The planning and development committee will consist of: Anya Dale (chair), Eli Cooper and David Nacht. The performance monitoring and external relations committee will continue to consist of Charles Griffith (chair) and Roger Kerson. The board’s governance committee consists of the board chair (Jesse Bernstein) plus the chairs of the two other committees.

Robben resigned from the board in November 2011, but served through the January 2012 board meeting. McCormick resigned around the same time, but her last meeting was December 2011. The nomination of Cooper – who serves as Ann Arbor city transportation manager – was confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council in December 2011. [For coverage of the resignations and Cooper's appointment, see "Cooper Confirmed for AATA Board" and "AATA Board Bids Farewell to Robben"] At the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, mayor John Hieftje told the council that he hoped to bring a nomination for Robben’s replacement to them at the council’s next meeting, on Feb. 6, but he did not nominate anyone at that meeting. The AATA board does not currently have a treasurer, pending appointment of a replacement for Robben – McCormick had served in that office.

At its Sept. 15, 2011 meeting, the board had elected the same slate of officers that had served the previous year: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and Sue McCormick (treasurer). Bernstein noted that as the AATA contemplates a transition to a countywide focus, it was felt that it would be good to have some continuity. The committee structure was also carried over from the previous year. At that time, the planning and development committee consisted of Robben (committee chair), Nacht and Dale. And before McCormick’s departure, the performance monitoring and external relations committee consisted of Griffith (committee chair), McCormick, and Kerson.

The transition to a system of governance for the AATA that is based on a geographic area that could include most of Washtenaw County, instead of just the city of Ann Arbor, is currently being debated by the Ann Arbor city council, in the context of a four-party agreement – between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transit Master Plan (TMP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countywide Governance

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

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

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

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

Countywide Governance: Two Acts – Act 55 and Act 196

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

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

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

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

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

Countywide Governance: Third Act – Act 7

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

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

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

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

Countywide Governance: Interim Unincorporated Board – U196

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countywide Governance: Funding, TMP Volume 3, U196

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular Business (June 16): Living Wage Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular Business (June 16): Auditor Rotation Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Board Meeting: Hoists

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

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

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

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

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

A drawing that shows the proposed art installation by Herbert Dreiseitl for the lobby of the new police/courts building on Fifth and Huron. The piece includes etched blue glass panels, on the right, and blue glass bulbs hanging from the ceiling, in the left corner of this drawing. Commissioners voted to postpone action on this work, with plans to ask Dreiseitl to cap the cost at $75,000.

Commissioners voted to postpone a proposal for artwork in the lobby of the city’s new municipal center – the artwork has a budget of $141,218. They plan to ask Dreiseitl to cap the project at $75,000. With dissent from chair Margaret Parker, they rejected a work proposed for the center’s atrium, with a budget of $73,806, citing concerns over the cost, design and durability of the material.

In other business, the group got an update on their involvement in the proposed Fuller Road Station, with commissioner Cathy Gendron reporting that the project architects have already selected the location, materials and theme for public art on the parking structure and transit facility. “I had no idea that things were so far along at this project,” she said.

And a vote to allocate funds for repair of the Sun Dragon Sculpture at Fuller Pool prompted a broader discussion on how to handle maintenance costs for public art.

Some organizational changes are in the works, too. Commissioner Jim Curtis announced plans to step down at the end of 2010, to devote more time as a board member for the startup Ann Arbor Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ). AAPAC will be recruiting a replacement for him. And Katherine Talcott, who has served as the part-time public art administrator, has signed a new one-year contract with the city – in the role of an art project manager. She’ll be handling the Dreiseitl project, Fuller Road Station and other projects that are assigned to her by Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator. The job of public art administrator is being restructured, and has not yet been filled.

Concerns Raised about Additional Dreiseitl Artwork

Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s chair, began the overall discussion by briefly reviewing the new proposal submitted for two interior pieces in the city’s new police/courts building, also known as the municipal center, at the northeast corner of Fifth and Huron. She noted that the two wall pieces, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, were thematically linked to the large water sculpture that the city had commissioned from him. The sculpture is to be installed in front of the center.

Some Background

Dreiseitl had submitted designs for all three pieces last summer, and was paid $77,000 for that work. Only the water sculpture was approved by AAPAC and the city council, at a cost of $737,820.

At AAPAC’s October 2009 meeting, commissioners postponed action on one interior piece and approved the other, with certain conditions. They had concerns about both the designs and the cost. Although they had originally set a cap of $750,000 on the entire project, Dreiseitl in October proposed a budget of $841,541 for the three pieces, including the design fees.

Since that October meeting, they’ve been waiting for Dreiseitl to respond to questions about the interior pieces and to provide a new budget for those installations. At their June meeting, commissioners received a revised design for one of the wall pieces – an image evocative of the Huron River watershed, to be etched on blue glass panels. But that drawing had been put together by Ken Clein of Quinn Evans and the staff of the Conservation Design Forum – not Dreiseitl. Nor had Dreiseitl provided a revised budget for the interior pieces.

So commissioners set a deadline for the end of June to receive a final budget and design. That deadline was met, and on Tuesday the commission considered the proposal, which had come in at a much higher cost than originally proposed: $141, 218 for the etched, blue glass installation in the police/courts lobby, and $73,806 for the stenciled painting in the atrium.

The discussion on Tuesday was wide-ranging and covered both interior projects. For the purposes of this summary, The Chronicle separates those discussions.

Dreiseitl: Police/Courts Lobby

The piece in the police/courts lobby includes eight large, blue glass panels to be etched with an image evocative of the Huron River watershed. The panels would be mounted on the wall facing Huron Street. In the southwest corner of the lobby, a cluster of blue glass balls would be suspended from the ceiling, and lit from within. The balls – which Dreiseitl refers to as “pearls” – are also used in his exterior water sculpture.

The original budget for the lobby installation was $53,843 – the revised budget is nearly three times as much:

Glass pearls             $10,000
Glass etching            $16,000
Lighting/controls        $50,000
Blue glass panels        $32,000
Ceiling                   $5,000
Professional fees:
  Dreiseitl               $3,965
  Quinn Evans             $7,175
  Electrical engineering
    & lighting design     $3,700
  Travel, lodging         $2,078

Total:                  $141,218

-

Cathy Gendron began by saying that one thing she hadn’t factored in was the security of the lobby. On a recent tour, it became clear to her that the only people who’d be entering the lobby of the police/courts building would be employees and people who had a court date – it wasn’t a place that the general public would go. There was tight security, she said, and given the expense of the proposal, she wasn’t sure it was worth putting something in a place with such limited access. The word “lobby” had previously conjured up a different image for her.

Jim Curtis noted that it would be more visible at night from the exterior – it would be lit, and the large windows of the lobby face Huron Street. Connie Brown said the salient point is whether it’s worth spending so much money there, given the level of access.

Local artist Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, advocated for approval of the two interior works proposed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl. (Photos by the writer.)

Parker countered that it’s a huge wall, and something needs to go there. The task force that was formed to make recommendations for public art in the complex had spent months talking about where it should go, she said. [Task force member Ray Detter attended Tuesday's meeting, but did not address the commission.] Given the large bank of windows facing Huron, “it’s hard to put your finger on a more visual space,” Parker said.

There was discussion – and some confusion – on two other points: The glass panels, and the proposed lighting.

It was unclear whether the relatively high cost of the blue glass panels – in the budget for $32,000 – was linked to the fact that they would need to be installed, then removed for etching, and reinstalled. The panels have already been ordered, and if Dreiseitl’s proposal was rejected, they could be left in place without the etching. But would there be a cost to the Percent for Art program for that? Jeff Meyers also questioned why the panels needed to be installed before the etching was done – was it simply to have something up by the time the building opened?

Also questioned was the $50,000 cost for lighting/controls. A cluster of blue glass “pearls” would hang near the windows, and each pearl would contain a light. Those lights are programmable, though it wasn’t clear exactly what that would mean.

Elaine Sims said she didn’t like the glass pearls. Located away from the glass panels, they weren’t cohesive. For her, the price wasn’t an issue: “I wouldn’t like them even if they were $19.95 – they just don’t work.”

Cheryl Zuellig pointed out that AAPAC had requested Dreiseitl to revise his design for the lighting – his original design called for lights to be directed down onto the balls, not lit from within. He did what they’d asked him to do, she noted. So their decision needs to be cost-based, not design-based, she said.

Meyers asked whether they could eliminate the balls from the design. Parker said they could, though she noted their thematic link to the exterior water sculpture. And most people will see the work from the street, she said. From that perspective, the balls would appear more connected to the panels behind them.

Gendron asked about the $50,000 line item for lighting – did that include lights in the ceiling above the panels? It shouldn’t, Meyers said, since those lights are already installed and would need to be there regardless of the artwork.

When it came time to vote, two motions were proposed – then withdrawn – before the commission voted on a third motion.

Zuellig made the first motion, to approve the lobby installation but without the glass pearl display and contingent on the cost not exceeding $75,000.

Discussion on this proposal first came from Parker, who noted it was possible that Dreiseitl wouldn’t want anything to do with their suggestion, given how much it would alter his original design. She couldn’t support that.

Zuellig questioned whether Dreiseitl actually had a deep commitment to these pieces, noting that the most recent drawing of the installation provided to AAPAC had been done by staff at Quinn Evans. Several other commissioners agreed. Gendron said Dreiseitl might be disappointed, but he couldn’t be surprised.

Parker again stated that they should go with what Dreiseitl had proposed – she didn’t think they should second-guess the artist or the architects. Sims said she couldn’t support it as-is, because of the increased cost. She said the artist or architect should have attended their meeting, to answer questions.

Frustrated, Parker said “this is not a shopping trip, guys.” Rather than voting on the motion that Zuellig had proposed, Parker suggested that they “gently” approach Dreiseitl with their concerns and get his feedback. “Because this is embarrassing,” she said of the motion. “I would never vote for what you’re suggesting.” It’s just nickel-and-diming the project, she said – going through line by line, without the architect or the artist or the art administrator there to help explain the costs.

Responding to the point about “nickel-and-diming,” Brown pointed out that the motion would cut the cost by half. Curtis then proposed removing everything from the motion, aside from the contingency to cut costs. That way, Dreiseitl could determine what changes to make.

Zuellig countered by saying they’d just spent an hour talking about what they didn’t like about the project, in addition to the cost – they needed to provide Dreiseitl with direction.

Parker urged them to postpone the motion. Zuellig ultimately agreed to withdraw it, but said that after having waited for so many months to hear back from Dreiseitl, she had serious concerns about it. Curtis said it made sense to wait, given that they weren’t clear about the details of the budget.

Sims then moved to not approve the project for the lobby – but Zuellig pointed out that if there are no conditions, then they’d just be rejecting it outright, and they’re done. Sims withdrew her motion.

Curtis then made a motion to postpone action on the lobby installation until AAPAC’s Aug. 10 meeting, with the goal of clarifying lighting and electrical cost information and capping the project’s total cost at $75,000.

Outcome: The motion to postpone action on the lobby installation until AAPAC’s Aug. 10 meeting, with the goal of clarifying lighting and electrical cost information and capping the project’s total cost at $75,000, passed with dissent from Zuellig and Sims. Marsha Chamberlin was absent, and Jeff Meyers had left the meeting by the time the vote was taken.

Dreiseitl: Atrium

Much of the discussion of the project proposed for the atrium centered on the material – drywall – as well as the cost, which had risen from an original proposal of $47,491 to a total cost of $73,806. The budget breakdown for this piece is:

Painting                   $2,625
Paint stencil images      $15,000
Lighting/controls         $25,000
Glass pearls               $3,500
Modification to
  municipal center         $7,500
Contingency                $5,363
Professional fees:
   Dreiseitl               $3,965
   Quinn Evans             $7,175
   Electrical engineering
        & lighting design  $1,600
   Travel, lodging         $2,078

Total:                    $73,806

-

Cheryl Zuellig clarified that in response to concerns they’d raised about the use of drywall as a surface for the artwork, the material had been altered to a kind of abuse-resistant drywall. Jim Curtis said he still had strong concerns – he’d have those concerns if they were only paying for a $5,000 piece, let alone one that cost nearly $74,000.

Elaine Sims objected to the placement of the piece, at six feet above the floor – that was too high, she said. The placement was designed to minimize concerns about accidental damage, but Curtis said he didn’t think that would matter. Drywall would be problematic for changes in temperature and humidity, and the location is in an area where the doors will be opening and shutting frequently, as people pass through. He said he really liked the original proposal, which had called for the piece to be made of metal, but said he wouldn’t vote for the project as it stands.

Zuellig thought it would be a good location for a mural of some sort – perhaps by local school children. Sims liked the idea of a mural, but would prefer one by a professional artist.

As with the lobby installation, commissioners questioned the cost of the lighting/controls line item: $25,000 for the atrium piece. In this case, however, there was no additional lighting connected to the artwork, which left several commissioners puzzled over what they would be paying for. Would the Percent for Art program be charged for lighting fixtures that will be installed in the atrium anyway, regardless of the artwork? Jeff Meyers wondered if they’d be on the hook for those costs, even if they rejected Dreiseitl’s proposals.

Margaret Parker reminded commissioners that these were huge spaces, and anything installed there would be expensive. They’ve already spent two years working with Dreiseitl and have paid for the design of these interior pieces. If they reject them, they’ll need to take responsibility for all the time and cost they’ve already incurred, and they’ll be starting from scratch, she said.

Sims pointed out that much of the extra expense is due to delays in response by Dreiseitl.

Sims also asked whether the city owned the design, for which they’ve already paid Dreiseitl. She suggested that if they did own it, they could hire someone else to execute the design in a way that worked better for that location. Several other commissioners objected to that approach.

Connie Brown moved to not approve the atrium project, a motion seconded by Curtis. Zuellig asked whether the motion could include some of the reasons for rejecting the piece, and Brown agreed – citing the cost escalation, the questionable durability of the materials, and the departure from Dreiseitl’s original vision.

In discussing the motion, Parker said it’s not their job to question the choice of materials. The originally proposed metal proved to be too expensive, she said, and they shouldn’t factor that in. They seem to be holding him to a design he submitted months ago, she said, and it would be more appropriate to simply cite the cost escalation.

Yes, the costs did escalate, Brown noted. But there has to be some value associated with that – and drywall isn’t added value.

Painting is done on drywall all the time, Parker said, and experts say it’s a perfectly fine surface. Several commissioners voiced disagreement. Zuellig noted that they’d raised these concerns in November and had suggested some alternatives, but Dreiseitl hadn’t responded to those concerns. Brown pointed out that there hadn’t been much communication from him.

Parker said the price is reasonable for an extremely large piece that’s hand-painted – Brown pointed out that it would be stenciled. Parker said she was strongly in favor of relying on the professionals that they’d hired to do this project, who supported it.

Cathy Gendron proposed citing only cost as the reason for turning down the project. Zuellig noted that in five years, AAPAC will be sitting here trying to deal with maintenance of the piece, so it’s their responsibility now to address the issue of the durability of materials as well.

Outcome: With dissent from Margaret Parker, commissioners voted against approval of Dreiseitl’s proposal for an installation in the atrium, citing the cost escalation, the questionable durability of the materials, and the departure from the original vision for the work. Marsha Chamberlin was absent, and Jeff Meyers had left the meeting by the time the vote was taken.

Outstanding Issues: What’s Next?

After the votes, Parker said they need to give the task force some direction about how to proceed on other possible public art installations at the municipal center. Several other commissioners said it wasn’t possible, given the uncertainty about Dreiseitl’s proposal for the lobby. Depending on what they ultimately decide to do with that, it will influence how much funding is available for other work within the complex. They agreed to discuss it at AAPAC’s August meeting.

Repair Funds Approved for Sun Dragon Sculpture

A sculpture at Fuller Pool, designed by AAPAC chair Margaret Parker in 2003, had been damaged this spring by maintenance workers making structural repairs to the pool’s shower, to which the sculpture is attached. A wooden beam – which supported both the sculpture and a pipe carrying solar-heated water– had rotted. When maintenance workers removed part of the sculpture to repair the beam, parts of the artwork were broken.

At Tuesday’s meeting, commissioners voted on approval of $6,946 in repair costs, including $4,000 for labor, to be paid out of an endowed fund established at the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The fund is designated for public art maintenance, and has a balance of $16,270.

As part of the discussion, Parker reported that Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, has told her that Percent for Art funds – which AAPAC administers – can’t be used to pay for repairs on public art acquired by the city prior to November 2007, when the Percent for Art program was established.

Several commissioners questioned that statement. Jim Curtis asked what would happen when the endowed fund ran out of money? The Sun Dragon’s repair would deplete it by half, he noted. Connie Brown brought up the stacked-book sculpture in Hanover Square, which AAPAC – in partnership with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – plans to remove and possibly reinstall elsewhere. Where would the funding come from to handle that, since the artwork significantly pre-dates AAPAC?

Cheryl Zuellig wondered whether the inability to use Percent for Art funds for repairs of pre-2007 public art was written into the ordinance or whether it was simply a staff interpretation.

By way of background, the ordinance that established the Percent for Art program does not explicitly address the issue of funding for public art owned prior to the program’s establishment. (.pdf of public art ordinance) However, a cover memo accompanying the city council’s packet for their Nov. 5, 2007 meeting states:

In discussion with CAPP [the Commission on Art in Public Places, AAPAC's predecessor group], it was noted that the program must recognize the need for ongoing maintenance of public art. As a result, the ordinance provides that normal maintenance of the art will be provided by the Services Area responsible for the location where the art is installed. Additionally, funds in pooled public art funds may be used for extraordinary maintenance, repair or refurbishment, including structural reconstruction, and for relocation, alteration and removal of public art.

Jeff Meyers said that if it is written into the ordinance, perhaps it’s worth going back to city council for revision. Zuellig noted that their other option would be fundraising.

Outcome: AAPAC approved spending $6,946 from the endowed fund to repair the Sun Dragon. Parker recused herself from the vote. The work will be handled by Plastic-Tech of Ann Arbor.

Follow-Up: Maintenance Funding Clarified

At an organizational retreat held the following night, July 14, McCormick clarified the question of maintenance, confirming that the service units that oversee the site where the art is located, or the funds from which the Percent for Art monies were drawn, are responsible for maintenance and repair. This applies to both public art that was acquired prior to the Percent for Art program, as well as work funded by the Percent for Art. In addition, AAPAC can choose to allocate funding for repair or maintenance of Percent for Art work, but not for older public art.

The Dreiseitl work, for example, is funded through the water utilities fund, which will provide funding for maintenance in the future, McCormick said. She said the city will run a depreciation schedule on each piece of art, and when the work is fully depreciated – or when it comes to the end of its “useful” life cycle, whenever that might be – the staff will come to AAPAC to discuss whether to decommission it.

For public art that pre-dates the Percent for Art program, AAPAC is under no obligation to deal with those, McCormick said – though they can if they choose.

Public Art at Fuller Road Station

Cathy Gendron and Connie Brown will be AAPAC representatives on a task force that’s being formed to handle public art at the Fuller Road Station, a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan parking structure and transit center. In reporting on a meeting that she’d had with the project manager, Dave Dykman, and other city staff, Gendron said she’d been surprised to learn that many things have already been decided, including the artwork’s location within the structure, the materials to be used and the theme of the piece – transportation. “I had no idea that things were so far along at this project,” she said.

The design concept was outlined in a memo to AAPAC. It calls for creating 15 large fritted glass panels on the front and back of the structure. From the memo:

Fritted glass is a special type of glass that utilizes ceramic-enamel coatings in a visible pattern (dots, lines, etc.) to control solar heat gain. The pattern is created by opaque or transparent glass fused to the substrate glass material under high temperatures. The substrate is heat strengthened or tempered to prevent breakage due to thermal stresses. The selected artist would create the designs for these visible patterns.

Elaine Sims asked who had made these decisions. The decisions had been made by the project’s architect – Mitchell and Mouat – and city staff, Gendron said. Margaret Parker indicated that Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator, had drawings of the project, which weren’t yet available to the public.

Gendron said the two-dimensional pieces would incorporate images of bicycles, buses and trains. She described the effect as lovely, but Brown wasn’t as enthusiastic. Brown said the question was whether they’d have much input, other than just shepherding what’s already been decided.

Margaret Parker said AAPAC still has to prove itself, and that they hadn’t gotten involved soon enough. They had heard about the project in the spring, and hadn’t yet finalized a task force. [AAPAC's possible role in the project had first been briefly mentioned at their January 2010 meeting. From Chronicle coverage:

Talcott then reported on another city project in which AAPAC might play a role: the Fuller Road Station. The project manager, David Dykman, had contacted her and they planned to meet formally soon. It was good that someone from another city project is reaching out, she said.

At Tuesday's meeting, Brown said she'd met with the architects as soon as AAPAC had heard about the project, but at that time they weren't yet done with the schematic design, and people were still questioning the funding model, she said. Parker said that for whatever reason, AAPAC wasn't getting involved soon enough. She noted that the project would have two phases, and that they should be sure to be ready for the second phase.

Jeff Meyers cautioned that they don't want to be in the same position for the second phase as they are now. If the city wants AAPAC engaged, this can't be a pattern that repeats, he said. Otherwise, AAPAC should remove itself from the project.

Zuellig said the pattern already had repeated. They'd first been asked by the city to provide an art consultant, and they'd written an RFQ (request for qualifications) for that position. [AAPAC discussed the request at length at their February 2010 meeting, where they raised several questions about the process.] That didn’t work out, and they’d met with Sue McCormick and told her they need to make sure that kind of situation doesn’t happen again – they needed to play a role in the art. Now, it seems they’re being asked to play an administrative role, she said.

[At an AAPAC organizational retreat on Wednesday, Talcott told The Chronicle that she will now be serving as the art project manager for the Fuller Road Station. At that meeting, commissioners also discussed with McCormick ways that they can get involved in these city projects at an earlier point.]

Meyers said the thing that troubled him was that it impacted AAPAC’s budget, but they weren’t able to weigh in on it. Describing it as the tail wagging the dog, he said it makes AAPAC’s role an afterthought. “My inclination is to say, You’re on your own.”

Zuellig agreed, and noted that they had the option of rejecting the project. [At the July 14 organizational meeting, McCormick clarified that AAPAC was a recommending body, and that if commissioners voted against a project, the city had the option of moving ahead with it, without AAPAC's involvement.]

Percent for Art funds stipulate that 1% of a capital project’s budget be set aside for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per project. As in the case of the municipal center building, the Percent for Art funds for Fuller Road Station are designated to be used in that project, Parker said.

Describing the situation as objectionable, Jim Curtis pointed out that now at least they have the ability to direct how the art is actually done. Other people can make suggestions, he noted, but “ultimately, we’re going to decide.”

Zuellig suggested pushing back on some of the things that had been pre-determined. Maybe there are other possibilities for materials and design, she said. That’s what the task force is for, Parker responded.

When the task force is given its charge, Sims suggested, they should be told that they can go beyond what the city has determined – it should be a jumping-off point, she said. Parker agreed, saying that it’s a negotiation. Sims noted that without an artist being involved in the project up until this point, the architects did the best that they could do.

But Meyers remained concerned that the city would simply be tasking the group to implement decisions that are already made. He felt it would be setting a precedent of being reactive, rather than proactive. He didn’t think AAPAC was set up to simply have projects thrown at it.

Curtis said it was a combination – AAPAC is approached about doing specific projects, as well as coming up with its own. Meyers noted that there’s a difference between bringing a project idea to AAPAC, versus saying “This is how it must be done.”

Zuellig agreed with Sims that the architects had to do something to accommodate public art. Now, AAPAC needed to take it from there.

Meyers ended the discussion by saying, somewhat lightheartedly, “I will temper my outrage until I hear more.”

West Park Art Project

Connie Brown reported that the design for the public art installation at West Park is moving ahead. The general concept for the work had been described at AAPAC’s March 9, 2010 meeting:

The artist’s conceptual proposal for the site includes creating two metal “trees” at each end of the top tier of the concrete seating area. Each tree would have a circular trunk made from recycled metal, about 8-10 inches at its base and standing about 10 feet tall. Branches near the top of the trunks would also be made from recycled metal. The trees would either be painted or left natural to weather. In addition, large boulders would be incorporated into the seat walls, as well as around the base of each tree. The artist would also help the parks staff place additional fieldstone boulders in the area between the seats and the bandshell, for seating and aesthetic purposes.

The footings for the piece have been poured, but there are still some issues related to using color, Brown said – the task force working with the artist is concerned about maintenance issues if painting is involved. The final work is expected to be complete by September.

Governance Issues: Who Wants to Be Chair?

Margaret Parker has served as chair of AAPAC since it was formed in 2008, and before that chaired the Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP), the group that pre-dated the Percent for Art program. For several months, she has been pushing to move out of that role, but no one has stepped forward to take it on. At Tuesday’s meeting, Cheryl Zuellig – who chairs AAPAC’s planning committee – presented a three-tiered plan for governance, to distribute the leadership duties between a vice chair, chair and past chair. The understanding is that the vice chair would spend a year learning the ropes, then move into the chair’s position for the following year. While the chair would still handle a larger share of duties compared to the other two leadership roles, some of that responsibility would be handled by the vice chair and past chair.

Zuellig presented the plan and asked for feedback.

Jeff Meyers said his biggest concern was asking the vice chair to see that far into the future – anything more than a year commitment was asking a lot. They’d be asking for three years: as vice chair, then chair, and finally past chair. He felt that requiring a vice chair to become chair was problematic.

Parker said they were open to alternative suggestions, but that they haven’t been able to get anyone to commit to anything, and that was the problem.

Meyers then suggested that perhaps they should make the job of chair less onerous – Parker said that was the point of this reorganization. The past chair, for example, would take on the task of doing the annual report, which is due in August. The vice chair would provide back-up for the chair, and provide oversight for the commission’s schedule.

Meyers proposed another option: Giving the vice chair more duties, but not requiring them to ascend to the chair automatically. Otherwise, he said, it might be difficult to get someone to commit to being vice chair.

Connie Brown raised the point that commissioners serve three-year terms. That means someone just coming onto the commission would need to commit to a leadership role immediately. Zuellig said that was only true if no one served multiple terms. When Meyers said commissioners don’t get reappointed automatically, Parker disagreed, saying “you sort of do.”

Zuellig noted that they’re facing an immediate challenge: Parker will be unable to attend the September and October meetings, and they need someone to fill in for her. There is currently no vice chair. Brown said she’d support the three-tier structure, but that still leaves the question: Who’ll take those roles?

Parker volunteered to serve as past chair.

Zuellig suggested that she email commissioners and get their feedback – including whether anyone would be willing to serve – and they could discuss it again at their August meeting.

Commissioners Recruited, and One Departs

At Tuesday’s meeting, Jim Curtis, who has served on AAPAC/CAPP for five years, told his colleagues that he plans to step down at the end of 2010.

Jim Curtis, of Curtis Commercial, announced plans to step down as a member of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission at the end of 2010.

Owner of Curtis Commercial, Curtis is also on the board of the Ann Arbor Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ), which launched on July 1, and said he needs more time to devote to that. He offered to serve on the projects committee, and continue to work on AAPAC issues as much as he can. That offer was accepted, and other commissioners expressed regret that he’d be leaving.

Margaret Parker reported that Lee Doyle, who attended AAPAC’s June meeting, has agreed to serve on the commission and is sending her application to the mayor, who nominates people for the city’s boards and commissions. Those nominations must be confirmed by city council. Doyle is chief of staff for the University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Communications and a member of the UM President’s Advisory Committee for Public Art. She is also a founder of the university’s Arts on Earth program, and oversees the UM Film Office.

AAPAC is still seeking additional members. With Curtis departing, the commission would be down to six members, out of a total of nine.

Redefining the Job of Public Art Administrator

Parker reported that Katherine Talcott, who’s been serving as the city’s public art administrator on a part-time contract basis since early 2009, will be leaving that role. Parker reported that according to Sue McCormick, the city’s public services administrator, Talcott’s one-year contract has been renewed, but that her role will be limited to project management. She will continue to oversee the Dreiseitl installations, the Fuller Road Station project, and whatever future projects McCormick assigns her, Parker said. But Talcott will no longer serve an administrative support role.

Instead, the city will be consolidating Talcott’s administrative duties and those of Jean Borger, AAPAC’s administrative coordinator. They’ll be hiring someone for that job, Parker said.

Responding to a question from Elaine Sims, Parker said that project management fees come out of the budget for each particular project.

Cathy Gendron asked whether Borger would be considered for the new job, and hoped that she would. [Borger takes minutes for AAPAC meetings, among other duties, and participated in Tuesday's meeting via speaker phone. Talcott did not attend the meeting.] Parker said she was highly recommending Borger, but it wasn’t yet clear how that job would be defined.

Sims said she assumed that AAPAC would have some input into that decision, that it would be a conversation with McCormick rather than a directive.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Jeff Meyers, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Others: Ray Detter

Absent: Marsha Chamberlin

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 10 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The partially dismantled Sun Dragon sculpture at Fuller Pool – it's the colored plastic on the roof that extends (in red) toward the pool. Previously, it extended to the end of the beam that juts out over the pool. City maintenance workers took it apart to repair the beam, which had rotted, and some parts of the sculpture broke. (Photo by the writer.)

The group discussed another sculpture – the Sun Dragon, designed by AAPAC chair Margaret Parker and located at Fuller Pool – which was damaged during recent repair work. The hope is to restore the piece before the pool opens on May 29.

Parker reported that Herbert Dreiseitl was in town last month and used bamboo poles to build a temporary full-scale mock-up of the large water sculpture that’s commissioned for the exterior of the new police/courts building on Fifth and Huron. But the German artist still hasn’t provided additional information regarding two interior pieces for the building, prompting one commissioner to ask, “He’s lost interest, maybe?”

And in reporting on a potential new member to the commission – Lee Doyle, who’s director of the UM Film Office – commissioner Elaine Sims noted that Pierce Brosnan will be making art in public (shooting a film) outside the Law Quad on the afternoon of May 18. The actor is part of the cast for Salvation Boulevard, which is already in town shooting at various sites on campus.

Much of the meeting dealt with more prosaic topics, however: governance, planning and PR.

Planning Issues: Won’t Someone Please Be Chair?

As head of the planning committee, Cheryl Zuellig reminded commissioners of the annual planning meeting they’d be having the following evening, to review their work for the past year and look ahead to fiscal 2011.

AAPAC is still seeking nominations for new commissioners. AAPAC will make recommendations to the mayor, who is responsible for nominating commissioners, who must then be confirmed by the city council.

Elaine Sims said she’s talked with Lee Doyle, who is chief of staff for the University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Communications and a member of the President’s Advisory Committee for Public Art. Doyle is also a founder of the university’s Arts on Earth program, and oversees the UM Film Office. “I think she’s a strong candidate,” Sims said. [Doyle was featured in a recent Concentrate article about film industry activity in this area.]

Connie Brown asked how they would handle a situation if there were too many nominations. Marsha Chamberlin suggested getting people involved at the committee level.

Jim Curtis pointed to the lengthy period between discussing the candidates and selecting them, noting that it takes several months. He wondered if that process could be accelerated. Margaret Parker, saying it was often difficult to reach people, added “we’re doing the best we can.”

Zuellig also discussed a proposal to add two new positions to the board’s leadership structure. In addition to the board chair, the positions of chair-elect and past chair would “help spread the joy of those responsibilities,” she said. Parker, who’s served as board chair since AAPAC was formed and has been pushing for someone else to take on that role, also suggested having the chair’s term limited to one year, “so it wouldn’t be like a life …”

“… sentence?” joked Cathy Gendron.

Chamberlin, who’s also president of the Ann Arbor Art Center, said the board of that nonprofit has found that one-year terms are too short. She also said it would be helpful to know exactly what the board chair’s duties are. Parker said she was compiling a list.

Commissioners agreed to discuss it at an upcoming organizational session, which will be facilitated by Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning staff. Pulcipher attended Tuesday’s AAPAC meeting, and explained that she’d be interviewing each commissioner privately in preparation for the session, which will likely be held in late June or July.

Pulcipher said she’d be collecting information about what commissioners see as issues or opportunities for AAPAC, what works well, what could be improved, and how AAPAC works with city staff and the public, among other things. She said her report will be a summary of responses, and that comments won’t be attributed.

Projects: West Park, Fuller Road Station, Ann Arbor Skatepark

From the projects committee, Connie Brown updated commissioners on the status of several efforts. The design hasn’t been finalized for the West Park public art project, being done in conjunction with major renovations underway there by the city’s parks staff. A contract with the artist – Traven Pelletier of Lotus Gardenscapes – was recently signed.

The general concept for the work had been described at AAPAC’s March 9, 2010 meeting:

The artist’s conceptual proposal for the site includes creating two metal “trees” at each end of the top tier of the concrete seating area. Each tree would have a circular trunk made from recycled metal, about 8-10 inches at its base and standing about 10 feet tall. Branches near the top of the trunks would also be made from recycled metal. The trees would either be painted or left natural to weather. In addition, large boulders would be incorporated into the seat walls, as well as around the base of each tree. The artist would also help the parks staff place additional fieldstone boulders in the area between the seats and the bandshell, for seating and aesthetic purposes.

Brown also reported that the projects committee is forming a task force to work on the proposed Fuller Road Station. The group would help select public art for the building, which will initially be a large parking structure and bus station on the south side of Fuller Road, just east of East Medical Center Drive.

And as she reported at last month’s AAPAC meeting, they aren’t currently working on a public art component for the Ann Arbor Skatepark, since it’s not a city-funded project. Brown went to the group’s public design workshop in April, where skatepark designer Wally Hollyday presented several conceptual designs. Marsha Chamberlin said the final conceptual design for the skatepark will be unveiled on May 22 at an event held at the Ann Arbor Art Center.

Unresolved Questions in Working with the DDA

As they’ve done at other meetings over the past several months, commissioners discussed AAPAC’s working relationship with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which also funds public art. Connie Brown reported that she and Jim Curtis have drafted a letter outlining what tasks AAPAC can do for the DDA. They haven’t sent the letter yet, she said.

Curtis said they’re still waiting to hear back from DDA executive director Susan Pollay, whom they’d met with several months ago. She was going to talk to her board members, he said, but he’s unsure if that’s happened. So he and Brown decided to come up with a list of items to send to the DDA, outlining how they might work together.

Margaret Parker expressed concern over who would pay for some of these tasks, or who would provide the volunteer time. There was also the issue of the DDA “pre-selecting” a project, she said. At Hanover Park, on the northwest corner of Packard and Division, the DDA has built a a circular dais that’s about 25 feet in diameter, enclosed by a seat wall, with an empty center that’s suitable for a sculpture or plantings. They’ve asked AAPAC to help select a piece of public art for that site.

Curtis explained that the DDA wants AAPAC to take the lead – that’s why he and Brown made a list of what tasks AAPAC can do. He said he didn’t think it should take as long as it has to move forward.

Several commissioners said they thought there should be more clarity regarding who pays for administrative work, which tasks will be handled by volunteers, and whether those volunteers would be commissioners or others from the community. They agreed to discuss it further at a planning session the following night.

Gift Selection Panel: Thanks, But No Thanks

Jim Curtis reported that about 14 months ago, AAPAC was approached by an artist who wanted to donate a sculpture to the city. Over the past year, commissioners have debated what to do, he said. [Though during Tuesday's meeting the sculptor was not mentioned by name, in previous meetings he was identified as Garo Kazan, who proposed donating a large bronze sculpture of a horse.]

A peer review committee was formed earlier this year, Curtis said, which included two University of Michigan representatives, one private sector designer, a community advocate and a city employee who’s an engineer. They were given AAPAC’s gift selection guidelines and went to view the sculpture. On April 29, the committee met and discussed the gift. Ultimately, Curtis said, the committee was appreciative of the offer, but decided unanimously not to accept the gift. He noted that although he and Katherine Talcott, the city’s public art administrator, facilitated the group, neither of them voted.

The committee’s concerns centered on aesthetics, maintenance and liability, Curtis reported. They were worried that the piece might be vandalized, and that liability would be an issue if people climbed on it.

Cheryl Zuellig cautioned that there needed to be a public record of the reasons for rejecting the artwork, and those reasons should be tied to AAPAC’s bylaws. They need to be consistent and transparent in making these decisions. She also wondered whether maintenance and vandalism issues for this piece would differ from any other – all public art would have those concerns, to some extent, she noted. If those were always a concern, then you could end up rejecting everything. She and other commissioners thanked Curtis for his work on the project.

Fuller Pool’s “Sun Dragon” Damaged

Margaret Parker reported that maintenance workers at Fuller Pool had damaged the Sun Dragon – an outdoor sculpture attached to the pool’s shower, which uses water that’s heated with solar energy. A wooden beam, which supported both the sculpture and a pipe carrying the heated water, had rotted. When maintenance workers removed part of the sculpture to repair the beam, parts of the artwork were broken. “They chopped the head right off,” said Parker, the artist who designed the Sun Dragon in 2003.

The pool manager, Dan McGuire, wasn’t aware that AAPAC should be contacted before doing any repair work that involves public art, Parker said. The situation highlights the need to coordinate with city staff, she said, and to come up with an overall maintenance plan for the city’s public art works.

Cathy Gendron asked where the funding for repairs would come from. There’s not yet an estimate from the fabricator, Parker said. It could be paid for out of a maintenance fund for public art that’s held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, she said – there’s a balance of about $18,000 in that. Or it could be paid for from the parks budget. “The funding question is something that has to be answered,” Parker said.

The pool is still closed for the winter season – it reopens May 29. The staff hopes to complete repairs before then.

Dreiseitl Update

Margaret Parker reported that Herbert Dreiseitl came to Ann Arbor on April 16-17 and worked with staff of Quinn Evans Architects, the Ann Arbor firm that the city has contracted to be project manager for the police/courts building, also known as the municipal center. They did a full-size mock-up of the large water sculpture that the city has commissioned the German artist to create – the mock-up was made of bamboo poles, Parker said, adding that the sculpture as mocked up seemed larger than it did in Dreiseitl’s drawings.

There are still unanswered questions regarding two interior pieces, she said – they still don’t have a new pricing estimate, for example. That prompted commissioner Cheryl Zuellig to observe, “He’s lost interest, maybe?” Parker replied that they chose someone who has an international reputation, so of course he’s very busy. They expect to have answers in early June.

Jim Curtis said he’s starting to feel a little uncomfortable about it, but Connie Brown noted that they hadn’t accepted the proposal for the interior pieces. Parker pointed out that Dreiseitl is communicating more with Quinn Evans at this stage. “Many questions are being answered,” she said.

Public Relations: Survey, Open House, Website

An online survey soliciting input on public art had yielded 236 responses as of Tuesday, reported Marsha Chamberlin, a member of the public relations committee. She’s working on other ways to promote it before they close it at the end of May.

There are seven nominations for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize contributions to public art. Cathy Gendron, who’s also on the PR committee, asked that commissioners look at the nominations and vote by May 21st. They’ll plan to give out a maximum of five awards, but could give fewer, she said. Winners will be presented with the awards at a June meeting of the Ann Arbor city council.

An open house is scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, to highlight the commission’s work and seek public input. There was some discussion about the time of the event – a room in the library is reserved for 7-9 p.m., but several commissioners thought that was too late. Margaret Parker said she’d try to move the time to 6-8 p.m.

The event will be organized around a speaker, Gendron said. Commissioner Jeff Meyers, who didn’t attend Tuesday’s meeting, is trying to confirm Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors’ programs for the UM School of Art & Design, as the speaker.

Gendron described the event as a time for networking, and said she wants it to be fun and engaging, giving people the opportunity to talk with commissioners and ask questions. They plan to use the map that was posted at last year’s open house – people used it to indicate locations where they’d like to see public art. AAPAC also plans to convey results of its online survey at the event. Cheryl Zuellig suggested providing a way for people who attend the open house to take the survey, if they haven’t already.

Gendron gave an update on AAPAC’s website and Facebook page. The Facebook page hasn’t launched yet, and commissioners discussed what kind of information to include and how to update it. For Facebook posts, Chamberlin described how they handle it at the Ann Arbor Art Center. Each day is assigned to a different person on staff, who is responsible for posting on that day. It works well, she said, and doesn’t burden any one individual.

After AAPAC is set up on Facebook, Gendron said, she’ll start working on their presence on the new Arts Alliance website. They’ll also be moving ahead with changes to AAPAC’s page on the city’s website, and will eventually be taking down their secondary site, which was designed by Annie Wolock of Keystone Media. Wolock attended Tuesday’s meeting and was introduced as a new member of the PR committee.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Jim Curtis, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig.

Absent: Jeff Meyers

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 8 at 4:30 p.m., 7th floor conference room of the City Center Building, 220 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

At left: Ted Annis, AATA board treasurer, and board member Jesse Bernstein, right. (Photos by the writer.)

The discussion began with a gentle ribbing of the board’s treasurer, Ted Annis, who was asked: “Have your feelings been hurt?” It ended, however, with a serious philosophical discussion about the difference between a body consisting of appointed board members compared to one composed of elected officials.

Over the next few months, the board will begin a conversation in earnest to change its meeting location to the Ann Arbor District Library and its time to Thursday evenings.

A development not explicitly discussed at the board meeting, but nonetheless connected to it, is the fact that the AATA will begin providing board packets in their native digital text – until now, the documents have been available in electronic form, but only as image scans.

Treasurer’s Report

The question of the treasurer’s report prompted a conversation that eventually led CEO Michael Ford to agree with board member David Nacht’s description of it as “healthy.”

Treasurer’s Report: Background

Coinciding with the October start of the AATA’s fiscal year, at its September 2009 meeting the board engaged in the annual exercise of electing new officers. That included election of board member Ted Annis as treasurer.

Since taking over as treasurer, Annis has submitted one-page treasurer’s reports:

• Treasurer’s report: Oct. 29, 2009
• Treasurer’s report: Dec. 8, 2009
• Treasurer’s report: Jan. 11, 2010

The October report focused on the budget context within which a consultant should work – the consultant would design a countywide transit system. The December report focused on transparency issues, with specific recommendations to increase the kind and quality of information available on the AATA website, and a recommendation to change the venue of the board meetings. The January report recommended the hiring of a chief financial officer.

Annis was unable to attend the January 2010 board meeting due to illness. But in an email sent to CEO Michael Ford and cc-ed to other board members before that meeting took place, he expressed some frustration that the January treasurer’s report was not part of the board packet:

Michael,

Board packet arrived today, no Treasurer’s Report included. (Note that I sent it to you and the Board on 11 Jan, see below.) Please update the Board packet.

Second time this has happened.

Treasurer’s Report: Discussion

At Wednesday’s meeting, then, Annis broached the topic by asking that the treasurer’s report be put back on each month’s agenda. Responding to David Nacht’s “Have your feelings been hurt?” ribbing, Annis deadpanned: “I’m the treasurer, I don’t have feelings.”

Though Ford said he took responsibility for the issue, board chair Paul Ajegba put the responsibility on the board’s governance committee, which includes Ajegba.

[Per the AATA board bylaws, the governance committee includes the board chair (Paul Ajegba), and chairs of the other board committees (Jesse Bernstein, who chairs the performance monitoring and external relations committee; and Rich Robben, who chairs the planning and development committee), plus the "executive director," which is Michael Ford. The job title for Ford is actually CEO, but previously his position had been called "executive director."]

After Ajegba said that the governance committee had discussed the matter, Annis took Ajegba’s remarks to indicate that the treasurer’s report would be included in future board agendas. Annis noted, “The bylaws require the treasurer to make a report, so if we’re putting it back, good.”

However, Ajegba resisted committing to that, saying that they would be included “as needed.” Annis stated, “That’s not what the bylaws say.”

The board chair prior to Ajegba, David Nacht, then weighed in, declaring, “I have something to say about this.” Nacht noted that the board had transitioned to a working style where the material considered by the whole board had been worked through at a committee level – it had been vetted in some sense by the committee process. There was, Nacht said, some sense of consensus that developed on matters brought before the whole board. Continuing, Nacht noted that Annis’ reports had been substantive, and to some extent that could be seen as undermining the ability of the committees to do their part.

That being said, cautioned Nacht, there is a reason for the treasurer’s report in the bylaws – it’s supposed to be more than just a dollars-and-cents accounting, and the treasurer should have the ability to report directly to the board. It all depended, Nacht said, on what the report includes: Is it more philosophical or is it more dollars and cents? To the extent that the content of the treasurer’s report amounted to a dissenting opinion on board policy, Nacht said, it shouldn’t come in the form of a treasurer’s report.

Annis, as he listened to Nacht, stated: “I’m not in agreement with what I’m hearing.”

Ajegba confirmed that the concerns and issues outlined by Nacht had reflected the thinking of the governance committee. Annis objected to that way of thinking, describing it as too restrictive. He said that his report ought not to disappear and that it should not be suppressed: “I think you ought to suck it up and listen to it.”

Jesse Bernstein, who serves on the governance committee, said they had not suppressed anything. The treasurer submits a report, Bernstein said, and the question is how do they implement the treasurer’s communication. Ajegba added, “We’re not trying to censor.” Bernstein appeared to make a gambit at reconciling differences by saying, “We’ve got to get this clear among all of us.”

Annis again appealed to the board’s bylaws: “If you don’t want to hear from the treasurer, change the bylaws.” Nacht said he didn’t think it was true that the bylaws needed changing. In addition to the financial data – How much did we spend? – there was room for comment that is fairly included in a treasurer’s report, said Nacht.

Annis, alluding to the fact that Nacht is an attorney, said, “Counselor, let me read from the bylaws: ‘The Treasurer shall submit to the Board, and comment on, …’” Annis stopped at that point, but Rich Robben, who also serves on the governance committee, prompted him to continue: “On what?” Annis then finished the sentence: “… monthly budget-expenditure reports prepared by management.”

Bernstein again made a gambit to reconcile, suggesting to Annis that “you and I sit down and come up with the best way to do this to make sure comments are shared.” Annis replied: “Do you want to hear an independent treasurer’s report?” Bernstein’s answer: “I want us to be a team.” Bernstein said he wanted to maximize board and staff time to get solutions.

Annis then acknowledged Bernstein’s effort to reconcile, saying, “We don’t have to beat it up any more at this point.” Nacht summed up by calling it a “healthy conversation.”

Nacht then offered a comparison between the AATA board and the mayor and city council as playing a “watchdog role” for citizens. Where the two bodies differed, cautioned Nacht, was in the fact that the AATA board was not a legislative body: “No one elected us to express an opinion. We’re a governing board.” Nacht said he tried to look out for riders who use the bus system not by choice, but that fundamentally the role of the board was to govern. And governing, Nacht declared, “is a communal activity.”

CEO’s Reaction to Treasurer’s Report Discussion and More

On the heels of the board discussion of the treasurer’s report, Nacht asked CEO Michael Ford for his broad impression of the AATA after having been on the job for a little more than a half a year – Nacht said he’d not told Ford he was going to ask him that.

Ford began by citing the discussion that they’d just had on the topic of the treasurer’s report, characterizing it as “healthy.”

Continuing, Ford said that the AATA staff is geared up to do a lot of work and that there is a lot more work to do, based on the challenges he’d heard outlined in a visit to the state capitol that day. In remarks made earlier in the evening, Ford had said he’d been to Lansing and had met with State Rep. Pam Byrnes (D-District 52) to discuss ways to secure funding. Among the topics they discussed was the gas/diesel tax. She was, Ford reported, interested in the AATA’s efforts to expand service countywide. He would be returning to Lansing the following morning to have breakfast with State Sen. Liz Brater (D-District 18).

Ford continued his response to Nacht’s question by saying that he kept in mind a question that Paul Ajegba had asked his job interview: What will you do if you don’t succeed? Ford’s answer could be summed up in a sentence, as “I’ll keep trying.”

The relevant excerpt from The Chronicle’s coverage of that April 22, 2009 interview:

Paul Ajegba: Michael, we are currently a bus organization. We are trying to integrate rail into our organization. Everything seems to be on track – no pun intended – to make that happen. If for whatever reason, politically or financially, it does not happen, how would you feel about that?

Michael Ford: Well, I don’t think I would give up. I think the important thing is that the project and the focus makes sense. I came from an organization, for example, TriMet is pretty well-known for its service. But the big thing in working with my former boss, Fred Hansen, who is the general manager there, is that he was able through his relationships to get funding, to  get money. The last budget that President Bush had, three of the four projects were funded in Oregon, because of some diligence. To answer your question, I wouldn’t want to just give in to that. I would look at other alternatives, look at what else we could do. Maybe the timing won’t be right. But I think if we’re going to address the needs of Ann Arbor and the region we are going to have to get to that point. So I think we need to continue the discussions and all that. I don’t know if I would just feel defeated at that point. I just feel like I would keep trying and finding ways to do that.

Paul Ajegba: Even if it is beyond your control?

Michael Ford: Well, if it is beyond my control, in terms of just can’t get it done?

Paul Ajegba: As I said for political reasons or for financial reasons or for regional issues that you can’t have anything to do with, even if you can get money from Washington, but because the stakeholders are not coming together to make it happen, how would you feel about that?

Michael Ford: Well, I would be concerned. And I would be still looking to see what we could still do to try to make it happen. [...] I think that being able to carry a message of why this is important in getting other relationships and other people and other agencies to help support what you are doing and leveraging that is the best you can do. No, I would probably feel somewhat disappointed it didn’t happen.

Annis followed up Nacht’s question on Wednesday with a question about Ford’s goals and objectives. Ford indicated that he had been asked to run his set of goals and objectives through the board’s committees again, and he was doing that. Annis said he’d submitted suggestions for goals and objectives, and that if it turned out they did not “make the final cut” that he would like to know why.

Accessibility and Transparency

As noted, the December treasurer’s report focused on transparency and accessibility issues. The board discussed one possible step to be taken in that direction: moving its monthly meeting location from the AATA headquarters on South Industrial Ave. Another step was not mentioned at the meeting: creation of native digital board packets.

Accessibility: Board Meeting Time and Location

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Jesse Bernstein said that the committee recommended moving the board’s meeting location to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The advantage of the location, Bernstein said, was that it offered an opportunity to record the event for broadcast later on CTN – Community Television Network. Due to scheduling issues, he said, it would not be possible to make the broadcast live. However, he was looking at the possibility that live streaming could be made available on the internet.

A key part of the move would include a timing change. Instead of the third Wednesday of every month, Bernstein said, it would be necessary to switch to Thursday. He said the committee recommended that implementation not come until two months after a final decision had been made – that would allow sufficient time to alert the community.

Board chair Paul Ajegba noted that the change would require a change in the bylaws, and asked if the local advisory council had any concerns about the change. Michael Ford reported that he had reached out to the LAC to discuss their concerns about accessibility. The idea that the LAC might have accessibility concerns about the Ann Arbor District Library was puzzling to Nacht, who asked simply, “Why?”

Karen Wheeler, executive assistant with the AATA, clarified that there was concern about crossing the street, from the Blake Transit Center to the library, which is related in part to the construction project next to the library. With the former surface parking lot unavailable – the city is building an underground parking structure on what’s known as the Library Lot – there’s no place to park that would not entail crossing a street.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen weighed in on the topic by asking specifically: “Where will everyone park?” He noted that there was a certain element of irony that this would be a concern about a meeting of a transit authority board. But he noted that a number of AATA staff would need to find their way to the meeting, in addition to the board members and the public.

Also speaking during public commentary, Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living clarified that drop-offs and pick-ups for para-transit are difficult at that location. She asked if the CTN studios, across the street from AATA headquarters, was a possibility. Bernstein shook his head, no.

Knitting is a common activity at Ann Arbor public meetings, and Wednesday's AATA board meeting was no different. No prizes are available for readers who can identify the knitter or the project.

The board did not have an item on its agenda to make a decision on moving the board meeting time and location, and did not take action on Wednesday.

Accessibility: Board Packets

AATA board packets have been available as scanned image documents for some time.

The work flow for stitching together a single electronic file containing  scanned images for the board packet is to take the assembled physical paper documents and feed them through a copy machine, which automatically scans them and creates a PDF file. In the future, the single electronic file will be created by knitting together the original electronic files using Adobe Acrobat.

Starting next month, board packets be available as native digital documents on the AATA website. Last month’s file was created retroactively – on the website it’s labeled as “Searchable Board Packet.”

The difference between the two electronic formats is the difference between having a picture of words, and actually having the words. Among the disadvantages of scanned images:

• They’re not machine searchable – it’s just a picture of text, not actual digital text.
• For vision-impaired people, who use a screen reader, there’s no text to read.
• The size of the resulting files is huge, thus slowing down access.
• Use of information from such files requires re-typing, instead of just copying and pasting.

The move to digital text will eliminate those disadvantages.

Survey Says!

The board had before it a resolution authorizing an increase in the contract with the vendor (CJI) who was to perform a series of three different surveys for AATA. The AATA had a grant from the Michigan Department of Transportation for up to $120,000 to cover the three surveys: one in Washtenaw County, one in Livingston County, and one conducted  on board the buses. The Washtenaw County survey of voter attitudes is complete, and results were presented at the last AATA board meeting. The on-board survey is also complete. Not yet done is the Livingston County survey.

The amount originally contracted was $96,000, which falls below the $100,000 mark – above that amount, the board must authorize the expenditure. The increase to $108,000 is explained this way in the board packet:

The [city manager] of Howell, Shea Charles, is responsible for coordinating the Livingston County survey. The survey was supposed to be conducted at the same time as the Washtenaw County survey, but was delayed because it took a long time for [city manager] Charles to gain local agreement on the questionnaire and the format. That finally occurred in January.

There is significant additional cost to CJI to conduct the two telephone surveys separately.

At first, the board members misunderstood the increase to be from $100,000 to $108,000, which caused Ted Annis to conclude that the overage was under 10%, so he was okay with that. On clarification that the increase was actually from $96,000 to $108,000, Annis allowed that it exceeded 10%, “but not by much.”

David Nacht said he’d found the presentation at the previous month’s board meeting of the survey results to be “unusually sound.”

Speaking during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen expressed his hope that the survey results for the other two surveys – the on-board survey and the Livingston County survey – would also be presented at a subsequent board meeting. He also said it was interesting that Livingston County officials had pre-approved the questions. An interesting question for the board to ask the vendor, suggested Mogensen, would be: What questions would you have preferred to ask?

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the increase in the contract for the survey work to $108,000.

Local Advisory Committee Charge

At  recent board meetings, Rebecca Burke, chair of AATA’s local advisory council, has indicated that LAC would be bringing a request to update the language of the LAC charge – words like “handicapped” needed to be replaced with “disabled.” On Wednesday, the board approved updates to the language. LAC is a body focused on advocacy for seniors and those with disabilities. From the LAC bylaws:

1. To provide input, review and comment on the Vehicle Accessibility Plan as required by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

2. To generate discussion, interpretation, and recommendations to the Board regarding any senior adults and persons with disabilities related issues of a significant nature.

3. To work with the AATA staff as directed by the AATA Board toward the achievement of the organization’s goals and objectives.

4. To report regularly to the AATA Board of Directors the activities, actions and recommendations of the Council.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change to the LAC charge.

Other Public Commentary

Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living (CIL) reported that the bus service in one direction into Research Park Drive, where CIL is located, had been running for a month and it was wonderful. She thanked the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, and the county road commission for their cooperation in getting the service put in. Now the challenge, she said, was to get service in the other direction as well.

Grawi also told the board that the next Annual Developmental Disabilities Conference was coming up in April and that it was important to get someone from the AATA to attend.

Thomas Partridge told the board that he’d arrive late [as public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting was starting] due to his attendance at the second county board of commissioners meeting of the month – it always coincides with the AATA’s monthly board meeting. He suggested the county board’s chambers as a possible location for AATA meetings, pointing to the  investment that had been made in technology for internet streaming and television broadcast there.

He encouraged the board to put a countywide millage on the ballot this November and not to use as excuses the general economic climate or the fact that the AATA had only recently hired a new CEO.

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

Absent: Charles Griffith, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 17 24, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]