected for that year.

Warpehoski asked Hupy to comment more on pollution-loading issues. Hupy explained that back in the timeframe of the early 2000s, there was more concern about pollution loading, with a focus on phosphorus. Hupy indicated that the concern is at the level of TSS (total suspended solids) – the particulate matter itself, not necessarily the chemical makeup. Warpehoski referred to a letter that the council had received from Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt about the impact of sedimentation in places like the Sister Lake area. Hupy indicated that leaves on the bottom of such lakes don’t necessarily decompose. He ventured that the containerized approach would cause less sedimentation. Hupy also ventured that the approach of sweeping leaves into the street could lead to a detrimental effect on stormwater detention facilities – like the one at Pioneer High.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got clarification that the city sweeps the leaves that happen to fall naturally into the street. Residents aren’t asked to sweep those leaves. Hupy indicated that whatever falls into the street naturally is well within the capability of a street sweeper to handle. Kunselman described last winter seeing places where no sweeping had been done. He ventured that it’s just a guess as to the environmental loading. He felt it would be a great service if the city could provide the loose leaf collection. He also understood the environmental issues.

Kunselman’s statement “I don’t bag leaves by any means” prompted Warpehoski to kid him: “Do you burn ‘em?” This was a reference to a discussion the council had previously about the fees charged to residents for open burning.

Kunselman questioned whether there is now any enforcement against people pushing leaves into the street. Hupy said that people are given a door-tag notice. Kunselman said when he lived on Seventh Street near Pauline, he watched the neighbors push the pile of leaves down in front of somebody else’s house. “Have you ever actually issued a ticket?” Hupy told Kunselman he didn’t think so. The city had, however, made repeated “educational visits.” Kunselman concluded that enforcement is a cost.

Kunselman got clarification that the $311,000 recurring cost would be for two pickups in the fall. On the $395,000 one-time purchase cost for sweepers to push the leaves, Hupy also explained that the pushers the city had used in the past were modified with a blade for pushing. Renting wasn’t an option, because the rental companies would not accept the vehicles being returned with weld and burn marks on them from the necessary modifications. Kunselman indicated he was not sure how he would vote.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Hupy to explain the capital expenditures in the solid waste fund budget. Hupy described an expansion of two programs – residential recycling into multifamily residences, and the addition of food waste to the composting stream. A long-term goal is concern about the drop-off center at Platt and Ellsworth. It’s sitting on the old landfill, Hupy said, and it’s slowly becoming part of the landfill. One corner is sinking and will need to be rebuilt.

McMurtrie described discussions with Recycle Ann Arbor and other jurisdictions to see which of them might be willing and able to partner on construction of a new facility. In the coming months, he hoped to be able to bring forward some proposals. The draft solid waste plan needs to be approved by the council, McMurtrie indicated. After that, there can be some capability added for food waste composting. Hieftje asked Hupy and McMurtrie to confirm that there was, in effect, a plan to spend the fund balance in the solid waste fund.

Hieftje then explained that he’d be opposing the restoration of loose leaf pickup. He reiterated Teall’s point that the city still does pick up leaves – in compost carts and paper bags. Hieftje then described how he lives in a relatively leafy neighborhood, but is able to dispose of them with the compost carts and by composting them in his back yard.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Kailasapathy then inquired about the cost savings that were supposed to have resulted from a conversion to single-stream recycling. McMurtrie confirmed that collection costs have gone down, even with an upwards contract adjustment with Recycle Ann Arbor. But he allowed that revenue has declined. Two factors contributed to that. First, the market has dropped. And the material the city previously processed from Lansing and Toledo no longer comes to Ann Arbor, McMurtrie explained. That’s due to competition, he said.

Petersen then opened up a line of inquiry about alternative solutions to pushing the leaves into big piles, and asked about the possibility of using trucks equipped with large vacuums. She mentioned Cummins engines as the possible power plant for such trucks. [That's a reflection of employment with Cummins early in her professional career.] She wanted to know why the city can’t explore that kind of approach?

Hupy explained that “pushing and loading” is more efficient than vacuums. He explained that sticks, branches and pumpkins after Halloween get included in the piles that are put on the street, which clogs the vacuums. This has been demonstrated by vendors who’ve sought to sell the city on the idea of using large vacuums, but then discover that when the “pushing and loading” method is matched against vacuuming, the “pushing and loading” method has proved superior – to the surprise of the vendors.

Briere inquired if other options exist besides pushing or vacuuming. Responding to Briere, Hupy described a conveyer system as a possible alternative. Briere ventured that whatever method the city uses, it’s still labor intensive for her. She reported that of the various methods, she prefers bagging or putting leaves in the carts. About the current containerized approach, she keeps asking herself, “Is it broken?”

At that point Hieftje indicated that he was hoping the council could soon move to a vote on the question. However, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a more detailed explanation of the impact that Lumm’s amendment would have on the solid waste fund.

Hupy reviewed Lumm’s list of cuts, which she proposed to offset the expense of loose leaf collection. The $105,000 reduction in tipping fees might or might not be achievable, Hupy explained. He indicated that street leaf pickup could have the impact of heavier loads, which based on his previous remarks would result from increased moisture. And that would cause increased tipping fees.

For the $14,000 in contingencies for field operations, those are step increases based on labor contracts if they progress in their skill levels, Hupy explained. The $25,000 in solid waste systems planning would take away from the consultant work to be done on an educational campaign. Hupy described the retirement of a person in the solid waste department who works on communication issues. The city is proposing that some of her work would be picked up by a consultant. The $15,000 in printing of promotional material would be for “Waste Watcher,” a publication that is sent out each year to residents. The $76,500 in other service budgets identified by Lumm as a source of savings is for equipment and contracted services – which he described as a difficult cut to make.

Teall then followed up on her earlier point about the storm debris collection this year. She asked how much the storm debris pickup cost earlier this year. Hupy reported that cost at about $375,000. The staff would be coming to the council with a request for an appropriation from the solid waste fund balance, Hupy said. Teall ventured that storms generating debris that might need to be picked up could be happening more frequently. Hupy allowed that if money had to be taken out of the fund balance, then it left less in reserves to deal with various issues.

Teall also highlighted the problem that in-street leaf collection had caused for streets like White Street, where there is parking on both sides of the street. It’s a student neighborhood where the vehicles aren’t moved frequently.

Lumm then defended the savings that she’d identified to fund the restoration of loose leaf pickup, responding to Hupy’s assessment of the impact of her identified savings. She gave a shout-out to the Ann Arbor Newshawks’ satirical treatment of the loose leaf pickup issue – inviting people to look for the video, which is posted on YouTube. She described living in her neighborhood for 35 years, saying that previously the leaves didn’t sit as long in the street before they were picked up. Eventually, she declared: “I think I’ve exhausted this topic.”

Hieftje reiterated his objections, based on the stress it would place on the solid waste fund, given the projection of a shortfall in FY 2016.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman asked for a description of practices in comparative communities. McMurtrie listed off communities that collect leaves in a containerized way (Lansing, Ypsilanti, Beverly Hills, Hazel Park, Troy, Saugatuck, Plymouth Township, Douglas, Tecumseh), compared to loose leaf collection (Berkeley, Birmingham, Clawson, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Adrian, Midland and Holland).

Taylor stated that if the city could provide the service perfectly, he might have a different position – but he stressed “might.” Even with the city’s best efforts, however, he felt there’s no possibility the city would be able to perform the service well. “Leaves will not cooperate, rain and wind and snow will not cooperate,” he said. The costs are material, he said. The cost and benefit were not right for him, so he wouldn’t support the amendment.

Anglin then contended that the failure to provide this service targets those who take virtually no services from the city – the elderly. Even though their kids are out of school, they still pay school taxes, he said. They don’t use the parks, yet their taxes go to support that. The elderly are asking what they get from the city in the way of service.

The council should look at all the demographics of people and ask what services are provided by the city to them. The elderly feel they’re not being fairly treated, he said. The projected shortfall is just a projection, not a reality, he said. So Anglin indicated he’d vote for the amendment.

Warpehoski said he still wasn’t sure how he’d vote. He asked for more information about the financial impact of leaf pickup in the context of freezing weather. Warpehoski also asked about the impact of flooding due to clogged storm grates. Hupy said it’s more labor intensive to clear storm grates when the approach to leaf collection is to push leaves into the street.

Hieftje called on Petersen to speak, but Higgins offered a mild objection, venturing that the councilmembers were exceeding their allotted two speaking turns. Hieftje contended Petersen had a speaking turn left.

Petersen countered Taylor’s point about the ability of the city to perform the task well. She ventured that the city doesn’t do snow plowing well, either, but it’s still a basic service that the city should try to provide.

Kunselman then stated he’d vote no. He cited technological advancements that people can use to take care of their lawns: “Why anybody would vacuum their lawn I have no idea, but they do.” He didn’t want to base leaf collection policy just on the needs of the older population. They’d still have to rake their leaves or hire someone to do it, he said. He suggested that if the city were to provide the service, then some kind of subscription service might be best.

Outcome: The vote on the leaf collection budget amendment was 4-7, getting support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Police Officers/15th District Court

Another amendment put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was to provide funding for three police officers, with $270,000 taken from the 15th District Court budget.

Lumm indicated that she’d been encouraged by the city council’s identification of public safety as a priority at its December 2012 retreat. She’d also been encouraged by a success statement embraced by the council that defined success in terms of police officers having 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing.

Lumm said the amendment was not meant to “pick on the courts.” She cited the court’s decreasing caseload as one reason to decrease the court’s budget compared to the previous year’s amount.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

-

In her proposal, Lumm was comparing the FY 2014 request of $4,379,290 to the FY 2013 budgeted amount of 4,066,865. She reasoned that the $270,000 by which she was proposing to reduce the FY 2014 budget still left the court with more money than was budgeted in FY 2013.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) compared 2002 and 2013 FTE levels across departments. The police department has been reduced by about 40%, she said, which was the most of any department. She wanted to restore FTEs. She pointed out that Lansing and Ann Arbor have comparable populations, but Lansing has 226 sworn officers. She allowed that Ann Arbor also has the University of Michigan campus police, but contended that Lansing does as well. She said it was an “apples to apples” comparison. She noted that Ann Arbor’s police force was effective on a reactive basis, but she wanted to make sure it was also able to be proactive, to enhance quality of life and a sense of security that Ann Arbor residents deserve.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that Lansing doesn’t have campus police, because Michigan State University is in East Lansing.

Keith Zeisloft, the administrator for the 15th District Court, was asked to come to the podium to answer questions.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Zeisloft what the impact would be of a $270,000 reduction. He replied that the court would need to look at the only area that’s not mandated by law – the probation department. He felt that a $270,000 would mean losing three of six probation officers. He felt that would mean the loss of the “eyes and the ears of the court.” Without probation officers, the judges would have less ability to sentence offenders in a way that was thoughtful and had any real meaning, he said.

Zeisloft also raised the possibility of impacts to the specialty court dockets: veterans court, sobriety court, domestic violence court, and street outreach court. He said the loss of probation officers could “severely cripple” those programs. The court would lose a probation officer who arrives at work at 6 a.m. every day to conduct preliminary breath tests. That ensures that participants in the sobriety court start the day sober. Zeisloft also pointed out that there’s a reduction in revenue that would come from probation fees. Reducing probation officers might reduce the recovery rate of fines, he said.

Chief financial officer Tom Crawford and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Kailasapathy highlighted the 49% decline in civil infractions – from 2007 to 2011. Responding to Kailasapathy, Zeisloft allowed that there’s been a dramatic decrease in the number of cases. In the last six months, however, there’s been a one-third increase in citations. He described how the workforce has also somewhat declined as the caseload has declined.

Zeisloft called the court “frugal.” Lumm responded by saying she had a different definition of frugal. She listed out increases in various categories.

Lumm and Zeisloft went back and forth about an executive secretary position that was restored last year. She told Zeisloft that historically, the 15th District Court has not met its budget reduction targets.

Then Lumm cited an average 9.6% pay increase given to court workers in October 2012, which was authorized by chief judge of the 15th District Court – Libby Hines. Zeisloft allowed that’s correct. But he pointed out that until then, the court employees had four-and-a-half years of a wage freeze, with a decrease in one of those years. Retention of workers had become an issue.

Zeisloft described how human resources had been asked to do a comparative analysis, and that some of the workers had been found to be dramatically underpaid – in some cases $10,000-$16,000 less than their counterparts in other courts. The increase brought them up to a competitive wage. He ventured that this “softened the blow” of a 9.6% average wage increase. Lumm seemed unpersuaded: “It doesn’t soften the blow for me.” She pointed out that the council had heard from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission director about her struggles with keeping her staff’s pay at a competitive level.

Kailasapathy pointed out that the wage increase given to court workers was an average of 9.6% increase – which meant that some workers would have received an even higher increase.

By way of background, this increase did not apply to judges’ salaries, which are reimbursed to jurisdictions based on state statute. However, the district courts in Michigan fall under the administrative orders of the state Supreme Court, and do not have complete latitude to set wages of their employees independently of their governing municipality.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in lineitem detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multipleyear contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

It’s not clear if the 15th District Court is required by the city of Ann Arbor to submit a “lineitem detail” budget.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Zeisloft to review the cuts that would have to be made. Zeisloft again identified non-mandated services – probation. He reviewed how three out of six positions would have to be eliminated.

Lumm pointed out that the cut would still leave a slight increase comparing the FY 2013 budget to the FY 2014 budget.

Hieftje asked chief of police John Seto to field questions. In 2011, Ann Arbor crime levels were at a record low, Seto reported. In 2012 there was a slight increase, but it was still relatively low.

Hieftje argued that 226 Lansing officers compared to the 179 in Ann Arbor – when you count UM campus safety officers – is comparable, when you consider the reduced crime in Ann Arbor compared to Lansing.

Briere said she sees both the courts and the police officers as safety services. We need the police officers but we also need the courts as well, Briere said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) agreed with Briere that this amounts to a service cut. His focus was not the change in the budget from this year to last year, he said, but the amount of services those budgets could purchase. He didn’t think the three police officers who would be added would add to the actual or perceived safety in the community. The total city budget for FY 2014 reflects around 50% in support of safety services, so he felt the administrator’s budget reflected the council’s priority on public safety. He wouldn’t support the amendment.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked where the court revenue goes. It’s based on a state formula, Zeisloft explained.

Kunselman ventured that there would be other ways to accommodate the $270,000 reduction besides laying people off. Zeisloft countered Kunselman by saying that the main costs of the court, like any governmental entity, is personnel.

Hieftje recited some statistics in support of the idea that Ann Arbor is safe. Hieftje indicated he’d be supporting the allocation of DDA budget funds for police in the downtown area. He didn’t think that the proposed budget amendment would have a net public safety benefit when it would have a negative impact on the probation system.

Lumm drew out the fact that in the last 10 years, the DDA hasn’t provided any money for beat cops. She did this by asking CFO Tom Crawford how much money the DDA had allocated for downtown beat cops. Crawford, who was visibly under the weather at the meeting, said he didn’t know off the top of his head. Lumm told Crawford it was a softball question. She’d previously submitted that question to staff, she said, and “The answer is zero.” [.pdf of memo from Crawford on beat cops]

Kunselman asked Hieftje how the DDA could provide recurring revenue to support downtown beat cops, when it can’t plan to replace light poles.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, traced the original parking agreement from 2005 between the city and the DDA as originating in a desire to provide support to downtown beat cops. A $300,000 allocation escalated to $1 million a year, she noted, but even that did not result in the preservation of beat cops downtown.

Kunselman objected to the idea that increases in parking rates might be used to fund police officers. He cited $1.20/hour parking in Pasadena, which he recently visited, compared to $1.50/hour in Ann Arbor.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to send a message about support for public safety that would come from hiring more police officers.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) observed that there seems like a lot of agreement that more police are needed downtown, but she wonders what that would mean for this amendment.

Kunselman indicated he’d support the amendment. He didn’t take the possible cut to three probation officers lightly but thought there could be other ways to deal with a reduced budget. He pointed out that the 15th District Court had a nice new building. And responding to Hieftje’s count of UM campus safety officers with the total number of sworn officers in Ann Arbor, Kunselman said the campus police don’t help Ann Arbor neighborhoods.

Outcome: The amendment to reduce 15th District Court funding by $270,000 failed on a 5-6 vote, getting support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Police Officer/City Attorney

Another public safety amendment was to allocate $90,000 of the recurring savings from the retirement of assistant city attorney Bob West to the police services area – to pay for an additional police officer. The recommendation associated with the amendment was to eliminate an FTE from the city attorney’s office for next year – that is, FY 2015.

In introducing the amendment, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted the attorney’s office has had the least amount of decline in FTEs over the last 10 years.

From left: Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) seconded Kailasapathy’s amendment. But she offered a friendly amendment that specified the assignment of the saved funds simply be returned to the general fund. That is, the outcome of the amendment was simply to reduce the FTE count by one, without specifying that a police officer would be added. Briere was interested in staying consistent with the argument that she’d given against the 15th District Court budget reduction, which was based on the idea that she didn’t favor shifting funds between two positions that served public safety.

Kailasapathy appeared amenable to the amendment.

Then Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she had been set to support the original amendment, but only because it would have added a police officer. Lumm knew from her experience serving on the liquor license review committee that West played a significant role in that. If it meant that West’s position would have to be absorbed with no hire of an additional police officer, Lumm would not support the budget amendment.

Faced with a choice between having Briere’s support or Lumm’s, Kailasapathy reverted to her original amendment – which specified that a police officer would be hired with the savings.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked chief of police John Seto to come to the podium. Taylor wanted to know if he’d been asked about this change. Seto indicated that the police department worked closely with West.

City attorney Stephen Postema explained that West did more in his job function than just prosecute civil infractions. Among those duties was the defense of police officers in lawsuits and the training of the officers. In contemplating West’s replacement, that person would take more time than West does to complete those duties, Postema said. It’s incorrect to say that the attorney’s office has been reduced less, he contended. He described going from 14 FTEs to 12 FTEs. He said that eliminating the position “willy nilly” would do a disservice to the police department and the city attorney’s office.

Outcome: The amendment to eliminate the retiring assistant city attorney position failed on a 2-9 vote. Only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) supported it.

Affordable Housing

This budget amendment brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) tapped the general fund for $100,000 and placed it in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. She led off deliberations by saying that before she was elected to the council, the city transferred $100,000 every year into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That practice had ended even as the city continued to spend money in the fund, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje hoped there’d be agreement and that the vote could be taken quickly. Briere called the $100,000 a modest amount. She said that in the context of the earlier discussion about altering the DDA’s budget to transfer $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund into its housing fund, she wanted the city to demonstrate that it, too, had some “skin in the game.” She wanted it to be a recurring amount each year, not just a one-time allocation.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wouldn’t support the budget amendment. She asked that her name be removed as a sponsor, saying that had been mistakenly attached. She supports affordable housing, she said, but did not support the amendment. She would prefer to use the increased DDA TIF revenues as the funding source for additional affordable housing support.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated that if Lumm’s name was coming off as a sponsor, that would leave room for Petersen’s name to be added as a sponsor. Like Briere, Petersen felt the city should have “skin in the game.” Affordable housing is one of the council’s priorities, she noted. One of the outcomes of the economic development task force, she said, was to help determine when support for affordable housing would come from the DDA and when it would come from the city. Until that could be done, both entities should have skin in the game.

Lumm reiterated that she supported affordable housing and also thought the city should have “skin in the game,” but stated that it matters where the “skin is found.” She felt the $100,000 should be transferred from identified savings, not simply by making an additional expenditure – saying that in this regard she was a fiscal conservative. She asked CFO Tom Crawford if he could identify $100,000 in savings. Crawford was circumspect: “Staff’s work is reflected in the city administrator’s recommendation.”

Hieftje ventured that early in his service as mayor, the city’s budget was such that $100,000 could be found somewhere. Now that the city is leaner, it’s not easy to find that $100,000, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that she’d support the $100,000 transfer because the direction is for staff to find a way to put it in the budget every year.

Outcome: The $100,000 transfer from the general fund reserve to the city’s affordable housing trust fund was approved, with dissent only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Washtenaw Health Initiative

This amendment, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was to allocate $10,000 to the Washtenaw Health Initiative (WHI), a countywide collaboration focused on how to make healthcare more accessible and improve care coordination for disadvantaged populations. It was meant to help prepare for federal healthcare reform.

The WHI is co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel and retired University of Michigan treasurer Norman Herbert, along with Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan. The city joined the WHI on July 2, 2012. Washtenaw County is also a member of WHI.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $10,000 for WHI without debate.

Public Art Funding

The amendment proposed eliminating $326,464 in spending on public art. This anticipates possible approval of revisions to the public art ordinance. If the council enacts those revisions – likely on June 3, 2013 – it would require a subsequent vote with an eight-vote majority to restore the public art monies to their funds of origin.

By way of background, the current Percent for Art funding mechanism sets aside 1% from all capital projects, to be used for public art. Those monies are pulled from numerous funding sources, depending on how the capital project is funded. The ordinance revisions that are being brought forward would, if approved, eliminate the Percent for Art approach.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) questioned whether it’s possible to make this amendment, under the existing ordinance. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the amendment continues the public art set-aside, but prevents spending it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he expects there’ll be a change in the public art ordinance, but until it’s changed he wants to stay the course and support the existing program. So he’d oppose the amendment.

Mayor John Hieftje concurred with Taylor’s reasoning.

Outcome: The vote on preventing the spending of the FY 2014 public art set aside was 7-4, with dissent from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Sidewalk Gaps

This budget amendment would tap the general fund for a one-time use of $75,000 to fund a sidewalk gap prioritization study.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked why neither Act 51 money nor the sidewalk millage could be used for new sidewalk construction. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explained that millage money is supposed to be used only for repair and maintenance of existing sidewalks. Act 51 is not for first-time improvements, Hupy said.

Citywide, there’s more than $25 million worth of sidewalk construction that could take place, Hupy explained. That’s why it’s important to prioritize.

Mayor John Hieftje said that reductions in transportation by the Ann Arbor Public Schools have highlighted where some of the sidewalk gaps are. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that some neighborhoods have no sidewalks at all. How does that fit in? Hupy indicated that’s the reason the prioritization study is needed. Kunselman wanted to know if the study will be done in-house. Hupy thought it would require a fair amount of community engagement. So outside assistance would be tapped for that.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she’s inclined not to support it, but probably will.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) told Hupy that he’s glad conversations are happening between the city and AAPS.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the sidewalk gap prioritization study.

Miller Manor Senior Meals

This amendment would replace $4,500 in funding lost due to federal sequestration for a senior meals program. Miller Manor is an Ann Arbor housing commission property.

Outcome: Without debate, the council unanimously approved the $4,500 for Miller Manor senior meals

Human Services

This item increased by $46,899 the amount of funding available for human services nonprofit entities. The city allocates this money through a coordinated funding process with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. The city has participated in this coordinated funding approach for three years now. Initially the agreement was for two years, and the partners extended for a year.

In introducing the amendment, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the total amount of funding allocated in the budget for human services nonprofits could change after this year. The additional $46,899 brings the amount to $1,244,629, which is the same as the last two years.

Outcome: Without discussion beyond Briere’s introductory remarks, the council unanimously approved the $46,899 increase in funding to nonprofits that provide human services.

Parks Fairness

Under Ann Arbor city policy policy, the general fund allocations to parks and recreation must not suffer any decrease beyond what other areas in the general fund do. So in the course of making amendments to the other parts of the budget, that can have implications for adherence to this policy.

At the end of all the amendments, financial services staff provided the council with the adjustment that needed to be made to the parks budget, in order to comply with the policy. This year, that amount is an increase of $22,977.

Outcome: The council approved the “parks fairness” adjustment without debate.

FY 2014 Budget Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) explained why she’d be opposing the budget again this year, like she did last year. She contended that this year’s budget makes no progress toward making public safety a priority.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) understood Lumm’s position, but said that politics is the art of compromise. He’d seen a lot of compromise that night. He pointed to the small increases in the number of firefighters. [This was an increase by four firefighter positions compared to FY 2013, but the positions had been added after the FY 2013 budget was adopted.] He pointed out that there’s no longer a plan to close fire stations, which he counted as progress. Kunselman said he believes in patience and putting his shoulder to the pile, as in rugby, and pushing toward a score.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as well as other councilmembers thanked staff for their hard work in preparing the budget. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she wouldn’t vote against the budget because she has to “own it” even if she doesn’t like every item in it.

Outcome: The council voted 10-1 to approve the FY 2014 budget. Dissenting was Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, June 3, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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 city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!