(AAATA is not the name of an actual prescription drug.)

The transit taxes currently collected in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are levied by the cities, and passed through to the AAATA.

This would be the first tax ever levied by the AAATA itself. The additional revenue is supposed to pay for a range of service improvements, including extended hours of operation on weekdays, additional service on weekends, and greater frequency of operation.

My guess is most people by now have made up their minds about the May 6 ballot referendum.

My purpose here is not to review the arguments pro and con and to weigh that balance in some sort of calculus that points to an unavoidable conclusion that the only possible rational vote is yes.

If you’re on the fence, though, this column is meant to give you a reason to vote yes. Any number of reasons might be given to vote yes, and surely there are also credible reasons for voting no.

But I am going to vote yes. And I’m going to tell you one of many reasons why.

If you don’t have the patience to wade through a bunch of words to find out that reason, here’s a one-sentence summary: I have noticed that my once-reliable body is getting old and creaky.

Background

For Ann Arbor taxpayers, the 0.7 mill tax will translate into a total transportation tax of about 2.7 mills – after the city’s own roughly 2 mill charter millage is added in. (Many people have forgotten that Ann Arbor’s charter transportation millage is actually 2.5 mills, but has been reduced over the years to just over 2 mills by the Headlee Amendment.)

My house has a taxable value of $97,010 – which means that I’m currently paying about $194 a year in transportation taxes. The 0.7 mill tax would mean an additional $68 for me, or a total transportation tax burden of $262. For the five-year period of the millage, I’ll pay something like $1,300.

The existing charter millage is perpetual, which means that it’s not subject to regular voter approval like this new five-year millage would be. If the millage is approved, the AAATA would need to ask voters for approval again after five years.

In five years, I’ll be 54 years old. That’s pretty damn old. But that’s still 11 years away from eligibility for the AAATA’s Good as Gold senior ride program, which allows seniors (age 65 and up) to ride the regular fixed-route buses without paying a fare to board. If I were an Ann Arbor senior making just two round trips a week by bus, that would work out to $0.26 $2.60 per round trip (my $262 tax burden divided by 100 trips).

That strikes me as a bargain. If I were 65, I would fill out the application form right now.

But critics of the AAATA’s route system will sometimes contend that the routes don’t go where they need to go, or that the trip into downtown to make a transfer makes the journey too long – so making that trip cost-free doesn’t help much. There’s some merit to that criticism. No doubt it is a challenge to get from Point A to Point B using fixed-route bus service for many As and Bs in Ann Arbor.

Shared-Ride Taxi Service: Compared to Standard Cab

But here’s an under-appreciated fact about the Good as Gold program: It allows seniors to call and order same-day shared-ride taxi service – for $4 one-way and $4 for the return trip.  Think about that for just a second: If you’re a senior in Ann Arbor, you can make a phone call and get door-to-door transportation service – to your destination and back – for just $8. If you can plan things out a day in advance, you can save $1 for each leg of the trip for a total cost of $6.

It’s fair to point out that the Good as Gold service is different from a standard cab for hire: Your ride will often be shared with others; the vehicle cannot wait for you while you make a stop; and the assistance that the driver can provide is limited.

How does Good as Gold compare to calling a standard cab? Let’s consider an actual trip. Let’s say I wanted to travel from my house on the Old West Side to the University of Michigan School of Public Policy to attend a mayoral candidate forum.

At the maximum rate set by the city of Ann Arbor, which many taxi companies charge, that would be $3 to get in and $2.50 a mile, or $3 + $3.25 (for 1.3 miles) = $6.25. If I don’t want to pay for the waiting time  – and I don’t, because it would be $24 per hour – that works out to $13 round trip. Compared to the $6 a senior could pay in the Good as Gold program (reserving one day in advance) that’s a $7 savings.

Shared-Ride Taxi Service: Compared to Car Ownership

But that’s a $7 savings compared to a cab ride, not compared to a personal car, the preferred mode of many seniors. So let’s assume a roughly $9,100 average cost to own and operate a car for 15,000 miles – a number that comes from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation for 2012.

How much would it cost annually to take one round trip a day under the Good as Gold program – assuming none of those trips were planned a day in advance? It works out to $2,920 ($8 times 365 ) + $262 (my tax burden) =  $3,182 a year. Otherwise put, the cost of taking those trips with the AAATA’s Good as Gold program is about one-third the cost of owning and operating an automobile.

Perhaps that’s an unfair comparison for senior couples, whose $9,100 annual cost of owning and operating a car covers both of their trips. But even if we double the cost under Good as Gold – to account for the trips of each member of the couple – that’s still just two-thirds the amount it takes to own and operate a car.

What More Could You Want?

The 0.7 mill tax is supposed to pay for a five-year transportation improvement plan. But the Good as Gold program exists now. Does the senior shared-ride taxi service get any better if the millage is approved?  Yes.

The hours of operation for the shared-ride taxi service run parallel to the hours of operation for fixed-route service. So in every instance where the five-year improvement plan indicates hours of service being extended later into the evenings or on weekends, the shared-taxi service runs later into the evenings or on weekends. Wherever there is additional geographic area added in the service improvement plan, the shared-taxi service will follow.

But I Am Not a Senior

Readers who know me, or perhaps just know of me, might wonder why I am championing the cause of senior public transportation riders – and not just because I am not a senior. Some readers might know that I routinely haul loads upwards of 100 pounds on my bicycle cargo tailer, so I do not seem to suffer from mobility issues.

But every once in a while, life gives you a sneak preview of what it might be like to be older and less dynamic. Over the weekend three weeks ago, my lower back seized up into an angry block of tissue. I could not sit, stand or even roll over in bed without hitting a 10 on the pain scale. After 12 hours of pain-med therapy at the University of Michigan hospital’s observation unit, I was able to stand up and walk. But I still had to plan out every movement, slow and steady.

On my calendar that week was the first mayoral candidate forum – held at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy. I was feeling feeble and unsteady, so walking and bicycling weren’t an option. So I took the bus – the #12 down Liberty to Blake Transit Center downtown. It turned out that I had narrowly missed the #6 bus connection I needed to continue to the Ford School.

Waiting the half hour for the next #6 bus wasn’t the end of the world – because I’d allowed some time for unplanned mishap and mayhem. I waited sitting on a bench outside on Fourth Avenue, soaking up the warmth of a sunny spring day. Eventually the #6 rolled up, I boarded, and I arrived on time for the mayoral forum.

The AAATA got me where I needed to go that day – but so what? What difference would the proposed 0.7 mill tax have made for that trip? The answer: 15 minutes. The proposed service improvements for Route #6 – to be paid for with the additional tax – include service every 15 minutes, not just every half hour. So for that specific trip, I would have reduced my waiting time by 15 minutes. A 15-minute difference can be important, especially if you have to make that trip every day – because not every day is sunny and warm.

Conclusion

Sunny warm days in Ann Arbor turn to gray, icy wind soon enough. And even though I am young and strong now, I will be older and decrepit soon enough. So I’m voting yes, for older people now – and for my future, decrepit self.

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

From left: Larry Krieg, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s newest board member, pending confirmation by the Ypsilanti Township board of trustees, and Eric Mahler, AAATA board member. (Photos by the writer.)

That capital and categorical grant program got a unanimous vote of approval at the Dec. 19 meeting. It’s a plan for spending about $45 million in federal funds over the next five years. According to the AAATA, this year’s plan does not include additional capital needs that would be associated with a five-year service improvement plan in the urban core, or any funding associated with rail initiatives. Having in place such a capital and categorical grant program – a set of allocations for specific categories of capital expenditures – is a requirement to be eligible for federal funding. [.pdf of 2014-2018 grant program]

The five-year service improvement plan could be implemented by the AAATA with funding that will likely be sought through an additional millage sometime in 2014. That would require approval of a majority of voters in the three jurisdictions making up the AAATA – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. The township became a member as a result of an Ann Arbor city council vote taken on Nov. 18, 2013.

The expected appointee to the AAATA board from Ypsilanti Township, Larry Krieg, attended the Dec. 19 meeting and sat at the table, although his appointment has not yet been confirmed by the township board of trustees. His confirmation did not appear on the township board’s Dec. 9, 2013 agenda. The next township board meeting is set for Jan. 21, 2014, which comes the week after the AAATA’s next regular meeting, on Jan. 16.

So Krieg did not participate in any of the votes taken on Dec. 19.

A significant vote taken by the board was to approve a nine-month extension of a contract with SelectRide through April 30, 2015, to provide paratransit service. The value of the contract for the extension period is $2.263 million. That’s essentially a pro-rated amount of SelectRide’s current contract, which ran through July 31, 2014.

The AAATA is currently preparing a request for proposals (RFP) with an eye to overhaul the concept of its paratransit service – which comes in the context of the possible five-year service improvement plan. Without a contract extension, that RFP would need to be ready for issuance in time to complete selection of a vendor by the time SelectRide’s current contract expires in July 2014. To avoid the possibility of an interruption in service, the AAATA board approved the SelectRide contract extension.

Other business items handled by the board included contracts for snow removal and janitorial services.

AAATA 2014-18 Capital and Categorical Grant Program

The board was asked to approve the 2014-2018 capital and categorical grant program – a plan for spending federal funds. According to the AAATA, this year’s plan does not include additional capital needs that would be associated with a five-year service improvement plan in the urban core. [.pdf of 2014-2018 grant program] [.pdf of Dec. 10, 2013 planning and development committee presentation]

That five-year service improvement plan – also called the urban core expansion program – could be implemented by the AAATA with funding that will likely be sought through an additional millage sometime in 2014. A millage would require approval of a majority of voters in the three jurisdictions making up the AAATA – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

Having in place such a capital and categorical grant program – a set of allocations for specific categories of capital expenditures – is a requirement to be eligible for federal funding. This year’s plan outlines how roughly $45 million would be spent over the next five years.

Among the items that AAATA manager of service development Chris White characterized during the board meeting as departing from “business as usual” were the following highlights from the program:

• purchase of small buses for paratransit services
• construction of a “superstop” on Washtenaw Avenue
• increase in funding for on-board systems for fixed-route and paratransit
• a change in the number of vans per year for vanpool services
• spreading out the replacement of the 19 2003 buses over four years
• purchase of management software and business intelligence software
• planning for projects like the connector, a possible high-capacity service for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and further south to I-94

In last year’s program, no funds were programmed for dedicated park-and-ride lots. Based on minutes from the Jan. 10, 2013 meeting of the board’s planning and development committee, the lack of funding for park-and-ride lots drew concern from AATA board member Eli Cooper, who is also the transportation program manager for the city of Ann Arbor. In this year’s plan, $250,000 is designated for park-and-ride facilities in each of the first three years of the program.

The submission of the capital and categorical grant program is due to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation by Feb. 1, 2014. Annual approval of the AAATA’s capital and categorical grant program has typically taken place in January of each year, but the need to allow time for review by the newly established southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA) has moved up the timeline to December.

Capital and Categorical Grant Program: Presentation

At the Dec. 19 meeting, AAATA manager of service development Chris White was invited to come to the podium and to give an overview of the capital and categorical grant program.

“It’s quite a lot of money,” White said, and it’s important to have some understanding of the basis for the program so that board members feel comfortable supporting it.

He began with some background on the total grant funding approval for past fiscal years. There’s a fair amount of variation, he noted – from $6 million to $20 million.

The big spikes in 2007 and 2012, he said, are bus purchases. That’s the biggest purchase the AAATA makes with grant funds, he noted. Federal grants come in “two flavors,” he continued: formula funds and discretionary funds. The formula funds are awarded based simply on formula. The really important aspect of formula funding, he said, is that the AAATA is allowed to save that money for a couple of years to plan for its use. So the AAATA is able to ration out those grant funds to take care of the authority’s needs.

AAATA total grant funding.

AAATA total grant funding – discretionary and formula.

Discretionary funds are significantly different from that, White explained. Typically, discretionary funds are awarded on the basis of a competitive application and are typically only capital funding. The amount of discretionary funding can vary from year to year as the programming varies year to year. What has had a significant impact on discretionary funds is the new federal authorizing legislation (MAP-21), which eliminated almost all of the bus discretionary funds, White said. Congress wanted to take away all the “discretion” associated with those funds.

Many transit agencies use discretionary funding as their primary means of bus replacement, White said. There’s been a fair amount of hue and cry from the transit industry, he added, but at this point it’s hard to tell if something is going to get changed. Right now, White said, there’s no discretionary money available.

White pointed out the variation in the discretionary funding levels over the last several years. The AAATA had been pretty successful in obtaining discretionary funding, he said.

White explained that the AAATA is able to choose the balance in formula funds, within certain limitations, between operating and capital expenses. So the AAATA wants to make sure that it has money for replacement capital – in particular replacement buses. Replacing buses has always been a top priority, White said. That has to be balanced against operating needs, White continued.

Federal formula funds for operating/capital.

Discretionary funds are used to supplement formula funds to carry out planned projects, White said. The AAATA has resisted the urge to “chase” money – it doesn’t develop programs just because there’s money available. Instead, the AAATA tries to develop a program and then check to see if there is discretionary federal money available to support that program.

White characterized the operating expense portion of the formula funds as relatively consistent from year to year – until 2013. The AAATA was averaging a little over $2 million a year in operating funding from the formula funds, but that had been increased to over $3 million in 2013. That reflects a decision to fund increased service – on Route #4 in particular, White said.

White continued by explaining that the federal funding allocation has a couple of different sources. He noted that 2009 was a big anomaly, because a lot of money had come in under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) – the federal stimulus act. The AAATA had used ARRA funds to build the Plymouth Road park-and-ride lot, the AAATA’s portion of the University Michigan central campus center stop, as well as the bus storage facility expansion. ARRA had been “a nice shot of money,” White said, but the AAATA knew at that point that it would not continue.

Federal formula allocation.

What will continue, White noted, was a new category of formula funds that the Congress had created in 2013 – Section 5339 funds. It’s for capital only, he explained. It’s meant to be a replacement for discretionary funds, but it’s a lot less money, he said.

White explained the federal formula as follows. Congress makes an annual allocation, and then it’s divided up according to a formula. Half of the formula is based on population and population density – so it’s a relatively constant figure, he said. The other half is based on how much service is provided and how much service gets consumed. Miles of service is a much bigger factor, he said, than passenger miles. The AAATA can actually calculate how much in federal formula funds would be generated by a new service, White said.

The service that the University of Michigan provides is considered a public transit service. So the AAATA had begun working with UM a number of years ago, he said, to start filing a report to the feds that brings in some additional federal funds to Ann Arbor’s urbanized area. Under the M-Ride agreement with UM, White explained, those federal funds are committed to helping to pay for that agreement.

White noted that the AAATA had started a van pool program a couple of year ago – and he explained that van pool miles also count as a part of the federal formula. Those passenger miles from the van pool bring in enough money from the federal formula funds to pay for the vans, he said. So the vans are not having local money spent on them, White said – because it’s being funded through the formula funds and the riders.

White laid out how much federal formula money is generated by the UM bus operation – which is a little over $1 million. It had increased a bit last year, due to an increase in the UM bus operation as well as the formula, he said. Using that money to fund the M-Ride agreement reduces the amount that the University of Michigan pays in cash, White said. The federal money generated by UM is applied to “operating assistance,” White explained.

UM portion of federal formula allocation.

The five-year capital and categorical grant program includes both the capital and the operating funds that are used by the AAATA. So the authority doesn’t have a capital program by itself – because those funds are interchangeable, and the AAATA needs to plan for both the capital and the operating part of the funds. The current program was adopted in January 2013, he noted, to form the basis for the federal application last year as well as for state funding. The program the board was being asked to authorize, White said, would form the basis of the 2014 federal application and for the 2015 state application. It must also be reviewed by the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

White said it’s important to emphasize the fact that this year’s program does not include any capital or operating funds for the urban core service expansion. It does not include any money for operating expenses for that possible expansion or for money to purchase additional buses, White said. It also doesn’t include any money for rail service or service that operates outside of the immediate area, White explained, saying he wanted to dispel any rumors along those lines.

AAATA manager of service development Chris White.

White highlighted some substantial changes in this year’s program, saying it’s “not quite business-as-usual.” The big changes include the fact that the AAATA is looking to buy some small buses. That’s related to the SelectRide paratransit contract extension that was on the board’s agenda that night, White said. The AAATA would be buying buses (e.g., wheelchair lift-equipped vehicles) rather than having the contractor provide those vehicles as part of the contract. The effect of that would be to shift the expenditure from operating expenses (paying for the vehicles through the paratransit contract with a third-party vendor) to a capital expense.

The van pool purchases have changed significantly, White continued. The AAATA’s approach had initially been simply to program 25 vans a year. Now the program is based on actual replacement and what’s expected from expansion. The van purchase has turned into a much more definite program, he concluded.

The third departure from business as usual involved operating assistance. The feds have given transit agencies the ability to apply directly for operating assistance for the first time in about 20 years, White said. It’s advantageous to use the formula funds for straight operating assistance rather than for preventive maintenance, he said.

The AAATA is looking to construct one superstop on Washtenaw Avenue, White said, as a part of the Reimagine Washtenaw project. The AAATA wants to demonstrate what that would look like, and would look for different funds to construct the remaining superstops on Washtenaw Avenue. Constructing one superstop would be a way to jump start things by demonstrating the concept, White said.

There’s about $3 million in the capital and categorical grant program that’s supposed to go toward “onboard systems.” TransitMaster, which is the brand name of the AAATA “advanced operating system,” was cutting edge in 1997, White said. He reported that 16 years ago, the AAATA was the first transit agency in the country to have unified operating software. But it’s now 16 years old, he noted. So there’s a decision to make about upgrading that existing system or soliciting bids for a different kind of software. The money is included in the capital and categorical grant program to “make sure we’ve got it if we need it,” White said.

Of the buses acquired in 2003, 19 are eligible to be replaced in 2015, White said. Rather than do that all in one year, the AAATA would rather spread that out over four years. Finally, there are funds that would allow the purchase of management “business intelligence” software.

Capital and Categorical Grant Program: Board Questions

Board member Eric Mahler picked up on this remark of White’s during question time, asking, “If preventive maintenance is not an operating cost, what is it?” White allowed that preventive maintenance is, in fact, an operating cost. White explained that when the AAATA gets preventive maintenance funds from the federal government, the feds pay 80% and the state provides a 20% match. But that becomes an eligible expense for state operating assistance, White said. So if the AAATA receives $800,000 for preventive maintenance, and the state provides $200,000, that’s $1 million total for preventive. And that $1 million would then be ineligible for state operating assistance.

So the AAATA would lose about $300,000 in state operating assistance on that approach. [The state operating assistance formula is budgeted this year at about 30.5%.] If the $800,000 is allocated by the AAATA as operating assistance – instead of preventive maintenance – then the AAATA does not get the state match ($200,000). However, it does stand to receive more money than the matching state preventive maintenance funds – through the state’s operating assistance ($300,000). So that gets the AAATA somewhat more money. Mahler chuckled and said, “That works for me!”

Asked by Jack Bernard what a superstop is, White first gave some background on Reimagine Washtenaw, which is a partnership between the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.

AAATA board member Jack Bernard votes in the affirmative.

That project is looking at the redevelopment of Washtenaw Avenue, particularly as a transit corridor. Part of that includes bus stops that are more than a pole or a shelter. It would be something that looks a lot more like a bus rapid transit (BRT) stop, White said. Some design work has been done by the consultant that the county hired to design superstops, so now the AAATA is looking to build one to show what it looks like. Bernard ventured that a superstop would not be a staffed facility, which White confirmed it would not be.

In response to a question from Larry Krieg, White explained that federal funds can only be used in the Ann Arbor urbanized area, so could not be tapped by the RTA for “existential funding.” What the RTA has discussed, White continued, is tapping some of the state operating assistance given to agencies. Right now, transit agencies are reimbursed for about 30.5% of their operating expenses by the state. There’s been a lot of resistance from transit operators in Detroit, White said, to the RTA taking some of that operating assistance to fund its administrative costs.

Following up on a question from Krieg, AAATA’s IT manager Jan Black explained that the advanced operating system takes all the data the AAATA has – GPS, fare collection, financial – and allows you to produce key performance indicators. In most cases, that information can be generated in real time. It’s valuable to be able to generate that information, so a lot of transit agencies have that software, Black concluded.

White wrapped up his presentation by going over the projected federal funds balance for each of the next five years. The $2.1 million at the end of 2018 is estimated, so the AAATA thinks that the projects it has planned can actually be paid for. He noted that the capital and categorical grant program is something that is revisited every year.

Fund balance at year’s end.

When the board reached the item on the agenda, there were no further deliberations.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the capital and categorical grant program for 2014-2018.

Paratransit

The issue of paratransit services, which the AAATA provides under the brand A-Ride through a contract with SelectRide, came up several different ways during the Dec. 19 meeting. Most obviously, this topic came up in connection with a nine-month extension for SelectRide’s contract.

But the issue was also connected to the capital and categorical grant program and the decision by the AAATA in the future to purchase small buses used to deliver the service. That makes those buses a capital expense – instead of an operating expense paid through the contract with SelectRide.

The board also received an update from the AAATA’s local advisory council (LAC), a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues.

And finally, public commentary from Thomas Partridge included a standing complaint about the quality of the A-Ride service, which he uses.

Paratransit: Background

The provision of complementary paratransit service for people with disabilities – as an alternative to fixed-route service – is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Public transportation agencies must provide special service to those with disabilities that is “comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system.”

The paratransit service is required to be offered within a corridor 3/4 mile on either side of a fixed bus route. Comparable service is defined as a demand-response service from door to destination, in which the public transit agency schedules and provides paratransit service to an eligible person for a request made the previous day. The fare that can be charged for the paratransit service can’t be more than twice what the fare would be for a similar trip taken on the fixed-route system. [.pdf of Federal Transit Administration Section 7 of Title 49 on "Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities"]

The AAATA fulfills its obligation under the ADA through its A-Ride program. Trips can be arranged at least one day in advance for a $3 fare, which is twice the $1.50 full fare for regular fixed-route rides. In addition, same-day trips can be arranged through A-Ride for a $4 fare. The higher fare can be charged for those trips, because they are not being offered under the ADA requirement. Some holders of A-Ride passes – who have the right to reserve rides for $3 under the A-Ride program – might also be able to ride the AAATA regular fixed-route system. If they opt to ride the fixed-route system, the A-Ride program allows them to do that without paying a fare.

Paratransit: Rethinking

Rebecca Burke gave an update from the local advisory council (LAC), a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues. Following up on her remarks was Jack Bernard, who’s acting as a liaison from the board to that group, and who has started attending its meetings.

Bernard noted that another issue the group had talked about was terminology. The group had discussed the idea of “stepping back” from using the phrase “the ADA service” and instead talking about the AAATA’s paratransit services as “the accessibility service.” By calling it the “ADA service,” it gives the false impression that the only reason the AAATA provides the service is to comport with the ADA, he noted.

Chair of AAATA’s local advisory council, Rebecca Burke.

Burke expressed her appreciation that the AAATA has always gone above and beyond what is necessarily required by the ADA.

And when the board reached the SelectRide contract on the agenda, Bernard said that one reason it’s important for the board to support the nine-month extension is that AAATA paratransit coordinator Brian Clouse and the other AAATA staff have put together a very robust potential overhaul of the service.

They really want to look deeply at ways the AAATA might improve its provision of the accessibility of the service, Bernard said. Putting out an RFP now would be premature, he said, because it would lock the AAATA into an agreement too soon. He called the nine-month extension a good mitigating measure – to ensure that service would not be interrupted.

Bernard said that his sense from attending the LAC meeting is that most riders are feeling good about the service and that they feel there’s a good response when there is a concern. He got the sense from AAATA staff that riders are assertive when concerns come forward. Bernard wholeheartedly supported creating an opportunity for the next RFP for paratransit service to be very forward-looking and give the AAATA the chance to do new and interesting things.

Paratransit: SelectRide Contract

The board considered a contract extension with SelectRide for nine months, through April 30, 2015. The value of the contract for the extension period is $2.263 million. That’s essentially a pro-rated amount of SelectRide’s current contract, which ran through July 31, 2014.

Just six months ago, the board had authorized the final year of a three-year contract with SelectRide – at its July 23, 2013 meeting. Board deliberations at that meeting indicated that negotiations on that $3,016,871 contract with SelectRide had been difficult, and had been completed under time pressure with no feasible alternative to SelectRide.

The contract extension comes in the context of the need to issue a request for proposals for the service, and the AAATA’s possible implementation of a five-year transit improvement plan. The AAATA is currently contemplating a substantial revision to the paratransit program and wants to take the time needed to develop a request for proposals (RFP). The AAATA wants to ensure that there’s no interruption in paratransit service.

In the context of the five-year transit improvement program that the AAATA might implement, the paratransit service would, according to the AAATA, include “later weekday service hours, later weekend service hours, and access to destinations like the Pittsfield Branch of the Ann Arbor Public Library, the Ypsilanti District Library, Meijer (Carpenter Road), Kroger (Whittaker Road), Walmart, and Quality 16 Movie Theater.”

The AAATA’s implementation of the five-year plan depends on funding that will likely be sought through an additional millage sometime in 2014, which would require approval of a majority of voters in the three jurisdictions making up the AAATA – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

Paratransit: SelectRide Contract – Board Deliberations

Gillian Ream Gainsley asked if there had been any discussion at the performance monitoring and external relations committee about the quality of the paratransit service.

She noted that there’d been various concerns expressed by users of the A-Ride service. She was not sure how much of that concern was based on the performance of SelectRide as the contractor and how much was a function of the structure of the A-Ride program. Given that the same contractor would be used for nine more months, Ream Gainsley wanted to know: What has been done to address those concerns?

AAATA CEO Michael Ford noted that in the context of the most recent contract renewal, the AAATA had required some “accountabilities” – which included better on-time performance. There’s more frequent communication between the AAATA and SelectRide, Ford said, characterizing the relationship as now improved. The latest report shows that there are some accountability standards that SelectRide is meeting but also some that haven’t been met. So some of that is being addressed through “liquidated damages,” he said. Ford added that he thinks the AAATA provides a good paratransit service, but at the same time he wants to make things more streamlined and more effective for whichever contractor provides the service.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the nine-month contract extension for SelectRide to provide paratransit services.

Paratransit: LAC

Jack Bernard’s contention that when riders of the paratransit service are not satisfied, they are assertive about their complaints, has some historical merit in connection with the AAATA’s carry-on policy. Two years ago, at its Nov. 17, 2011 meeting, the board heard from a rider during public commentary who’d been denied a ride for having too many grocery bags.

And reporting out from the local advisory council at the Dec. 19 meeting, Rebecca Burke said that in reviewing the new rider’s guide, they’re trying to come up with a more concise carry-on policy for people with disabilities – so that it’s clear about how many bags can be brought aboard a vehicle and what the expectations are of each passenger.

As part of that LAC report, Burke also said the group had drafted a letter of appreciation for Gloria Kolb, who was a LAC member until recently but had to resign for personal reasons.

Paratransit: Public Commentary

During public speaking time at the end of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for public office at the state and local levels. He was there as an advocate for riders who need paratransit services that are friendly, considerate and professionally operated. He called for an end to “automatic renewal” of the paratransit contract and an overhaul to the entire system. He had arrived there at the meeting [after the public commentary at the start of the meeting had concluded] after a very disappointing experience with the A-Ride service, he said.

He’d specifically asked in his ride order for door-to-door service from a friendly, professional driver who knew how to find his address and would be driving a four-door low-bodied sedan. Instead he was picked up with a wheelchair-lift equipped vehicle, with temporary seating for ambulatory passengers – seats that are “not appropriate for persons of my height” and are difficult to cope with, Partridge said. He told the board that he was taken on a ride all over the west side of Ann Arbor before arriving at the library. He said he didn’t know if it was a “set up” or not, but he felt it had all the appearance of a “set up” – because he’d called for the replacement of Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and other right-wing conservatives.

Snow Removal Contracts

The board considered contracts for snow removal at five different locations.

Based on the outcome of the bidding process, Arbor Building Services of Ypsilanti will handle snow removal at the Ypsilanti Transit Center, and the Miller Road and Plymouth park-and-ride lots. The downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center snow removal will be handled by A.M. Services Inc. of Ann Arbor. And when they are built, the “superstops” at Washtenaw Avenue and Pittsfield Street will be serviced by Margolis Companies of Ypsilanti.

The contracts have a one-year term with four one-year renewal options. The AAATA has spent roughly $50,000 a year on snow removal over the last five years.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the snow removal contracts.

Living Wage for AAATA Janitorial Services

The board was asked to consider a renewal of the contract for janitorial services with JNS Commercial Cleaning. The contract renewal triggered application of the AAATA’s two-and-a-half-year-old living wage policy.

The impact of the living wage policy, together with additional bi-weekly floor care services at the AAATA headquarters, will increase the annual value of the contract from $72,000 annually to $102,000. The three-year contract with JNS had already been authorized by the AAATA board at its Dec. 16, 2010 meeting, with up to two one-year renewals. However, the amount of the increase connected to the one-year extension, with a remaining one-year renewal option, is 42% – which exceeds the 10% increase threshold for board approval specified in the AAATA’s procurement policies.

The janitorial contract covers cleaning at the Blake Transit Center, the Ypsilanti Transit Center and the AAATA headquarters on South Industrial.

The AAATA’s living wage policy mirrors that of the city of Ann Arbor, which requires that contractors pay their workers at least $13.96 per hour if they don’t provide health care benefits and at least $12.52 per hour if they do provide health care benefits. The AAATA board adopted the living wage policy at its June 16, 2011 meeting.

The board did not deliberate on the item apart from a remark from Anya Dale earlier in the meeting to the effect that the application of the living wage was a good thing, because people would be getting paid what they deserved.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the janitorial services contract.

Question of Quorum, New Member Appointment

For its Dec. 19 meeting, the board had only five of its members present – which does satisfy either of the conditions for quorum specified in the AAATA’s bylaws: “Four members of the Board, or a majority of the Board duly appointed and confirmed, constitutes a quorum.”

From left: Ann Arbor Area Transportation CEO Michael Ford, and Larry Krieg, AAATA’s newest board member, pending confirmation by the Ypsilanti Township board of trustees.

However, the four members specified in the bylaws date from the time before the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions (city and township) were added to the authority, and the board consisted of just seven members. The most recent change to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation specify a total of 10 members of the board – eight appointed by the city of Ann Arbor and one each by the Ypsilanti jurisdictions.

The expected appointee to the AAATA board from Ypsilanti Township, Larry Krieg, attended the Dec. 19 board meeting and sat at the table, although his appointment has not yet been confirmed by the township board of trustees. So Krieg didn’t participate in any votes. At the previous month’s AAATA board meeting, on Nov. 21, 2013, Krieg had watched from the audience and board chair Charles Griffith had noted the expected confirmation of Krieg’s appointment so that Krieg would be officially confirmed by the time of the AAATA board’s Dec. 19 meeting.

But Krieg’s confirmation did not appear on the township board’s Dec. 9, 2013 agenda. The next township board meeting is set for Jan. 21, 2014, which comes the week after the AAATA’s next regular meeting, on Jan. 16.

For the AAATA’s Dec. 19 meeting – because only 9 members of the board are appointed and confirmed – five members were sufficient for a quorum, even under the clause stating that a quorum can be “a majority of the Board duly appointed and confirmed …”

When she opened the meeting, as acting chair in place of Charles Griffith, Anya Dale noted that Larry Krieg was at the board table in an unofficial capacity, but could provide comment and insight.

As part of his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford welcomed Krieg to the board. “We’re pleased to have you here and for you to share your vast knowledge and transit experience.”

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Dec. 19 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Public Support for Urban Core

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Tad Wysor addressed the board as a daily rider from Ypsilanti Township to Ann Arbor.

Tad Wysor, an organizer of WeROC – the Washtenaw Regional Organizing Coalition.

He said he was very pleased that Ypsilanti Township is now a part of the AAATA. He was looking forward to working with the AAATA and the other stakeholders to make the most of the new momentum. He’s working with a new group called the Washtenaw Regional Organizing Coalition (WeROC).

He said the group is hearing that regardless of how much people might use the AAATA services, they generally like the idea of improving the economy by developing as efficient and effective a transit system as possible. So he encouraged the AAATA board to keep up their good work and keep leaning on the folks in the community to understand how they can help with that.

Anya Dale responded by saying, “We’re pretty excited about that as well.”

Comm/Comm: Urban Core Financial Analysis

As a part of his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that a meeting had been held the previous week on Dec. 11 with a subgroup of a financial task force that had worked on the now demised countywide effort.

That subgroup included Mary Jo Callan (director of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development), Bob Guenzel (former Washtenaw County administrator and current Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member), Norman Herbert (retired treasurer, University of Michigan), Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK), Mark Perry (director of real estate services, Masco Corp.) and Steve Manchester (a financial advisor doing business in Ypsilanti Township). Representing the AAATA board on the subgroup will be Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson.

The next meeting of that group will be Jan. 13, 2014, Ford said. They’d be gearing up for a Jan. 23, 2014 meeting of the urban core working group at 4 p.m. at Pittsfield Township Hall.

Comm/Comm: Peer Comparisons

As a part of his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the previous meeting of the board on Nov. 21, 2013 included a report on some peer data analysis. Board member Jack Bernard had asked the staff what the staff would be doing with that information going forward and how it would inform the staff’s work.

Ford said that the AAATA is “doing fairly well, particularly with the quality and usage of our service,” but he allowed that “we can always continue to improve.” Ford said that the staff would focus in on factors that affect the cost per service hour, living wage impacts on service contracts, and aligning services to control costs and improve them. Other staff efforts will be to continue developing partnerships with stakeholders to add value, enhance ridership and conserve resources. Ford spoke of collaborating with peers to optimize work models, and to improve customer service functions, fare and fare media policies.

He concluded by saying that the AAATA offered a good quality service that’s well run and well utilized, and he wanted to ensure that the AAATA continued to provide the good quality service that meets the public’s needs.

Comm/Comm: AirRide

CEO Michael Ford also reported that the AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport had enjoyed its second highest ridership week for the week of Nov. 14 – with 1,802 rides. Last year around the same time, 1,920 trips had been taken on AirRide. Ford hoped that figure would be surpassed in December of this year.

Comm/Comm: Year-End Thanks

As part of his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford summarized 2013 by calling it a really amazing year. He thanked board members for their continued support and valuable input. Adding the two new jurisdictions to the AAATA – the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – was a pretty major accomplishment, he said.

Ford also thanked the AAATA staff, which provides a solid foundation, he said. The AAATA had a rock solid commitment to being the best transportation provider it can be, he said. Ford concluded by reiterating his thanks to the staff and the board, and wished everyone a happy holiday.

Comm/Comm: Fare Equity

In her report out from the planning and development committee, Sue Gott described a presentation that manager of service development Chris White had given the committee on fare equity. The committee had reviewed a draft policy that would then come back to the board in January, she said.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen said he’d try to provide some substantive comments on the service and fare equity analysis by Jan. 15, 2014. He said he hoped that he would not overwhelm the board with his commentary, but wanted to give them a heads up that it would be forthcoming.

Comm/Comm: How Need for Stops Is Determined

At the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary, Michelle Barney delivered some remarks to the board on the topic of superstops. She expressed concern that the location of such stops had been determined by the number of users – which she allowed was a fair thing to take a look at. What she did not see, however, was inclusion of the number of handicapped or differently-abled users as a factor. She felt that the AAATA would conclude that there were additional locations where a superstop with snow removal would be warranted – if the AAATA considered the number of handicapped users who board and get off the buses.

At Chidester Place in Ypsilanti, where she lives, at least 40% of the riders are differently-abled, she told the board. She complained that in seeking an application for A-Ride eligibility based on mobility limitations, she needed an eye exam – which was not the grounds for the eligibility. So she wanted the board to consider changing those criteria.

Present: Eric Mahler, Sue Gott, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley, Jack Bernard.

Absent: Charles Griffith, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Roger Kerson.

Also present: Larry Krieg, whose appointment from Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA board is still pending.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

Just six months ago, the board had authorized the final year of a three-year contract with SelectRide – at its July 23, 2013 meeting. Board deliberations at that meeting indicated that negotiations on that $3,016,871 contract with SelectRide had been difficult, and had been completed under time pressure with no feasible alternative to SelectRide.

The contract extension comes in the context of the need to issue a request for proposals for the service, and the AAATA’s possible implementation of a five-year transit improvement plan. The AAATA is currently contemplating a substantial revision to the paratransit program and wants to take the time needed to develop a request for proposals (RFP). The AAATA wants to ensure that there’s no interruption in paratransit service.

In the context of the five-year transit improvement program that the AAATA might implement, the paratransit service would, according to the AAATA, include “later weekday service hours, later weekend service hours, and access to destinations like the Pittsfield Branch of the Ann Arbor Public Library, the Ypsilanti District Library, Meijer (Carpenter Road), Kroger (Whittaker Road), Walmart, and Quality 16 Movie Theater.”

The AAATA’s implementation of the five-year plan depends on funding that will likely be sought through an additional millage sometime in 2014, which would require approval of a majority of voters in the three jurisdictions making up the AAATA – the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

The provision of complementary paratransit service for people with disabilities – as an alternative to the fixed-route service – is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Public transportation agencies must provide special service to those with disabilities that is “comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system.”

The paratransit service is required to be offered within a corridor 3/4 mile on either side of a fixed bus route. Comparable service is defined as a demand-response service from door to destination, in which the public transit agency schedules and provides paratransit service to an eligible person for a request made the previous day. The fare that can be charged for the paratransit service can’t be more than twice what the fare would be for a similar trip taken on the fixed-route system. [.pdf of Federal Transit Administration Section 7 of Title 49 on "Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities"]

The AAATA fulfills its obligation under the ADA through its A-Ride program. In addition to trips that can be arranged at least one day in advance for a $3 fare [which is twice the $1.50 full fare for regular fixed-route rides], same-day trips can be arranged through A-Ride for a $4 fare. The higher fare can be charged for those trips, because they are not being offered under the ADA requirement. Some holders of A-Ride passes – who have the right to reserve rides for $3 under the A-Ride program – might also be able to ride the AAATA regular fixed-route system. If they opt to ride the fixed-route system, the A-Ride program allows them to do that without paying a fare.

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

Fire hydrant at the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, which needs to be moved as a result of a garage expansion project. (Photos by the writer.)

The possibility of the special meeting was indicated at the AAATA’s June 20, 2013 board meeting, when CEO Michael Ford mentioned that a special session might be called to handle some routine matters – as well as issues related to the addition of the city of Ypsilanti as a member of the AAATA.

Those related issues could have included a vote to place a question on the November 2013 ballot, asking voters in the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor to approve a transit millage to be levied by the AAATA. However, at the July 23 special meeting, Ford pointed toward a May election as more likely: “Obviously we’re going to be looking for a millage at some point in the near future. November was one opportunity, but I don’t think that’s probably going to happen,” Ford told the board. “I think we’re probably looking at May, to be realistic. We’re gearing up for some potential there.”

The two cities currently levy millages that are dedicated to transit, which are then passed through to the AAATA. The ability for the renamed AAATA to levy such a millage with voter approval was a power also enjoyed by the AATA, but was never exercised. The request for additional funding – through a levy by the AAATA – is based on an AAATA plan to increase and expand service in the two cities and through establishing longer-term purchase-of-service agreements with some adjoining townships.

The authorization of a $109,000 contract with Blaze Contracting to relocate the fire hydrant was the second time the board has authorized such a contract. Last year, the board approved a deal with RBV Contracting for the work. However, the contract was not awarded, because the necessary agreements with the University of Michigan, which owns adjoining land involved in the hydrant relocation, were not in place.

The board’s action to approve the Select Ride contract – which is valued at $3,016,871 for the coming year – came under time pressure to ensure that the AAATA could continue its paratransit service. The provision of complementary paratransit service for people with disabilities – as an alternative to the fixed-route service – is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the negotiated terms, the third year of Select Ride’s contract includes a one-time “stabilization payment” to Select Ride of $100,000 to be paid by July 31, 2013. The contract also includes a 5% ($150,000) increase for this final year of the contract. The staff memo in the board’s information packet attributed the increases to the rising consumer price index (CPI) and to fuel costs.

The state’s local bus operating (LBO) assistance – money from Act 51 that’s allocated to transportation agencies statewide using a complex formula – was a topic that arose during the July 23 special meeting in two ways. As a result of state legislative action, the AAATA now expects $800,000 of previous decreased funding from the state’s LBO to be restored. When the Michigan Dept. of Transportation applied the distribution formula last year, it resulted in about $800,000 less funding to the AAATA – and that had an impact on the AAATA’s FY 2013 budget. The agency is currently operating on slightly less than the 3-month cash reserve required under board policy. At the July 23 meeting, it was reported that a bank transfer of $500,000 had taken place, with the remaining amount expected later.

The LBO is also a source of funding that the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA) would like to use to cover administrative expenses. The RTA was created in late 2012 through a lame-duck legislative action. The RTA is supposed to coordinate transit in a four-county region (Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland) that includes the city of Detroit. AAATA board members expressed some disappointment during their July 23 meeting that Gov. Rick Snyder and the state legislature had created the RTA without providing for adequate initial funding. The RTA could eventual obtain voter-approved funding through a millage or a vehicle registration fee.

AAATA board members objected to the fact that LBO money was being used for the administrative overhead of the newly created RTA, instead of being used to provide transportation “on the street” by the transit agencies in the four-county region. Those include DDOT (Detroit Dept. of Transportation) and the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART). The negative impact on the AAATA for the next year of funding for the RTA – using the state’s LBO assistance – is estimated at about $68,000.

Select Ride Contract

The board was asked to approve a third and final year of a contract with Select Ride – to provide complementary paratransit service for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The contract is valued at $3,016,871. Select Ride is a private taxicab company.

Select Ride Contract: Background

The negotiations for terms of an extension to a third year of Select Ride’s contract included a one-time “stabilization payment” to Select Ride of $100,000 to be paid by July 31, 2013. The contract also includes a 5% ($150,000) increase for this final year of the contract. The staff memo in the board’s information packet attributed the increases to the rising consumer price index (CPI) and to fuel costs.

The provision of complementary paratransit service for people with disabilities – as an alternative to the fixed-route service – is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Public transportation agencies must provide special service to those with disabilities that is “comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system.”

The paratransit service is required to be offered within a corridor 3/4 mile on either side of a fixed bus route. Comparable service is defined as a demand-response service from door to destination, in which the public transit agency schedules and provides paratransit service to an eligible person for a request made the previous day. The fare that can be charged for the paratransit service can’t be more than twice what the fare would be for a similar trip taken on the fixed-route system. [.pdf of Federal Transit Administration Section 7 of Title 49 on "Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities"]

The AAATA fulfills its obligation under the ADA through its A-Ride program. In addition to trips that can be arranged at least one day in advance for a $3 fare [which is twice the $1.50 full fare for regular fixed-route rides], same-day trips can be arranged through A-Ride for a $4 fare. The higher fare can be charged for those trips, because they are not being offered under the ADA requirement. Some holders of A-Ride passes – who have the right to reserve rides for $3 under the A-Ride program – might also be physically able to ride the AAATA regular fixed-route system. If they opt to ride the fixed-route system, the A-Ride program allows them to do that without paying a fare.

Allowing A-Ride eligible passengers to ride the fixed-route service for free, compared to the $3-4 charge for paratransit, works out better for the AAATA financially. Based on the AAATA’s financial reports through the first three quarters of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, the cost per passenger for the fixed-route system is about 1/7 of the cost per passenger for the A-Ride service – $3.35 compared to $23.46. Fares don’t cover the total cost of rides for any of the services offered by AAATA – with the difference made up by local tax, state and federal funding. Per passenger, the AAATA uses $6.94 in local tax for paratransit compared to $1.23 per passenger for the fixed-route service. [.pdf of AAATA third quarter financial report]

According to AAATA manager of service development Chris White, the Canton and Chelsea commuter service and the AirRide service to the airport are “interurban express services” and do not fall under the ADA requirements.

According to AAATA controller Phil Webb, the total value of the Select Ride contract was estimated based on 37,728 passenger trips on lift-equipped vans (accessible service) and 79,716 passenger trips in taxicabs, along with a monthly fixed fee. Fares are collected by Select Ride, and Select Ride subtracts that amount from the total revenue it is provided under the contract. Passenger fares are projected to be about $405,000 – so the total amount paid to Select Ride by the AAATA will be about $2,612,000. That yields a total value of the contract of about $3,017,000.

The AAATA tracks passenger complaints it receives about subcontracted service providers like Select Ride separately from complaints about the fixed-route service. For the three-month period of April-June 2013, 76 of the 93 complaints found to be valid by the AAATA arose out of rides taken on subcontracted services. Those include A-Ride (Select Ride), NightRide (Blue Cab) and AirRide (Michigan Flyer).

According to the staff memo accompanying the board’s resolution, higher service standards are included in the final year of Select Ride’s contract, with financial consequences for non-compliance. The memo also indicates that the new RFP (request for proposals) for A-Ride service will include “an alternative service delivery model” that will allow the AAATA to exercise greater performance oversight and cost control.

Select Ride Contract: Public Commentary

Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living addressed the board at the start of the meeting during the time allotted for public commentary. She addressed the agenda item on paratransit services. First, she wanted to see the AAATA support the current service as it is, saying that it’s important to make sure that the service is not interrupted  in any way. If there are hiccups in the system, then it’s important to make sure that those hiccups are smoothed out, she said.

And second, Grawi continued, as the AAATA thinks about how to expand service beyond the city of Ann Arbor – in the context of the “urban core” discussions – she did not think that expansion should be undertaken at the risk of losing or altering how paratransit services are currently provided. So as the AAATA considers expanding service into areas that currently do not have any service, she cautioned, this would be an important point of conversation – namely, how to meet the needs of paratransit riders.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Grawi expressed concern about the extension of the paratransit service throughout the entire area of the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). She pointed out that the location of the RTA board meetings are not accessible to members of the community who would like to attend them – not just for people with disabilities, but for anybody who doesn’t have access to a vehicle.

Also during public comment time at the end of the meeting, after the vote on the Select Ride contract was taken, Thomas Partridge called into question the urgency of extending the Select Ride contract. It’s one of the most important topics on the annual agenda of the AAATA board, he said. It should not have been approved without better notice to the public, he contended, or without a public hearing on the issue. He accused Select Ride of taking advantage of vulnerable users of the transit system. He complained about a lack of an adequate number of vehicles to provide the paratransit service citywide. He referred to suspicious manipulation of schedules for pickup times and routing.

As Partridge’s two-minute time period expired, Charles Griffith – who was presiding over the meeting as chair of the board – thanked Partridge for his remarks. Partridge asked for an extension of one minute. Griffith asked Partridge to try to wrap up in less than a minute. Partridge continued by telling the board that the AAATA needed to take a more universal, integrated approach to protecting the most vulnerable users of the buses and the A-Ride program.

Partridge called for more flexibility. He said that no A-Ride cardholder should go without a ride, even if that user made a mistake in reserving a ride or has a health need that required a shorter pickup time. He accused the reservation takers for the program of being rude. Griffith told Partridge that he felt the board had gotten his point, and Partridge concluded his remarks with a thank-you.

Select Ride Contract: Board Deliberations

During his initial remarks to the board during the time on the agenda allotted for his communications, AAATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that he would be asking the board for its support for the Select Ride contract. Already at that point in the meeting, Ford said he wanted to acknowledge that the process should have been started sooner, saying “it should have gone through a committee process, and it did not.” However, Ford stressed that it was important that the paratransit service not be interrupted. About the process that was followed, Ford said, “There are some internal things that we need to work on.”

The AAATA board’s special meeting was held at the headquarters building at 2700 S. Industrial Highway. Clockwise starting at the head of the table: Charles Griffith, Michael Ford, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Gillian Ream, Eric Mahler, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, and Anya Dale.

A bit later during the meeting, during Ford’s remarks about the draft work plan for the coming year, Ford noted that the third and final year of the Select Ride contract included some additional performance indicators and metrics that he called “long overdue.” As the AAATA looked at delivering paratransit services for the elderly and the disability community in the future, Ford felt there were some opportunities to establish better accountability and control. As an example, Ford gave the possibility of scheduling rides in-house by the AAATA. A request for proposals (RFP) for the paratransit service for the following year would be issued soon, which would reflect some changes and some major improvements in how paratransit service would be delivered in the future, Ford concluded.

When the board reached the Select Ride contract on the agenda, Ford introduced the item, noting that there were two different parts – the stabilization payment of $100,000 and a negotiated contract increase for 2014 of 5%. He pointed out that the rationale for the increase was included in the memo that had been provided to the board. It was a rationale based on increases in the consumer price index (CPI) and the gasoline index. The contract also included increased performance standards, Ford noted.

Ford reiterated how a new request for proposals (RFP) would be issued in the first quarter of the year, saying that the AAATA would be looking at different ways to operate the complementary paratransit service – to give itself more flexibility than it has had in the past. Ford asked the board for its support to move the final year of Select Ride’s contract forward. He recognized that the process had involved some hiccups, reiterating the fact that the contract should have been reviewed by a board committee first – before coming before the whole board. “There are some areas that we just need to bone up on internally,” Ford said.

But Ford stressed it was important that the paratransit service was not interrupted and that the AAATA was able to provide that necessary service. As a result of this situation, Ford continued, it was recognized that the AAATA needs to have contingency plans in place [in the event that a contractor is unable or unwilling to continue a contract]. He asked the board again for its support for this particular contract and indicated that the staff would work diligently on these types of issues going forward.

Roger Kerson asked for clarification about the three years of the contract: Was the AAATA obligated to renew the third year of the contract? He asked why the contract needed to be changed at all. Ford clarified that it was the third year of the contract – the second extension of a one-year contract that had a provision for two extensions.

Kerson noted that the inflationary increase was 2.3%, but he calculated that overall Select Ride was getting an 8% increase in the contract. So Select Ride was getting more of an increase than the increasing costs would justify, Kerson indicated. He asked if Select Ride had contended that they could not continue to provide the service unless there was an increase. Ford indicated that this was part of the issue. Continuity of service was important, Ford said. It’s not an ideal situation to be in, he allowed. Ford indicated that he felt action should have been taken earlier to address the situation within a 120-day window.

Ford explained that staff had considered the option of bringing the complementary paratransit service in-house. Accomplishing that within a two-week time frame, he said, was going to be a problem. Extending the contract under the terms proposed was something that Ford characterized as the “next-best solution.” The AAATA would be able to keep the continuity of the service intact, he said, and would also learn from the experience – so that in the future there would be more flexibility and more control.

Kerson wondered how the AAATA could even provide the service in-house. Ford indicated that some of the service is provided with vans, and some of the service is provided with cabs. Ford felt that the AAATA could, in any case, provide the scheduling of the service. Scheduling of the service is where potential efficiencies of the operation reside, Ford explained.

Eli Cooper linked the conversation back to a discussion that happened earlier in the meeting – about the state of Michigan restoring some lost revenue from the local bus operating (LBO) subsidy and the AAATA’s three-month operating cash reserve. Cooper asked how the $150,000 increase in the contract would affect the overall financial picture. AAATA controller Phil Webb indicated that the $150,000 cost would be incurred in the next fiscal year, FY 2014. That year’s budget, which the staff is currently preparing, looks like it’s going to be balanced, Webb said. So he characterized the Select Ride contract as “not a major drawback to our budget.”

Webb indicated that if the state of Michigan restores the remaining 25% of previously lost LBO funding, as the AAATA expects – in addition to the $500,000 in restored funding that the AAATA had already received – then the three-month operating cash reserve could be maintained, while accommodating the Select Ride contract.

With that assurance from Webb, Cooper indicated his willingness to go forward supporting the Select Ride contract. Cooper called agreeing to the contract very difficult, but encouraged his board colleagues not to lose sight of the fact that at the end of all of the conversation are people – who desperately need transportation services. Board chair Charles Griffith also indicated support for approving the contract. He trusted that the staff had done their best to negotiate the best deal possible with Select Ride.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the contract with Select Ride.

Fire Hydrant Relocation

The board was asked to authorize a $109,000 contract with Blaze Contracting to relocate a fire hydrant.

In the same resolution, a previous authorization to award a contract with RBV Contracting was rescinded. That earlier authorization had been approved by the board at a meeting a year ago, on July 16, 2012. The board’s July 23, 2013 resolution included an amount of $35,000 to cover city of Ann Arbor permits, physical testing and additional oversight – to be provided by Spence Brothers (AAATA’s construction manager).

The reason the fire hydrant has not already been moved by RVC Contracting is described in minutes of the AAATA’s planning and development committee meeting, held on July 9, 2013. The minutes state that the lag is “due to delays in obtaining an easement agreement and a change in the scope of the project before a contract was ever awarded for the work.”

The city of Ann Arbor is requiring that the hydrant be moved – as part of the AAATA’s bus garage expansion project. In its new location, the hydrant will connect to the adjacent property, owned by the University of Michigan, creating a continuous loop for the fire hydrant system.

Minutes of the AAATA’s planning and development committee, which reviewed the fire hydrant contract, indicate that board member Sue Gott abstained from the vote because the issue involved negotiations with the University of Michigan, which is her employer.

At the July 23 meeting of the full board, CEO Michael Ford summarized the background of the proposal. Gott abstained from the vote, because it involved a transaction between the city and the University of Michigan. Gott is the university’s chief planner. With no further discussion, the matter moved to a vote.

Outcome: The board voted to approve the contract to relocate the fire hydrant. Sue Gott abstained.

Broader Geography

In non-voting items of communication, the increase and expansion of transportation service inside and outside the city of Ann Arbor boundaries was highlighted in conversation about: (1) the “urban core” initiative, which includes the addition of the city of Ypsilanti as a member of the newly renamed Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority; and (2) the initial funding mechanisms for administrative overhead of a four-county southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), created in late 2012 as part of lame-duck action taken by the state legislature.

Broader Geography: Ypsilanti, Urban Core

By way of general background, on June 20, 2013 the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority voted to revise its articles of incorporation to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, and to expand the board from seven to nine members – one of which is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti.

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

The city councils of the two cities had already approved the change before the AATA board took its vote. The Ann Arbor city council voted on June 3, 2013 to approve the change in governance, while the Ypsilanti city council took its vote on June 18. Both councils voted unanimously to support the move. [.pdf of new AAATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of old AATA articles of incorporation]

Board chair Charles Griffith opened the July 23, 2013 special meeting by welcoming Gillian Ream to the board table. Ream, who is communications and development director at the Ypsilanti District Library, was appointed as the city of Ypsilanti’s representative to the AAATA. But the paperwork has not all been filed to make her an official board member.

Griffith put it this way: “And I’d like to welcome our newest almost board member. We are signing the papers right now – and apparently they have to be filed before you are an official, sitting, voting board member. We’re happy to have you here today and welcome you to the board, and soon in a voting capacity.” Griffith said that he hoped the board up to now already had been representing the interests of the city of Ypsilanti, noting that Ypsilanti had historically been a great partner with the AAATA.

Michael Ford, the AAATA’s CEO, also welcomed Ream to the board during his remarks near the start of the meeting. He described the city of Ypsilanti as having always been a good partner with the AATA. Regarding information and orientation, Ford stressed that the organization is there to support Ream in any way possible.

While the change to the articles of incorporation has affected the governance of the AAATA, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – a power also enjoyed but never exercised by the AATA. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own dedicated transit millages, which are transmitted to the AAATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AAATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

Current discussions are based on the idea of increasing levels of service – both frequency and the hours of operation – within the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city boundaries as well as in the adjoining townships of Pittsfield and Ypsilanti and the city of Saline. The additional amount of local funding for the planned increases in service would be the equivalent of around 0.6-0.7 mills. One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

An AAATA millage proposal would require voter approval. Going into the special meeting called for July 23, there was an outside chance the board could have voted to place a question on the November 2013 ballot. The deadline for making such a decision is late August. [Ballot language must be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013.] The practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign pointed toward not asking voters for a millage this fall, however.

At the July 23 special meeting – in the context of discussing various research and development initiatives on the AAATA’s work plan – Ford indicated it would be unlikely that a question would be put to voters this fall: “Obviously we’re going to be looking for a millage at some point in the near future. November was one opportunity but I don’t think that’s probably going to happen. I think we’re probably looking at May, to be realistic. We’re gearing up for some potential there.”

The decision to include Ypsilanti in the AAATA came in the context of an unsuccessful attempt in 2012 to expand the AATA to all of Washtenaw County. Since then, conversations have continued among a smaller cluster of communities geographically closer to Ann Arbor – the so-called “urban core” communities.  [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Waits at Bus Stop, Other Riders Unclear."]

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout addressed the board on the topic of the initiative to increase transportation services. She thanked the board for voting to make the city of Ypsilanti a member of the AAATA. But she characterized it as happening “a little fast.” Still, she reported that everyone she’d talked to had said that the move made a lot of sense.

One of the questions that taxpayers like her, who pay the transit millage, would be asking as the AAATA seeks to expand services is:  How will the purchase of service agreements (POSAs) with the townships be calculated and what expenses are folded into the charge? She did not think that most people would say it’s fair for Ann Arbor to subsidize wealthier communities with a discount rate. So she hoped those calculations would be fully fleshed out in any proposal.

By way of additional background on the equity issue, at an April 24, 2013 meeting of urban core partners, various ways of analyzing equity were presented:

On different methods of allocating costs, different municipalities would get more or less transit service for each transit dollar. In this presentation, a positive bar reflects more than $1 worth of transportation service for each $1 paid. A negative bar reflects less than $1 worth of transportation service for each $1 paid. For example, on the “resident benefit approach” on the far right, the “donor” municipalities would be Ann Arbor (light blue) and Pittsfield Township (salmon). On that approach, the municipalities receiving the “donation” would be the city of Ypsilanti (blue), Ypsilanti Township (red), and Saline (black).  (Numbers from AATA. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Jim Mogensen addressed the topic of the expanded local geographic footprint as well as the four-county regional transit authority – from the perspective of Title VI compliance. He briefly described Title VI as part of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act requires that federal funding comes with some constraints, which prohibits differential impacts to transit service with respect to race. Mogensen said he was pleased to see that Title VI was now in the work plan for the AAATA. But he cautioned that the timeline should be accelerated.

Mogensen said he believed that the hourly headways on the Ypsilanti local routes are a problem with regard to the possibility of disparate impacts. He felt that the AAATA would need to look at that issue for the purpose of entering into long-term purchase of service agreements (POSAs) and also for having a plan going forward with the RTA. He felt that all of the solutions to the Title VI issues should be in place before the RTA moves forward. “This is the time to think through that kind of stuff,” he said. Even if the formula is baked into the POSAs, he said, the AAATA is still responsible for compliance. It could cause a lot of trouble, he cautioned.

With respect to the RTA, Mogensen cautioned that the AAATA could find itself as the “Ypsilanti of the RTA.” Ann Arbor, for reasons that makes sense, he said, has driven the policy of the AAATA. The tables may now be turned, and other actors in the transit world may move policy at the level of the RTA. That needs to be kept in mind, Mogensen concluded.

Broader Geography: Ypsilanti, Urban Core

During his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford described a proposed master agreement between the regional transit authority and the AAATA as arising out of a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The RTA had also asked the AAATA to identify its top five priorities for projects to work on from a regional perspective, Ford said.

Included in the board’s information packet was a draft response to the RTA’s request – which a staff memo stated “would not be set in stone.” [.pdf of draft AAATA's top five priorities for RTA] The AAATA identified three top priorities for the AAATA’s regional interests:

1. Improved and expanded transit options within Washtenaw County, particularly in the “Urban Core” of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.
2. Cross‐regional interconnectivity: Transit and paratransit connections between Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County from Detroit Metro Area, particularly from western Wayne, into Ann Arbor area. The current challenge is that “you can’t get there from here.”
3. Transit options from Livingston County into Ann Arbor area.

The draft includes three cross-regional priorities for the AAATA.

1. ExpressRide between Canton and Ann Arbor (within 1 year).
2. Other cross‐regional connectivity to Western Wayne and Detroit:
   a. Connections to SMART
   b. Ann Arbor to Detroit Rail
   c. AirRide
   d. Paratransit
   e. Fare media
3. Funding/development for transit technology improvements (e.g. Transit Signal Priority).

Ford asked that the board provide any additional feedback on the RTA document.

Local bus operating funding factored prominently in the board’s discussion of the RTA. By way of additional background, the state’s local bus operating (LBO) assistance is money from Act 51 that’s allocated to transportation agencies statewide using a complex formula. When the Michigan Dept. of Transportation applied the distribution formula last year, it resulted in about $800,000 less funding to the AAATA – and that had an impact on the AAATA’s FY 2013 budget. The agency is currently operating on slightly less than the 3-month cash reserve required under board policy. As a result of subsequent state legislative action, the AAATA now expects $800,000 of lost funding from the state’s LBO to be restored. At the July 23 meeting, it was reported that a bank transfer of $500,000 had taken place, with the remaining amount expected later.

The comprehensive transportation fund, from which the LBO is taken, is also the source of funding that’s initially being used by the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), which was created in late 2012 through a lame-duck legislative action. The RTA is supposed to coordinate transit in a four-county region (Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland) that includes the city of Detroit.

AAATA board members expressed some disappointment during their July 23 meeting that Gov. Rick Snyder and the state legislature had created the RTA without providing for adequate initial funding. The RTA could eventual obtain voter-approved funding through a millage or a vehicle registration fee.

Roger Kerson brought up the issue of the RTA’s funding mechanism – the state’s local bus operating assistance (LBO). He confirmed with Ford that the RTA’s intent was to use LBO money that would equate to a negative impact on the AAATA of about $68,000 a year. Ford indicated that the initial amount that the RTA had considered was 2% of the total state LBO assistance and had decided to reduce it to 1%. That translated into an AAATA share of about $68,000.

Sarah Pressprich-Gryniewicz, who’s AAATA community relations coordinator for the office of the CEO, reported that during the RTA’s transit providers advisory committee meeting, which had been held earlier that day, it was discussed that the RTA board was trying to reduce that amount even further so that no more than $68,000 would be required – with a contingency of around 10%. Kerson asked if that amount was something that Ford felt could be accommodated within the AAATA’s budget. Ford indicated that it could be. Kerson got clarification that the kind of contingency that was being discussed meant that the RTA could not ask for $68,000 and then come back and ask for $168,000. The RTA might be able to come back and asked for $70,000.

Kerson pointed out that SMART and DDOT would also have to “kick in” their share as well. About the idea of the RTA using LBO money, Eli Cooper indicated agreement with earlier statements that “this is and feels wrong.” It’s a newly created transit agency to serve the region, he said, and the legislature and administration that created it should have provided adequate means of funding from state resources.

Cooper said he recalled reading a while ago about several hundred million dollars of surplus at the state level. Cooper said: “This 1%, or $68,000, is a hit on the service that we deliver on the street. We, as an authority, have struggled mightily over the course of years, if not decades … in trying to maintain our administrative overhead and to provide service to the street. This is starting off on the wrong foot – reaching directly into the fund that supports and sustains operating hours on the street for an overhead entity whose responsibility is to coordinate the service.”

As one of the transit authorities within the RTA region, AAATA should give notice to state legislative representatives that this approach is just taking away the ability to deliver services that the AAATA has struggled to provide and maintain, Cooper said. Those who created the RTA should find the resources in order to enable the AAATA to be even more efficient and more effective in providing mobility that will be “the grease for our economic machine within this entire region,” he said.

Charles Griffith reported that he’d had a conversation with one of Washtenaw County’s RTA board members and with others about the alternatives for resolving the funding issue. He said he was aware of some “plans afoot to find another source of funds.” He called it a bit complicated in terms of other legislation that would need to pass in Lansing, but he thought it was quite possible that it could happen this summer.

Griffith said he worried about the issue for the sake of the AAATA, but he also noted that the transportation agencies in the Detroit area are hurting even more. To take away from their operating budgets is not the preferred option, Griffith said. He ventured that it might be appropriate for the AAATA board to pass some kind of a resolution to encourage its RTA board members to “hold out on this.” Griffith felt that other legislative remedies should be tried first before the Washtenaw County RTA board representatives should agree to take money out of the AAATA’s operating budget.

Mary Stasiak, community relations director for the AAATA, reported that the RTA board had not actually identified any other source of funding yet. Bill De Groot, the AAATA’s financial analyst and planner, provided background for the RTA’s current funding, which is an appropriation of $500,000 – $250,000 of which was in the original legislation that had created the RTA. The Michigan Dept. of Transportation had matched that $250,000. That amount of funding was expected to be exhausted sometime in December 2013 or February 2014, depending on how quickly the RTA hires staff and relocates its offices from the SEMCOG location, De Groot said.

Kerson noted that the RTA is allowed to take this money under the enabling legislation but that the AAATA can tell the RTA that it’s a bad idea. De Groot told Kerson that it’s not called out specifically in the legislation – but because the RTA is in fact a transit agency, that source of funding is available to the RTA as a transit agency.

By way of background, the enabling legislation provides $250,000 for the initial year of administration for the RTA – from the comprehensive transportation fund, from which LBO is allocated. But thereafter the enabling legislation doesn’t indicate additional funding:

124.558 Appropriation. Sec. 18. There is appropriated to each authority created under this act the sum of $250,000.00 from the comprehensive transportation fund created in section 10b of 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.660b, to begin implementing the requirements of this act. Any portion of this amount under this section that is not expended in the 2012-2013 state fiscal year shall not lapse to the general fund but shall be carried forward in a work project account that is in compliance with section 451a of the management and budget act, 1984 PA 431, MCL 18.1451a.

Griffith indicated that Washtenaw County’s RTA board members have a duty both to the Washtenaw County community and to the new entity. He’d heard a slightly different story from the one that De Groot had reported about how long the existing funding might last. Griffith said he was under the impression it would last the RTA through a good part of next year. So he felt there was perhaps a little more breathing room – in terms of identifying alternative sources of funding.

De Groot said the only staff position that the RTA had identified to hire was a CEO. The application process would be closed and the interview phase would begin on Aug. 7, De Groot reported. But in the current budget model – which is only an expense budget, because the RTA has limited revenues – depletion of the RTA’s current funding would be somewhat quicker than what Griffith described. That expense budget would include office space rental, and salaries for about six employees total.

There are a lot of things that the RTA has to do which are identified in its expense budget, but the only source of revenue at this time is the initial $500,000, De Groot said. [$250,000, plus another $250,000 from MDOT.] The expense budget of the RTA, De Groot noted, did not include any kind of expenditure for a millage campaign or for a vehicle registration proposal, or for the work of combining the master plans for the region. De Groot indicated that the Federal Transit Administration might have some money available for the planning work – but that’s still uncertain.

Gillian Ream weighed in by saying it would be fantastic if alternative funding sources could be found. But she pointed out that there are overlaps between the priorities that the AAATA has identified for the RTA to work on, and its own work plan. So if there are things like doing research on traffic signal priorities, then the AAATA and the RTA should coordinate – especially if there’s funding that the RTA is receiving to do that kind of work.

Kerson addressed the idea that Griffith had raised about passing a resolution to express a position on the RTA’s administrative funding, saying he felt it should be framed as: “We think bus operating funds should be used to operate buses – whether in our community or other communities.” Kerson said he did not want to see the issue framed as: “Don’t take AAATA money” – adding that the AAATA should support other transit agencies in its resolution.

Broader Geography: Ypsilanti, Urban Core – Public Commentary

During the public commentary at the end of the meeting, Caroline Grawi of the Center for Independent Living addressed the board about the RTA. She agreed with Cooper about the funding issue, adding that she had spoken to both of Washtenaw County’s RTA board representatives [Richard Murphy and Liz Gerber] about that issue. She felt that because Gov. Rick Snyder lives in the Ann Arbor area, it should be possible to press the issue a little harder by saying: Hey, you wanted this to happen and now it’s happened, and now you need to make sure it’s funded.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale. Also present: Gillian Ream.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Aug. 15, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The negotiations for terms of an extension to a third year of Select Ride’s contract also included a one-time “stabilization payment” to Select Ride of $100,000 to be paid by July 31, 2013. The contract also includes a 5% ($150,000) increase for this final year of the contract. The staff memo in the board’s information packet attributed the increases to the rising consumer price index (CPI) and to fuel costs. Based on board deliberations on July 23, the negotiations with Select Ride were difficult, and were completed under the stress of the possibility that there was no realistic alternative to Select Ride to provide the service.

The provision of complementary paratransit service for people with disabilities – as an alternative to the fixed-route service – is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Public transportation agencies must provide special service to those with disabilities that is “comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system.”

The paratransit service is required to be offered within a corridor 3/4 mile on either side of a fixed bus route. Comparable service is defined as a demand-response service from door to destination, in which the public transit agency schedules and provides paratransit service to an eligible person for a request made the previous day. The fare that can be charged for the paratransit service can’t be more than twice what the fare would be for a similar trip taken on the fixed-route system. [.pdf of Federal Transit Administration Section 7 of Title 49 on "Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities"]

The AAATA fulfills its obligation under the ADA through its A-Ride program. In addition to trips that can be arranged at least one day in advance for a $3 fare [which is twice the $1.50 full fare for regular fixed-route rides], same-day trips can be arranged through A-Ride for a $4 fare. The higher fare can be charged for those trips, because they are not being offered under the ADA requirement. Some holders of A-Ride passes – who have the right to reserve rides for $3 under the A-Ride program – might also be able to ride the AAATA regular fixed-route system. If they opt to ride the fixed-route system, the A-Ride program allows them to do that without paying a fare.

Allowing A-Ride eligible passengers to ride the fixed-route service for free, compared to the $3-4 charge for paratransit, works out better for the AAATA financially. Based on the AAATA’s financial reports through the first three quarters of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, the cost per passenger for the fixed-route system is about 1/7 of the cost per passenger for the A-Ride service – $3.35 compared to $23.46. Fares don’t cover the total cost of rides for any of the services offered by AAATA – with the difference made up by local tax, state and federal funding. Per passenger, the AAATA uses $6.94 in local tax for paratransit compared to $1.23 per passenger for the fixed-route service. [.pdf of AAATA third quarter financial report]

According to AAATA manager of service development Chris White, the Canton and Chelsea commuter service and the AirRide service to the airport are “interurban express services” and do not fall under the ADA requirements.

According to AAATA controller Phil Webb, the total value of the Select Ride contract was estimated based on 37,728 passenger trips on lift-equipped vans (accessible service) and 79,716 passenger trips in taxi cabs, along with a monthly fixed fee. Fares are collected by Select Ride, and Select Ride subtracts that amount from the total revenue it is provided under the contract. Passenger fares are projected to be about $405,000 – so the total amount paid to Select Ride by the AAATA will be about $2,612,000. That yields a total value of the contract of about $3,017,000.

The AAATA tracks passenger complaints it receives about subcontracted service providers like Select Ride separately from complaints about the fixed-route service. For the three-month period of April-June 2013, 76 of the 93 complaints found to be valid by the AAATA arose out of rides taken on subcontracted services. Those include A-Ride (Select Ride), NightRide (Blue Cab) and AirRide (Michigan Flyer).

According to the staff memo accompanying the board’s resolution, higher service standards are included in the final year of Select Ride’s contract, with financial consequences for non-compliance. The memo also indicates that the new RFP (request for proposals) for A-Ride service will include “an alternative service delivery model” that will allow the AAATA to exercise greater performance oversight and cost control.

The board did not have a regular meeting scheduled for the month of July – so in order to take action on the Select Ride contract, it was necessary to call a special meeting. There was also an outside chance that the special meeting could have been used to vote on placing a new transportation millage on the November 2013 ballot. [For background see: "AATA Adds Ypsilanti, Expands Potential"] However, the board did not contemplate that action at its July 23 meeting – as CEO Michael Ford indicated during his report to the board that a November 2013 millage was probably not realistic. Instead, he said, a May 2014 request of voters could be considered.

This brief was filed from the AAATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, where the board held its special meeting. A more complete report will follow: [link]

Survey results on the question of supporting a 1 mill tax for transit. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution image.)

The results were generally consistent with those of a survey conducted two years ago by the same company. Asked toward the start of the interview if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of respondents said they definitely or probably would. Asked the same question toward the end of the interview, after receiving additional information, that figure nudged upward to 59%. That compares with “before” and “after” percentages of 51% and 58% two years ago. The geographic differences fell along predictable lines, with support strongest in Ann Arbor and weaker in the outlying townships.

Clark told the board that the four take-aways from the survey results are: (1) the AATA is highly regarded; (2) the public remains supportive of transit, even at a rate of a 1 mill tax; (3) the most compelling reason people give for supporting a tax for countywide service is to provide door-to-door service for seniors and people with disabilities; and (4) the most compelling reason people give for not supporting a tax for countywide service is a concern about taxes – not the efficiency of the AATA in its use of tax money. The board also heard caution during public commentary about the interpretation of survey results – they hadn’t yet seen the impact of negative advertising on any ballot proposal.

The survey comes in the context of an effort to establish an expanded countywide governance structure for the AATA, which might include asking voters to approve additional transit funding.

In its main business of the meeting, the board passed two resolutions that establish service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport. It’s expected to begin in April. One resolution set the fares for the service – basic one-way fare is $15 – while the other approved the contract with Indian Trails (Michigan Flyer) to provide the service based on a per-service-mile dollar cost. The service will be branded as “AirRide.” At the board table, David Nacht recalled how he’s wished for the moment when the AATA could offer such a service between Ann Arbor and the airport since the time he’d been appointed to the board – nine years ago.

The airport service is part of the AATA’s effort to expand services, as well as its governance and funding base, to a geographic area beyond the city of Ann Arbor. Of the $1 million the AATA has budgeted to spend from its reserves for the fiscal year 2012 budget, around $300,000 will go to support the airport service – though board members discussed the possibility that up to half of that could be recouped after-the-fact from federal or state grants.

In the context of the AATA’s effort to expand to countywide governance, the board passed a resolution at its Feb. 16 meeting expressing a basic policy position that a possible new regional transit authority – encompassing Washtenaw, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties – should not be allowed to have a negative impact on the AATA’s own provision of local transit services. The new RTA is described in a set of bills currently being considered by the Michigan state legislature. The boards’ resolution also explicitly states that any new RTA needs to have a funding strategy that is above and beyond current levels of funding for transportation.

Two days earlier, according to a report from the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS), Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith testified before the senate’s transportation committee that he’d be open to giving up one of Washtenaw County’s two seats on a 10-member RTA board, in order to get the legislation passed.

In other business at the meeting, the AATA board also approved a $95,500 increase to the budget for its consultant on the countywide expansion effort. And the board authorized its annual application to the state for operating assistance – including a budget for expanded services.

Also discussed at the board meeting, though no formal vote was taken, was the AATA’s policy on the number of bags that passengers are allowed to carry on when using the A-Ride – the AATA’s paratransit service. Previously there was a two-bag limit. The policy has been revised so that the limit is not expressed in terms of a number, but rather in a way essentially stipulating that a passenger’s bags should not impinge on other passengers’ space – it’s a shared ride service. The change in policy was prompted by public commentary delivered at AATA’s November 2011 board meeting from a visually-impaired passenger who’d been denied a ride by the AATA’s contractor for the service, because he’d had too many grocery bags.

Voter Survey

The board received an overview presentation of the results from a survey of Washtenaw County registered voters about their attitudes toward paying additional taxes to support transportation countywide.

Voter Survey: Background, Method

Hugh Clark of CJI Research gave the presentation to the board. The survey research was done under a three-year contract that the AATA board authorized at its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting. The contract has two additional one-year options. The draft fiscal year 2012 budget for AATA included $75,000 for an on-board survey of riders and a telephone survey of Washtenaw County voters.

Geographic Regions of Analysis for Transit Survey. The light blue region corresponds to the western district of the proposed board representation on a possible Act 196 organization. The light pink area is Ann Arbor, which would also form a geographic unit in a possible Act 196 organization. The yellow area corresponds to union of the northeast, the north middle, and the south middle Act 196 districts – plus August Township (in the lower right corner). The green area corresponds to the union of Pittsfield, city of Ypsilanti, and the southeast Act 196 district – minus August Township.

CJI was also the firm that conducted the AATA’s on-board and telephone surveys in 2009. For a review of the results from the 2009 survey, see Chronicle coverage of the Jan. 20, 2010 board meeting.

At the board’s Feb. 16, 2012 meeting, Clark gave a brief sketch of the survey methodology, which drew a random sample of 1,356 registered voters for Washtenaw County. He described how the sample was divided into four groups, each of which had more than 300 people – western Washtenaw, eastern Washtenaw, Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti area. Except for Augusta Township, in the southeastern corner of the county, the geographic areas of survey analysis correspond to unions of the areas proposed as districts in the proposed board structure for a new countywide transit authority, possibly to be incorporated under Act 196 of 1986.

In his presentation, Clark noted that it’s increasingly difficult to reach households that have only cell phones for their telephone service. In cases where no phone number corresponding to an address could be identified, Clark explained, CJI had done a mailing to the address and offered the survey to those potential respondents online. Clark described people as very cooperative.

[The survey solicitation letter gives instructions either to visit a website to take the survey online, or else call a number to have the survey administered by phone. The letter included $2 as a thank-you to respondents in advance, and offered another $5 for respondents who completed the survey by Dec. 16, 2011. People who did not respond to the initial letter were sent a reminder postcard.]

The survey itself contained 39 numbered questions, some of which included multiple parts. [.pdf of survey text]

The survey results come in the context of the AATA’s effort to expand its governance structure and its service area to include a wider geographic region than just the city of Ann Arbor – that is, most of Washtenaw County. That possible transition 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.

A financial advisory group, co-chaired by Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc., and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, is expected to meet on Feb. 29 to produce its recommendations. The Ann Arbor city council is expected to take up the issue again at its March 5 meeting, having postponed the issue three times.

Voter Survey: General Attitudes

Clark began by presenting the board with some of the results from survey questions that dealt with general attitudes, not just about transit. For example, the very first survey question asked survey respondents: “Overall, how satisfied are you with Washtenaw County as a place to live?” Clark characterized the outlook of survey respondents as generally positive or optimistic.

In the 2011 survey, 95% of respondents said they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with Washtenaw County as a place to live – statistically unchanged from the 2009 results.

The second survey question dealt with perceived changes in Washtenaw County as a place to live: “In your opinion, is Washtenaw County a better place to live than it was five years ago or is it a worse place to live?” Clark described the outlook as positive, but mixed, noting that in both years of the survey, at least a quarter of respondents felt that things are getting worse.

Sixty-two percent of survey respondents said that Washtenaw County is a better place or is staying the same as a place to live compared to five years ago. That compares to 63% of survey respondents who described it that way in the 2009 survey. The number of people who say things are getting worse is 29%, a bit up from the 2009 result.

Voter Survey: Attitudes Toward AATA, Transit

Clark then discussed results of survey items designed to measure attitudes toward transit – not necessarily attitudes about taxation – and the AATA as an organization. He led off that set of items by presenting the result of a question about transit use. About 40% of survey respondents said that in the past year, they or someone in their household had used AATA People Express, the Wave, or Manchester Senior Services. Clark characterized that as “very high” – stressing that it doesn’t mean that 40% of Washtenaw County residents have used public transit in the last year, but rather that they live in a household where someone has.

The perception of the AATA is positive among those who felt they had enough knowledge to answer the question, but Clark noted that 25% didn’t feel they could answer. The question to which survey respondents were asked to respond was: “Overall how favorable or unfavorable would you say your opinion of the AATA is?”

Of survey respondents who felt they could answer the question, 89% said they had a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the AATA. That compared with 90% in the 2009 survey, which is statistically speaking the same outcome.

For a question designed to measure general attitudes of voters toward public transit, Clark characterized the result as a real consensus that public transit is very important – 69% say it’s extremely or very important. The survey question: “How important do you think it is to provide public transit services in Washtenaw County?”

Of survey respondents, 69% felt it is extremely or very important to provide public transit services in Washtenaw County. Only 9% felt it was either not very important or were not sure. That's essentially the same result as in 2009.

Voter Survey: Awareness of AATA Planning Efforts

The survey also contained an item designed to measure voter awareness of the AATA’s planning efforts over the last two years to develop a transit master plan (TMP) for the countywide area. Clark told the board, “The headline here is awareness is higher than expected.” He said that his partner and he were guessing what percent would be aware of the TMP in any meaningful sense, and they’d guessed maybe 5% or 10% as an outer bound – in fact 17% had heard of it, and had some recall.

So Clark told the board it might be disappointing to hear that 69% had not heard of the TMP. But he assured them “that’s not the way these things work.” It takes a lot of work and media coverage, he said, and he asked board members to reflect on how much they know about agencies with which they don’t work. The survey question: “Before hearing about it right now in this survey, had you heard of the Transit Master Plan for Washtenaw County?”

A total of 31% of survey respondents had heard of the AATA's planning efforts, including 17% with recall of some detail.

So 17% of respondents knowing about the TMP and having some recall is pretty good, Clark concluded. Clark also shared with the board the kind of details that survey respondents were able to recall [responses are verbatim from the report]:

• Expand it all the parts of the county
• Raises taxes
• I guess the one I’m thinking about increasing train service throughout the county
• Transportation services would be expanded into other areas and there’d be “connection points” for those traveling from outer areas into town.
• Connection for rail center AATA connection with remote commuters
• Yes they going to tax people for it
• Taxes
• Its financial, they are having an argument about it, about who’s going to finance it and who’s going to pay for it and about taxes.
• Provide a broader based transportation and they want to tax people for it
• Getting bus service to Dexter
• Looked at 3 plans
• The Fuller building may become part of the transit
• They are thinking about taking some of the routes away or reconstructing.
• I don’t know – I’m not going to ride the bus; why ride to work if you have a car?
• That it would include all the cities/villages in Washtenaw County.
• I recall they were talking about incorporating it expanded passenger rail system and that it mostly would be the AATA more or less taking over control of local bus systems like the wave
• They were going to be more broader and provide more public transportation for people in rural areas
• Transportation from Ann Arbor to the DTW airport; Transportation from Ann Arbor to Chelsea. Many would use both of these.
• County wide; the other key point they didn’t have any other point on how to get any funding for it except by raising taxes
• Expand the use of the bus service and the need of workers to get transportation in and out of Ypsilanti if they rely on it.

Voter Survey: Taxes

Clark described how the question about a possible millage (tax) to fund expanded countywide service was asked twice during the survey. The initial question came as the seventh item of 39 in the survey:

The new Washtenaw County transit agency will operate several public transit agencies now serving people in Washtenaw County, including A-A-T-A, The Ride, but also the smaller agencies called People Express, the WAVE, and Manchester Senior services. It will consider placing a tax issue on the ballot for the purpose of increasing public transportation service and extending it throughout all of Washtenaw County.

Assuming that this ballot issue would increase property taxes by one mill county-wide, would you definitely vote yes, probably vote yes, probably vote no or definitely no on this one mill property tax increase to expand public transit services throughout the county?

The responses to this initial question in both survey years (2009 and 2011) were characterized by Clark as a little higher but not dramatically so. When added to together, the definitely and probably yes category came to 54% in 2011, compared to 51% two years ago. Possible explanations for the slight increase might include the passage of time or the TMP or the more robust sampling effort (with the online option).

Asked early in the survey if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of survey respondents said they definitely or probably would.

Clark noted those who said they’d definitely vote yes or definitely vote no both came in at 18% – if you leave it to those voters, it’s a draw, Clark quipped.

The same question was asked again as item number 29 in the survey instrument – the last substantive question before a series of demographic items:

Thinking again about the one mill increase in the property tax for all of the things we’ve talked about to be done by the new Washtenaw County transit agency, if an election were held today, would you definitely vote yes, probably vote yes, probably vote no or definitely vote no on this one mill property tax increase to expand public transit services throughout the county?

More survey respondents moved into the positive category than moved negative, Clark reported. On the second question, a combined 59% of voters said they’d probably or definitely vote for a 1 mill transit tax.

Voter Survey: Geographic Differences on Transit Tax

Clark then presented a breakdown of support for the 1 mill transit tax by each of the four geographic regions analyzed in the survey. Not surprisingly, support for a transit tax was strongest within the city of Ann Arbor, with 24% saying they would definitely vote yes and another 44% saying they’d probably vote yes, for a total of 68%. On the low end of support is the western half of the county, with a total of just 42% saying they’d definitely or probably vote yes. More than half of western Washtenaw residents (51%) said they’d definitely or probably vote no.

The light and dark green areas reflecting definite or probable yes votes on a transit tax diminish the further away that respondents were from Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Voter Survey: Reasons for Voting Yes or No

Clark then broke down survey respondents by their answers to the tax question, using their attitudes about the importance of providing transit services in Washtenaw County. Essentially, those survey respondents who supported a tax also felt that providing transit services is important. Of those who said they’d definitely support a 1 mill additional transit tax, 68% also said that providing transit services is extremely important. Of those who said they’d probably vote no on a transit tax, just 45% said they felt it was either very or extremely important to provide transit services.

Clark noted that it’s important to recognize that of those who said they’d definitely vote no on a transit tax, 8% still felt that providing transportation services is extremely important.

Cross-tabulation of questions on importance of transit and willingness to support transit with a tax.

The survey instrument also included items designed to measure the effectiveness of arguments for and against voting for a transit tax. Considered to be good arguments for voting yes on a tax were the 400,000 trips per year that transit agencies in Washtenaw County make, the increased ridership over the last several years, and the fact that less fuel is used by public transit riders. Not a good argument for voting yes was the idea of making an implicit threat: If the tax is defeated then no funding for door-to-door service for the disabled will be available.

The idea that "If the tax is defeated, there will be no funding for door-to-door service for the disabled" was not one that survey respondents felt was a good argument to vote for a transit tax. It comes across negatively and people react negatively to it, Clark told the board.

Among the ideas that survey respondents said would be good arguments for opposing a transit tax, Clark reported the lack of an ability to afford more taxes, and uncertainty in the economy. He noted that the fairness issue cut symmetrically across respondents. They were asked about the idea that it’s unfair for everyone in the county to pay for a tax that mostly benefits Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. And they were asked about the idea that it’s unfair for people in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to pay more than others for transit benefiting everyone. A roughly equal number of people agreed or strongly agreed with each of those sentiments (32% and 30%).

Survey respondents did not feel that good arguments for voting against a transit tax would be that the time has come to oppose all tax increases, or that there's enough public transit service now, or that the AATA spends a lot of money on things that aren't important.

Clark also reviewed what the survey showed about the perceived benefits of transit – one main point is that public transportation is perceived as a way to attract jobs to the area, and it’s seen as an important backup for private transportation.

Clark said responses indicated that it’s not that survey respondents wanted public transportation available to them personally as a backup, but rather for the community. For many respondents, Clark said, their motivations are community-oriented. Public transportation is not oriented to them personally, but it’s something they want the community to have.

Voter Survey: Four Main Points

Clark summarized his presentation by telling the board there were four main points he wanted to leave them with:

1. AATA is highly regarded.
2. The public remains supportive even at a rate of one mill.
3. The single most compelling reason that people support transit is countywide door-to-door service for seniors and people with disabilities.
4. The single most compelling reason that people don’t support transit is concern about taxes – not the efficiency of the organization.

Voter Survey: Public Comment

During his initial turn at public commentary, Jim Mogensen reminded the board that the results they were seeing from the survey did not include the negative advertising that might be done in connection with a ballot question. He suggested that in the next two weeks [during the run-up to the Feb. 28 presidential primary in Michigan] they’d be able to witness the effects of such ads.

During the second opportunity for public comment, at the conclusion of the meeting, Mogensen suggested that the board look closely at the confidence level of the survey results. [The potential sampling error was given by Clark as ± 2.7%]

Thomas Partridge called on the board to place a millage proposal on the ballot at a time when it is likely to be approved. He also called on the board to create a new brand name to replace The Ride, which AATA currently uses. He suggested calling it The Freedom Ride, drawing a connection to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Transportation is the civil rights issue of our time, he said.

AATA Resolution on Regional Transit

The board considered a resolution expressing its intent to continue to work to improve transportation services and in support of a new regional transit authority (RTA) as described in legislation currently pending in the state legislature.

The legislation would create a four-county region for the RTA that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. The RTA legislation as introduced would give two seats on a 10-member board to Washtenaw County – with two seats for each of the other three counties, one for Detroit, and one non-voting ex-officio appointment made by the governor. [For coverage of the proposed legislation, see "Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled"]

However, according to a Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS) summary of initial testimony on Feb. 14 before the Michigan senate’s transportation committee, Conan Smith – chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – would be willing to give up one of those seats: “Washtenaw County Commissioner Conan Smith not only supported the bills, but expressed an openness to support giving up one of Washtenaw County’s appointments on the RTA to Detroit if ‘that’s what it took” to get the bills passed.’”

The position expressed by the AATA’s resolution is that the funding for any new RTA for southeast Michigan, described in state legislation introduced in late January, should be supported with funds above and beyond the level expended by existing public transportation service.

At left is AATA board member Eli Cooper. Despite appearances, AATA chief executive officer Michael Ford did not have designs on Cooper's bottle of water. (Photos by the writer.)

The board engaged in some back-and-forth at the table over the precise wording of the resolution. The board’s most recently appointed member, Eli Cooper, wanted to make sure the resolution expressed specifically the importance of the AATA’s role in its current provision of transportation services, and conditioned the AATA’s support for an RTA at this time to an RTA that coordinates and connects existing services.

Cooper cautioned that the RTA proposal may be both inclusive and intrusive. He said that while the board supports a regional transit authority, its role should be for coordinating connecting services that don’t already exist.

Cooper’s suggestion was met with some apparent initial puzzlement from David Nacht, who ventured that Cooper’s intent was simply to express that the AATA gets to run its own buses in its own neck of the woods and that the role of the RTA would simply be to get people from one neck of the woods to another neck of the woods. Nacht wound up seconding each of Cooper’s motions to amend the language, which inserted phrases at two different points [indicated in italics]:

The AATA Board supports the development of a regional transit authority to provide connector corridor transit services in southeast Michigan and will participate in the planning and implementation of these important connector services.

In order to guarantee and assure the continuation of our role in providing local transit or existing services, funding for a southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority must be new, additional funding so that the existing (and future state and federal funding) for the current Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board, and any Board that supersedes it, will not be negatively impacted. [.pdf of the draft resolution]

Nacht quipped that the gist is that “this conservative community” is concerned about the big government from Lansing coming in and taking over.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein, before opening the resolution to board discussion, framed it in the context of the “huge task” that AATA has undertaken in developing its transit master plan. He felt it was now time to solidify and clarify the discussions and provide the public with a clear statement of where the board stands now and where it hopes to go in the future.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution expressing the idea that any RTA would have a specific role and would need additional funding above and beyond what already exists.

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport Service

The board considered two resolutions that together establish service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport. It’s expected to begin in April.

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport

One resolution set the fares for the service – a basic one-way fare is $15 – while the other approved the contract with Indian Trails (Michigan Flyer) to provide the service based on a per-service-mile dollar cost. The service will be branded as “AirRide.”

Details on the cost to riders include a one-way fare of $12 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $15 with refundability up to the time of departure. Round trip fare would be $22 for advance reservation (and limited refundability) or $30 with refundability up to the time of departure. Volume discounts also may be available for groups of up to eight people traveling together. [.pdf of resolution establishing fare structure]

The job of reading aloud the fare structure for the Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport service fell to Roger Kerson.

AATA CEO Michael Ford has previously described the intent of the service to provide 12 daily trips each way, with a very limited number of stops, in order to achieve a trip time of around 40-45 minutes. At its Oct. 20, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized the negotiation of the contract with Indian Trails. At the Feb. 16 meeting, a resolution separate from the one setting fares established a two-year contract with Indian Trails at a cost of $2.56 per service mile, with the total cost for the contract not more than $700,000 per year.

Plans call for service to pick up passengers from the Fourth Avenue and William Street parking structure across from the AATA’s Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Parking at that structure will cost riders just $2 for as long as a two-week stay, through an arrangement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The route will include a stop near Briarwood Mall. At Detroit Metro Airport, passengers will be picked up and dropped off at both the McNamara Terminal and the North Terminal.Including stops, the AATA is planning for an airport route of around 60 miles round trip.

In the first year of the service, the AATA is planning to support it with up to $302,000 from the unrestricted fund balance, which is part of the $1 million of fund balance that the board is planning to spend for this year’s budget.

Marketing and promotional efforts are expected to be shared by the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau and the University of Michigan. Signs directing airport passengers to the service will be placed by the Detroit Metro Airport. The resolution approved by the AATA board also provides for an introductory promotional offer of $10 one-way and $20 round trip. At the AATA board’s planning and development committee meeting on Feb. 7, 2012, board member David Nacht characterized the airport service as part of “the world class development of a community called Ann Arbor.”

Service to Detroit Metro has been actively a part of the AATA’s work plan at least since a board retreat held on Aug. 10, 2010. And the board’s deliberations at its Feb. 18, 2009 board meeting included the fact that conversations between the AATA and Detroit Metro date back to the early 2000s.

Results of the recent CJI Research survey, conducted toward the end of 2011 and presented to the board at their Feb. 16 meeting, showed that 75% of registered voters throughout Washtenaw County said that hourly express service to Detroit Metro Airport was either very or somewhat important. [.pdf of survey results on airport service and other transit enhancements]

Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro Airport: Board Deliberations

David Nacht led off by saying that he’s been trying for the nine years that he’s been on the board to get to this moment: to have AATA provide bus service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport. He said he didn’t have feelings about whether it had to be a public-private partnership – he just wanted it to be efficient and wanted it to work.

David Nacht appeared to be in better spirits at the meeting than this photo suggests. He was pleased that service was finally being implemented between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport.

Nacht said he was impressed with the work that Indian Trails did. Indian Trails has been limited in its ability to provide service to the airport, because the airport dealt with them as a private entity and charged an entry fee, Nacht said. Operating under the auspices of the AATA, providing public transit, Indian Trails will not be charged the fee that private operators would be. An additional benefit, said Nacht, is that Ann Arbor will have a presence in the airport. [Mary Stasiak, AATA manager of community relations, clarified after the meeting for The Chronicle that the signs the airport would use to provide direction to airline passengers to the service would not include "Ann Arbor" but only "public transportation."]

The marketing for AATA’s airport service, Nacht continued, will be beneficial to businesses, universities, and hospitals in Ann Arbor’s community as well as for residents of the community who go out of town. He said he genuinely hoped that the service works beautifully. But if it doesn’t, he said, the AATA needs to be flexible to find ways to make it work beautifully. Nacht said he was impressed with the contract negotiations – he had a sense that the contractor will work with the AATA.

It takes a while to get things done, Nacht said, noting that there was no additional board support other than himself when he first raised the issue nine years ago. But he noted that the CJI Research survey, about which the board had received a presentation that evening, indicated that 75% of respondents said that express service to the airport was very or somewhat important. He thanked staff for their work and said he was glad the rest of the board supported the service.

Roger Kerson questioned a roughly $300,000 figure on the cost breakdown for the service, and CEO Michael Ford confirmed that the number reflected the amount of the AATA fund reserve that would be used to support the service. After the meeting, Ford confirmed for The Chronicle that the $300,000 figure was part of the $1 million gap between revenues and expenditures that the AATA is incurring this year as a part of the board-approved budget.

Responding to a question from board chair Jesse Bernsetin, AATA controller Phil Webb indicated that starting two years after the new service, there’ll be additional federal dollars that would help support those additional service miles. Chris White, manager of service development, said he felt that around $130,000 could be recovered.

Kerson said he certainly supported the move to provide airport service, quipping that he didn’t want to get in the way of Nacht’s “quest.” But he noted that both the airport service and the increased frequency of service on Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti (Route #4) required dipping into reserves. There’s got to be a limit to how long the AATA would do that, he said. The AATA needs to get to expanded funding soon, Kerson concluded.

Nacht responded to Kerson’s remarks by saying that the concept is that the AATA is making an investment for a new service. He noted that other partners in the community are putting forth some resources – the DDA, for example, is offering parking at $2 for two weeks. If the service is not successful, Nacht said, “We don’t want to keep running it.” Once it becomes successful it will become important for those community partners to get more involved. Jesse Bernstein pointed out that one element of that partnership is that the University of Michigan will link to the AATA’s airport service on its transportation website.

Bernstein recalled how Rich Sheridan of Menlo Innovations had addressed the Ann Arbor city council at its Jan. 23, 2012 meeting and described his experience in Portland, Oregon, and how full the bus was that served the airport, and how it took over 30 years to put that system together. Michael Ford noted that the public transportation system serving the Portland airport is a train, not a bus. Charles Griffith prodded Ford to mention that Ford was previously in charge of all of bus and train operations for Portland’s public transportation system.

Nacht wrapped up deliberations by observing that the fare structure for the airport service meant that a large family with kids could use the service and the kids would ride for free. Also related to fares on the new airport service, during the public comment period at the conclusion of the meeting Cheryl Webber told the board she hoped that service for seniors and disabled people would be structured so that people who are visiting from out of town can have access to the service as well. If the discounted fare were limited to residents with their local card, visitors might not realize they can access the service.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved both resolutions related to establishing service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport.

Budget for Consultant

The board considered a resolution to increase a contract with Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), by $95,500 to $288,817. The current contract with the London-based consultant, initially hired two years ago to help develop AATA’s transit master plan, is for “implementation assistance” of the plan. The original implementation assistance contract was approved by the board at its July 19, 2011 meeting.

At that July board meeting, some board members indicated they’d like to see SDG include more local resources as the process moves forward. The local planning firm Carlisle Wortman has since been engaged. The original contract with SDG for development of the transit master plan was for $399,805. It was previously extended and increased at the AATA board’s Nov. 18, 2010 meeting by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

The additional amount approved by the AATA board at its Feb. 16 meeting is meant to cover the costs of continued public engagement through district advisory committees throughout the county, support of a financial advisory group (scheduled to meet on Feb. 29), analysis of the AATA fare structure and payment mechanisms, and detailed description of the initial 5-year component of the 30-year transit master plan.

During deliberations, David Nacht said he was the guy who “killed” a consultant contract at the previous meeting for a different project. [That project related to an internal organizational review, which was tabled at the board's Dec. 15, 2011 meeting. As board chair Jesse Bernstein subsequently pointed out, that contract was simply being restructured, not killed.]

Nacht said it’s work that needs to be done, so the question for him is whether it is more efficient for the taxpayer to: (1) hire full-time staff; (2) hire someone on a part-time basis; or (3) work with consultants. Nacht noted that AATA’s strategic planner, Michael Benham, was hired at the staff level and has been quite instrumental with development of the transit master plan (TMP). But Nacht said he doesn’t want to significantly increase staff if the TMP is not passed. The AATA is trying to be conservative, Nacht said, and sometimes hiring an outside firm is more efficient.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to increase the amount of the consulting contract.

Annual State Aid Application

The board considered an annual resolution authorizing its CEO to apply for aid from the state of Michigan under Act 51 to provide transportation services. The resolution passed by the board cites AATA’s current year’s estimated revenue budget of “estimated federal funds $3,023,440, estimated state funds $10,988,677, estimated local funds $12,673,833, estimated fare box $6,552,000, estimated other funds $151,000, with total estimated expenses of $33,388,950.”

The budget amounts reflect the maximum that the AATA might use, provided it moves forward with elements of its transit master plan, which calls for expanded service. So it’s higher than the approved FY 2012 budget. As described in a staff memo:

The operating budget is just over $33 million, 9% higher than the adopted FY 2012 budget. The increase is primarily due to a full year’s operating cost for the route #4 service increase, a full year of operating cost for airport service, and implementation of the service expansion included in the TMP financial plan for 2013. The ability to implement this service expansion depends on developing a local funding source. The local funds are projected at $12 million, about $2 million higher than the FY 2012 budget.

At the Feb. 16 board meeting, in response to a question from board chair Jesse Bernstein, Chris White – manager of service development – explained that the state’s Act 51 requires application for state assistance every year. There’s a capital portion and an operating portion. This resolution was for the operating portion. The operating budget submitted with the application is used for planning purposes, White said. It’s important to include a budget for expanded service under the new transit master plan (TMP) to give the state an indication of the AATA’s intent. White described how he’d had a conference call with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) staff about about why the state aid planning budget for the AATA is increasing.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the application for state aid.

Bag Carry-On Policy

Although there was no vote, board members and the public discussed at the Feb. 16 meeting the subject of a changed policy on the number of bags that passengers on the A-Ride – AATA’s paratransit service – can bring with them on the shared-ride service. Background to the revised policy was a visually-impaired rider who addressed the board at its  Nov. 17, 2011 meeting – he’d been denied a ride from the AATA’s contractor for the service (SelectRide), which had simply enforced a two-bag policy that the AATA had for the shared-ride service.

At the board’s Dec. 15, 2011 meeting, David Nacht had expressed his displeasure at the way the passenger had been treated. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

David Nacht then spoke at length, saying he would like to express that when the AATA provides services for the disabled, it’s critically important the riders don’t feel like they’re second-class citizens. Nacht said there was something incredibly compelling about a visually-impaired person leaving his house with his young child, to get groceries for that child who was helping him. “The idea that our agency would allow our contractor to effectively deprive that person of dignity in the name of enforcing a policy, I think, goes against our values,” Nacht said.

At the board’s Feb. 16 meeting, during his verbal report to the board, CEO Michael Ford reported that 17 peer transportation systems had been reviewed for a comparison of their policies on bags, and the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC) was advising that the AATA’s two-bag limit be revised. The idea would be to stress that the number of bags could not displace another passenger – the A-Ride program is designed as a shared-ride program. [The LAC is the body through which the AATA receives input on policies affecting seniors and disabled people.]

During her report from the LAC, Cheryl Webber stressed that the LAC hadn’t recommended that there be no limit to the number of bags, but rather that the limit be defined in a different way. Bags must be confined to the area of the vehicle occupied by the rider – whether that’s under their legs or on their lap. The rationale for that is based on the fact that it’s a shared-ride program. Webber noted that there’s still a requirement that any items carried with a passenger be safe – no explosives, toxic or noxious items.

Webber observed that a limitation of carry-on bags is hard to understand for passengers in the context of a shared-ride program if they don’t often see the rides being shared. It’s rare that the program is used in a way that results in rides being shared. She noted that she enjoys getting a ride by herself, but it’s a shared-ride program for a reason, to make it efficient and affordable.

During his remarks from the board table, Charles Griffith thanked the LAC and staff for taking up the issue of the extra bags and finding ways to be more accommodating.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy education for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, noted that she’d worked as part of a subcommittee that had worked on the carry-on bag issue. She said it was good to see the collaborative effort of working together. She reminded the board that seniors and people with disabilities always need to be at the table.

Committee Membership

At the Feb. 16 meeting, the board reset its committee membership and chairships to accommodate the departure from the board of two of its members in the last three months (Sue McCormick and Rich Robben) and the addition of one replacement (Eli Cooper.)

Anya Dale, new chair of the AATA board's planning and development committee.

The planning and development committee will consist of: Anya Dale (chair), Eli Cooper and David Nacht. In practice, Dale had already presided over the Feb. 7 committee meeting as chair. 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 program 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). At that time, 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.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Feb. 16 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Commuters, Residents

During his first turn at public commentary, Jim Mogensen addressed an item included in CEO Michael Ford’s written report, in which Ford had responded to public commentary made by Ethel Potts at the board’s Jan. 19, 2011 meeting. Ford had explained in his report that the service Potts had described as being eliminated had actually only been reduced. From the CEO’s report:

During public time at last month’s meeting a statement was made with regard to reducing service in order to serve a park and ride lot.  This is not the case.  Service was not eliminated, but rather service was reduced (with approval of the Board) because of very low productivity, not to provide service to the new Plymouth Road Park and Ride lot.

Mogensen told the board that he and Potts shared an interest in land use issues. He allowed that while the service on that route may not have been eliminated, for him, it meant that he had to stop using the bus. [Mogensen has addressed the board previously on that specific route, for example, at the May 12, 2010 board meeting.] The issue, he said, is related to a general policy issue of residents who are non-commuters and commuters who are non-residents. Resident non-commuters will always lose out to commuter non-residents, he said.

During his public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Mogensen continued the theme of balancing the needs of resident non-commuters against the needs of non-resident commuters. He pointed out that the express bus commuter service from Canton and Chelsea into Ann Arbor was being paid for in part by Ann Arbor’s local transit tax. [In AATA's financial performance reports, for each service provided, a line is included that's labeled "net local property tax applied" and year-to-date that figure for the commuter express service is $34,050.]

Mogensen also noted that the increase in service on Route #4 between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor and the new airport service is being subsidized in part by dipping into fund balance reserves. The needs of commuters and residents have to be balanced, he allowed, but he hoped that the new expanded services would not be balanced to the detriment of those who need to shop for groceries.

Comm/Comm: David Read

At the start of the meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein introduced David Read, sitting in the audience as the representative on the U196 board for the north central district. Read is a Scio Township trustee. Board member David Nacht chimed in that he knew Read from his own service on the Scio Township board. He described Read as at times opposed to Nacht’s positions on the township board and at times supportive. He called Read a “class act” and said that he’s thrilled Read is a part of the countywide transit effort.

Comm/Comm: Website Development

From Jan Hallberg, IT manager for AATA, the board got an update on the status of the development of AATA’s new website.

Left to right: AATA manager of service development Chris White, CJI Research consultant Hugh Clark, and AATA IT manager Jan Hallberg.

She described the new website as having two different sections: (1) a basic website, which is currently being tested; and (2) the part with custom functionality. When the  first phase is launched, she said, the site will include all current functionality. The subsequent phases will add new functionality.

Within the next month, Hallberg said, different departments should be able to start populating the site with content. Two of the AATA marketing staff have gone through training on how to update the site. She noted that the new website will be a content management system (CMS). That means each department within the AATA will be able to keep its content up to date on an ongoing basis. She allowed that with the updates at each month’s board meeting, it might sound like it’s taking a while. But the new website is  going to have a lot of functionality that people have requested, she said.

Comm/Comm: Route #4

As part of the CEO’s report and as part of Charles Griffith’s report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the board heard a preliminary summary of performance on Route #4, which runs between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The board had approved an increase in service frequency on that route at its Nov. 17, 2011 meeting. Increased frequency began at the end of January.

At the board’s planning and development committee meeting the previous week (on Feb. 7), Chris White – AATA’s manager of service development – urged caution about the increased ridership and on-time performance on the route. It’s just the first week and it’s possible that riders are simply switching routes. Compared to the previous week, before the implementation of the more frequent service, ridership on Route #4 increased 8% compared to a systemwide ridership decrease of 0.6%.

On Route #4, ridership numbers were as follows: Jan. 23-Jan. 27: 18,388 | Jan. 30-Feb. 3: 19,796. Systemwide, ridership for the same period: Jan. 23-Jan. 27: 129,579 | Jan. 30-Feb. 3: 128,754. Over the same timeframe, on‐time performance of Route #4 increased 9% compared to a 1% increase systemwide. On-time performance for Route #4 after implementation of increased service was 95%. Systemwide, it was 89%.

Griffith said the initial news is good, but noted that there are still some [too] full buses out there.

During question time, Roger Kerson asked how the increased frequency on Route #4 was handled – did the AATA hire additional drivers, or did the AATA give additional hours to existing drivers? Ford indicated that another group of drivers had been hired – five new drivers for that particular route.

Comm/Comm: Performance Indicators

Following up on Kerson’s query about increased frequency on Route #4, David Nacht noted that he was struck by the increase in the ridership in the overall performance data. He told Ford that under Ford’s leadership, the AATA seems to be doing a good job of targeting those areas where people are more likely to ride the bus. AATA’s service miles are up 1% and its service hours are up 2%, but the total number of passengers is up 7%. Nacht stated that means the AATA is running more buses when more people are going to ride them. Nacht concluded that is a good use of tax dollars:

                              Year       Prior
                           to Date        Year
Service Outputs
AATA Service Hours          63,430      61,997     2%
AATA Service Miles         872,438     867,006     1%
AATA Passengers          2,165,332   2,020,942     7%
AATA Passenger Revenue  $1,546,352  $1,591,444    -3%
Weekday Passengers       1,991,582   1,855,544     7%

-

Charles Griffith noted as a follow-up that the expense per passenger and per mile are down 10% and 14% respectively. Nacht and Griffith were summarizing from the AATA’s year-to-date performance data.

Comm/Comm: Inter-Local Agreements, Four-Party Agreement, Next Steps

At the Feb. 16 meeting, CEO Michael Ford gave an update on the status of the AATA’s effort to expand its governance structure and its service area to include a wider geographic region than just the city of Ann Arbor – that is, most of Washtenaw County. That possible transition 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.

The proposed governance structure under Act 196 of 1986 is based on inter-local agreements between several different local units of government in Washtenaw County. At the meeting, Ford indicated that the inter-local agreements among units of government forming districts in the proposed governance structure of an Act 196 authority had been filed with the state of Michigan. However, Sharon Township had become the fifth local unit to decide not to participate.

[.pdf of north middle district agreement][.pdf of west district agreement][.pdf of northeast district agreement][.pdf of south middle district agreement][.pdf of southeast district agreement]

The Ann Arbor city council has postponed consideration of the four-party agreement three times, in part because some councilmembers want to hear the funding recommendation of a financial advisory group before voting on the agreement.

Ford indicated that the financial advisory group’s meeting on Feb. 29 would be followed by a public meeting on March 2 to help answer any questions people might have. The city council is scheduled to take up the issue of the four-party agreement again at its March 5 meeting.

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

Next regular meeting: Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein's green button was not selected in honor of St. Patrick's Day. It reads: I <3 Transit, www.publictransportation.org (Photo by the writer.)

The final phase of that process included 20 public meetings in February, where three different scenarios were presented: Lifeline Plus, Accessible County, and Smart Growth. The three scenarios were nested subsets, starting with Lifeline Plus as a base, which would simply have expanded on existing services and focused on expanding services for seniors and disabled people throughout the county. Accessible County would have added fixed-route bus service to connect all the county’s urban centers. Smart Growth included all the features of Accessible County, as well as high-capacity transit along local corridors, plus regional commuter rail.

At Thursday’s meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein characterized the TMP as a reflection of where the community wants to be 30 years from now. The entity that would be implementing the TMP, he stressed, would likely be organized under a different legal framework than the current AATA, which is an Act 55 transit authority, with a tax levied just in the city of Ann Arbor. The AATA board has actively discussed for at least the last two and a half years the idea of transforming the transit authority to a countywide funding source, possibly using Act 196.

The meeting included three other pieces of business: (1) approval of a contract for the AATA’s paratransit services; (2) acceptance of an auditor’s report on the AATA’s books from the previous fiscal year; and (3) approval of a contract for media services.

Also discussed, but not acted on, was a memorandum of understanding with the city of Ann Arbor for construction of a bus pull‐out on eastbound Washtenaw Avenue east of Pittsfield Boulevard. The bus pull-out is part of a larger project – a transfer center on the south side of Washtenaw Avenue at Pittsfield Boulevard, opposite Arborland mall – which will include a “super shelter.” The project is being funded with federal stimulus money granted to the AATA. The board was in favor of the agreement with the city, but was reluctant to vote on the memorandum absent a copy of the text of the memorandum itself.

Smart Growth TMP

Before the board was a resolution to adopt a “Smart Growth” scenario as the basis of continued development of its transit master plan (TMP).

Smart Growth: Background

The Smart Growth scenario is the most ambitious of three scenarios the AATA developed for presentation at a series of 20 public meetings in February. Those February meetings were the final phase of a planning  and public engagement process that began in the summer of 2010. [Previous Chronicle coverage includes: "AATA on County Transit: READY, Aim, Fire" and "AATA Moves Engagement Process into Gear"]

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

Development of the TMP for countywide service has been identified by the AATA board as a necessary step to take before reorganizing the AATA as a transit authority for the entire county. In December 2009, the board held a special meeting to seek advice on various options for reorganization under Act 196 or Act 55. [Chronicle coverage of that special meeting: "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit." The special meeting had been preceded by extensive discussions at board meetings: "AATA Plans for Countywide System" and "AATA Adopts Vision: Countywide Service"]

As a part of his regular CEO report to the board, which he made at Thursday’s meeting, Michael Ford said he’d met on Feb. 28 with a group of elected officials about board governance in connection with the new TMP and a possibly new legal framework. Board members Roger Kerson and Jesse Bernstein had attended the meeting, Ford reported. Rich Robben, in his report to the board from the planning and development committee, also mentioned the Act 196 discussions with elected official officials, and said those conversations would continue.

Ford said the funding analysis would continue for the TMP and that it would be addressed at the April board meeting. To explore additional funding options, Ford reported that he’d traveled to Washington D.C. and met with office staff for senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. He also reported that he’d met with U.S. representatives John Dingell, Candice Miller and Tim Walhberg, and he plans to meet with a representative of Gov. Rick Snyder’s office. They are all generally supportive of the transit master plan, he said.

In his report from the planning and development committee on the TMP, Robben said the Smart Growth plan was preferred by the majority of people polled – using feedback from public meetings, a poll on AnnArbor.com, as well as one on the AATA’s project website [www.movingyouforward.org]. The committee recommended that the board approve the resolution.

Smart Growth TMP: Public Comment

Larry Krieg led off the public commentary at the start of the meeting by congratulating the staff on all the hard work they’d done on the TMP. Krieg is a planner with Ypsilanti Township. He said that the TMP was put together well and that the public input had been meaningful. He called attention to the fact that the American Public Transit Association has calculated that a family using public transit would save $9,904 per year compared to owning a car.

Krieg continued by saying that there’d been some some wise comments made at the AATA’s planning and development committee meeting about the AATA not getting out too far ahead of the community. From the minutes:

David [Nacht] indicated that it will be important for that dialogue to continue and for the community to feel comfortable with the plan. He stated that AATA did not intend to “get ahead” of the community on this issue until support is there for moving forward.

Krieg cautioned that it’s also good not to lag behind the county residents, and to continue to push forward. He pointed to the city of Ypsilanti’s overwhelming approval of a transit millage in November 2010. [That millage will fund most of purchase of service (POS) agreement that Ypsilanti has with AATA.]

Carolyn Grawi, of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, also thanked the board and the AATA staff for all the work they’d put into holding the various forums. She noted that people keep saying it’s a 30-year plan, but she said there’s a need to start right away to increase transit options in the community. The transit system is needed, and it’s being used, she said. She also told the board that many people she’s heard from about the TMP have indicated great excitement about the increased geographic area where paratransit service might be extended.

As the board contemplates a different legal framework for the AATA to allow countywide funding for transit, Grawi cautioned against dissolution of the existing Ann Arbor millage. She said that money needs to stay in place and needs to continue to be used to fund the transit options that we’ve become accustomed to using in Ann Arbor.

Smart Growth TMP: CEO Comment, Board Deliberations

In summarizing his written CEO report for the board, Michael Ford said that during the February meetings, when the three scenarios were introduced to the community, the overwhelming response was support of the Smart Growth option. He thanked Jesse Bernstein and Roger Kerson for their help in preparing for those meetings.

At several other points in the meeting, board members complimented the AATA staff for their hard work on the issue.

The TMP item was voted on by the board after minimal discussion on three other items. So Charles Griffith noted that “there seems like there should be a little discussion on this one.” He said he was very supportive of the effort. In the performance monitoring and external relations committee discussions, he said committee members had talked about how to acknowledge the fact that this is an important stage in the development of the plan. It would set the stage for a lot of additional work that would need to be done on the local, state and federal level, he said.

Griffith said it was important not to give the impression that a final decision had been made, but noted that the AATA had held “many, many meetings” with many different groups. So he said he felt like the AATA had the strength of the broad community behind the effort. In that sense, he said, he felt comfortable saying that the AATA board concurred with the community in supporting the most robust scenario of transit options.

For his part, board chair Jesse Bernstein said the TMP described where the community wants to be in 30 years. That, he said, is the easy part. Now we have to figure out how to get there. That would be achieved through 3-5 year strategic plans, he said, which the current board and likely a new board – established under Act 196 – would implement.

Roger Kerson echoed the appreciation of the staff’s hard work that had been expressed during the meeting. He also picked up on Larry Krieg’s comments about not wanting to get too far ahead of the community, but also not falling behind the community, either. He said that as stewards of public assets, the board had a responsibility to lead, and the TMP reflects real leadership, he said.

Kerson said he was concerned, based on his attendance of a meeting with leaders from other governmental units, about the word “plan.” He said that to an outside observer, the word “plan” sounds like it’s set in concrete. It’s not the same as  a “vision” or a “proposal” or a “scenario.” So endorsing Smart Growth is the way to go, he said, but he still wanted to be sensitive to language and the process as the AATA moves forward. As new partners are invited in, it’s responsible to invite them to work on the TMP to turn the vision into reality.

Anya Dale added her thanks to the community that had participated in the process of developing the plan. She said she was impressed not just that Smart Growth – which is the most daunting task of the three – had been the choice of the majority, but that it had been chosen “by a landslide.” The Smart Growth plan is something that we need to do for the community, she said, and we need to invest in transit, in large part, to help turn the economy around.

Sue McCormick complimented the AATA as a whole for really taking public engagement forward. Rather than just sharing information, the AATA had looked to the community for help in making what is likely the biggest decision an agency could make – namely, how to plan the future of the region for transit. A clear signal from the public makes it easy to lead, she concluded, saying that there is a good public consensus.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to adopt the Smart Growth scenario as the basis for a countywide transit master plan.

Paratransit Contract

The board considered a resolution to award a contract for A-Ride and paratransit services to Select Ride Inc. Select Ride is the current provider of these services. The contract value is $2,793,481 for a one-year term from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, with two one‐year additional renewal options.

A-Ride is a transportation service for people who are prevented from using AATA fixed-route bus service due to a disability. It’s provided with taxis, small buses or lift-vans. Performance data on A-Ride through February 2011 shows that AATA serves around 500 passengers daily.

The new contract differs from the old one by reducing the advance reservation booking window from two weeks to one week. The amount of time drivers are expected to wait (vehicle dwell time) was increased from two minutes to five minutes. Pricing of trips changed from an hourly rate to a flat per‐trip rate.

AATA has experienced reduced use of its A-Ride and paratransit services since implementing fare increases for that service in May 2009 (from $2 to $2.50) and May 2010 (from $2.50 to $3). AATA also attributes part of the decrease in use to the fact that the fare increases for A-Ride were coupled with elimination of fares to A‐Ride‐eligible passengers who chose to use the fixed‐route regular bus service.

Paratransit: Public Commentary

Addressing the board on the topic of paratransit services was Thomas Partridge, who introduced himself as a resident of Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor, and a recent candidate in the Democratic primary for the District 18 state Senate seat. He noted that the AATA was showing a decrease in expenditures for its paratransit service, which is used by seniors and disabled people, exactly at a time when there’s increasing need for that service. He called on the board to reverse the contraction of services in that area. He also criticized the performance of Select Ride, with respect to the quality of their service and their ability to be non-discriminatory.

During her public comments, Carolyn Grawi, of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, said she’d received feedback indicating an increase in the number of people using the regular bus service, instead of A-Ride, for their work transportation trips.

Paratransit: Board Deliberations

The board did not deliberate on the paratransit contract.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the paratransit contract with Select Ride.

FY 2010 Audit

Before the board was a resolution to accept the auditor’s report for fiscal year 2010, which ended Sept. 30, 2010. The AATA’s auditor is Rehmann Robson.

FY 2010 Audit – Presentation

Dave Fisher delivered Rehmann Robson’s presentation to the board on the AATA audit. He noted that it had been presented in more detail to the performance monitoring and external relations committee a few weeks before, so he was highlighting just the main points.

Overall, he said he’d given a “clean opinion” on the AATA’s books, based on generally accepted accounting principles, including the guidelines of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

Economic factors discussed in the report included the fact that up until 2009, there had been relatively constant increases in property tax revenues. [Ann Arbor property owners pay a roughly 2 mill tax that helps fund the AATA, which appears as MASS TRANSIT on tax bills.] But the July 1, 2010 levy was down by 5% and next year was expected to be down a bit more, Fisher said.

In FY 2010, the $9,589,000 collected under the Ann Arbor tax levy represented 38% of total revenues, Fisher said. The rest of the revenues are state and federal operating or capital grants, plus fare box revenues.

Fisher summarized AATA’s assets this way: Total assets are $51,831,000, against which there are $11,212,000 in liabilities, leaving $40,619,000 in net assets.

Of those net assets, a substantial amount are capital assets, Fisher said, which is consistent with the typical case for a transit authority. Buildings, buses minus the depreciation totals $31,798,000 of capital assets for the AATA. Subtracting the capital assets from the total net assets gives $8,820,000 as the effective “working capital” of the AATA – money that is available to spend. That compares with $8,511,000 at the end of FY 2009.

Fisher also told the board that in addition to the basic financial audit, his firm was also responsible for auditing compliance with federal regulations – any time an organization receives more than $500,000 of federal grant money, such an audit is required because the Single Audit Act applies. The sum of federal assistance for the fiscal year was $8,729,000, Fisher reported, which is an increase compared to the last few years. That’s because of federal stimulus money, he said.

As an example of the federal compliance auditing, for the construction of the Plymouth Road park-and-ride lot, the AATA was required to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that prevailing wages be paid for any public project. Fisher cautioned that the AATA needs to make sure that Davis-Bacon Act compliance on construction contracts is systematically verified by AATA, even when that responsibility is “farmed out” to a third party.

Among the other suggestions made that resulted from the audit were: (1) to have the board sign off on a list of vendors/contracts greater than $25,000 – indicating that the AATA’s conflict of interest policy has been met – before the contract is executed; (2) that only the accounts payable accountant, or the controller – but not the payroll accountant – be able to distribute management and hourly paychecks; and (3) when a journal entry is made, it should be documented and reviewed by someone other than the person who prepared the journal entry.

During the CEO’s question time, Charles Griffith asked CEO Michael Ford if he had anything to report on how the recommendations of the auditor would be implemented. Ford indicated that he’d have some remedies that would provide clear solutions, and would provide more details at the next performance monitoring committee meeting.

After entertaining questions from the board, Fisher expressed appreciation for AATA awarding a one-year audit contract to Rehmann. He noted that he’d heard rumblings that the AATA was contemplating changing audit firms. He reported that effective Jan. 1, 2011, Rehmnann had merged with a firm in Ann Arbor – Wright Griffin Davis and Co. If the AATA wanted to allow Rehmann to continue to bid on the auditing contract, they could continue to receive service with the same expertise, plus have a local presence. They could include a partner from Wright Griffin Davis for the AATA work, if what was desired is a another set of eyes, Fisher said.

By way of background, at its Sept. 16, 2010 meeting, the board awarded just a one-year contract to Rehmann Robson, amid a discussion about the possibility of changing its policy on awarding its auditing contract, so that a certain amount of rotation among firms would be enforced. From The Chronicle’s coverage of that meeting:

It gave her a reason to review the general policy on the awarding of auditing contracts, [Sue] McCormick said, which was to award them for no more than five years. Rehmann Robson has been under contract for auditing services for the AATA for the last 10 years. There’s no policy in place, she said, to ensure a variety of perspectives from different auditors – no term limit on auditors, she said. But because the current firm is very familiar with the AATA, they are able to offer their services more cost effectively, McCormick said – they’re familiar with the AATA chart of accounts, for example. She said that for the time being the recommendation is to move ahead with a one-year contract and use the time to review the auditing policy.

FY 2010 Audit – Board Questions, Deliberations

Board chair Jesse Bernstein wanted to know if the AATA had any “unfunded programs” – like pensions and health care for retirees. Fisher told Bernstein that the liability due to OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) had been pre-funded with the “lion’s share” of its employees. It had been a one-time “pay-off,” Fisher said, and for those employees who did not take advantage of it, the liability is being recorded in the financial statements – it’s currently $179,685, he said, which is very small. For other organizations, that number would be in the millions of dollars, Fisher said.

Bernstein drew out the fact that when that obligation is eventually paid, it would need to be paid out of the working capital, just as if it were an account payable to a vendor. The defined contribution plan, Fisher said, is a percentage of the payroll, so there’s no hidden cost there. With a defined benefit plan, sometimes organizations will find that the trust fund will lag behind the required payment to meet the requirements of the benefit to be paid out. It’s not a problem for the AATA, Fisher said, because it has mostly switched over to a defined contribution plan.

David Nacht objected somewhat to the characterization Fisher had provided, saying that in connection with the last collective bargaining agreement, the AATA had maintained the defined benefit plan for its employees – but simply limited its obligations to that program to a defined contribution. That is, AATA agreed to make a certain contribution towards employee’s pensions every year and not to waver from it, or to borrow from it. Employees, for their part, agreed to increase their own contribution, if the AATA’s contribution were ever actuarially insufficient to achieve the benefit that is supposed to be achieved. It’s a way of sharing the risk with employees – it’s something the AATA is rather proud of, Nacht concluded.

Roger Kerson wanted to put the financial picture in the context of the countywide service expansion that the AATA is considering, which will require additional resources. As a summary, Kerson said, the AATA is managing around $28 million in expenses and had commensurate revenue to cover those expenses. He noted there are roughly $30 million in net assets. He asked for confirmation from Fisher that AATA is, on the whole, using financially sound practices compared to other agencies his firm has reviewed. Fisher confirmed for Kerson what he wanted to hear, citing specifically the working capital of around $9 million – that’s adequate, Fisher said. In contrast, he said, some other organizations have deficits in their working capital.

Kerson also asked for confirmation that all the local, state and federal taxes used by the AATA were being used for the purposes for which they were intended – Fisher gave that confirmation.

Sue McCormick wanted to know what the impact of GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements) 54 is on the AATA – GASB 54 defines the standard practice for how fund balances are reported. Fisher answered by saying that GASB 54 would not apply to the AATA’s enterprise funds, because AATA uses a “full accrual” basis of accounting. That is, revenue is recognized on the ledger as soon as it is earned and expenses are recognized when the related benefit is received. [In contrast, a "cash basis" of accounting would recognize revenue only when it's actually received, and expenses only when they are actually paid.]

Fisher noted that the city of Ann Arbor, like many governmental entities, has a “modified accrual” basis of accounting. That is, revenue is recognized when it becomes both available and measurable, rather than when it is earned; expenditures are recognized when the related liability is incurred. GASB 54 applies to governmental funds that are on a modified accrual basis, explained Fisher, so it had an impact on the city’s books, but not the AATA’s.

When the board reached the point on their agenda when it actually voted on the resolution, Sue McCormick took the opportunity to compliment the AATA staff on their excellent work and said she looked forward to Ford’s planned remedies for the minor process issues that had been identified.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to accept the auditor’s report.

Media Contract

The board considered a resolution to award a one-year contract for media placement services to be provided by Orange Egg, an Ann Arbor company. Orange Egg will identify the appropriate media for advertising, place the buys and handle the billing.

The contract provides for four additional one-year renewals. AATA expects to spend more than $100,000 under the contract, so it required board approval. In describing the contract during his report from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben noted that Orange Egg would essentially be acting as a pass-through agency, and the AATA costs would be billed against Orange Egg. So he wanted to make sure that it’s documented properly for auditors to review.

The board did not deliberate on the motion, having heard a description of the contract from Rich Robben during his report from the planning and development committee.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the contract with Orange Egg for media services.

MOU: Washtenaw Avenue Bus Pull-Out

Not originally on the agenda was a resolution to authorize the CEO to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the city of Ann Arbor regarding construction a bus pull‐out on eastbound Washtenaw Avenue, east of Pittsfield Boulevard. The bus pull-out is part of a larger project – a transfer center on the south side of Washtenaw Avenue at Pittsfield Boulevard, opposite Arborland mall – which will include a “super shelter.” The project is being paid for with federal stimulus money granted to the AATA.

During question time, Sue McCormick asked if a copy of the MOU was available – it was not. Chris White, manager of service development for the AATA, explained that the draft was being reviewed by the city attorney’s office and that the AATA had just received it the previous day – it hadn’t been reviewed by the AATA yet.

When the board came to the actual agenda item, board chair Jesse Bernstein asked if there was time pressure – could they wait until the board had the actual MOU before voting?

White indicated that there was, in fact, some time pressure. The city of Ann Arbor has already gone out to bid, had received bids and was ready to award a contract, he said. The city council would be acting at its first meeting in April to award the contract, he continued. He wasn’t sure if the city was requiring that an MOU be signed before awarding the contract. He turned to McCormick for insight – she’s the public services area administrator for the city of Ann Arbor.

McCormick said it depends on the terms of the MOU. White noted that the city is handling the contract, but AATA is paying the bills from a grant. McCormick said depending on the exact language in the MOU, it might be the case that the city would have to award the contract contingent on the AATA board’s action and an agreement to pay.

The board was in favor of the agreement with the city, but was reluctant to vote on the memorandum absent a copy of the text of the memorandum itself.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein suggested that a draft be circulated by board members and that board members “vote electronically.” There seemed to be a consensus that this would be the board’s intended course of action. There was no discussion about whether this strategy would comply with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Outcome: The board did not act on the memorandum of understanding with the city of Ann Arbor.

Board: Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

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

Comm/Comm: Ridership Numbers

Reporting out for the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith said there were no big surprises in the monthly financials and performance statistics. [.pdf of tables and graphs for performance data extracted from the board packet] He noted that regular bus ridership was now just about even with last year’s ridership, after showing decreases for several months, and it was a good sign that the AATA was on its way back to its historic high ridership levels. [By way of comparison January ridership for 2011 showed an average of 22,834 weekday passengers compared to 22,618  in 2010. In February, there was a slight slip from 22,422 last year to 22,210 this year.]

Comm/Comm: Night Ride Expansion

Also during his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Griffith said that the committee had been briefed on the expansion of the Night Ride shared taxi service to the area up to Golfside Road. It would be an experiment to see how much the service is used in the expanded area, he said. The AATA would be taking it slow to make sure that the level of service for existing users is not degraded.

Comm/Comm: Website Development

Part of Griffith’s performance monitoring and external relations committee report touched on the redevelopment of the AATA’s website. Griffith said the board would be getting a more complete update as that process unfolds.

Comm/Comm: Report from CEO Ford

In addition to the remarks that Michael Ford made about the work on the transit master plan (TMP) and future funding (see above), he also reported that he and deputy CEO Dawn Gabay had attended a Michigan Public Transit Association (MPTA) conference and met with Michigan state House representatives Jeff Irwin and Rick Olson.

Ford also made a point of thanking the staff for their hard work during the planning of the TMP, which was accomplished in the course of all the other regular day-to-day operations that had to be done to keep the buses running.

Comm/Comm: Annual Retreat Planning

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben said that committee members had discussed the planning of the board’s annual retreat, scheduled for Friday, June 3, 2011. Work was continuing on the agenda for that retreat, Robben said.

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council – Saying Thank You

Karen Wanza reported out from the AATA’s local advisory committee (LAC), the entity through which the AATA receives input and advice from people with disabilities and senior citizens interested in AATA services. She said that several people had attended their meetings who had expressed an interest in finding a way of showing appreciation to AATA employees who went above and beyond the call of duty. So LAC is looking for a some way of implementing such some kind of Driver of the Month program.

Comm/Comm: More Transparency

Addressing the board at the end of the meeting during the second slot that’s available for public commentary, Thomas Partridge called on the AATA to televise its committee meetings in addition to its board meeting. There needs to be more detailed discussion of issues at the board meetings, he said. He called for linking the transit system in Washtenaw County with other transit systems in southeast Michigan to form one united transportation system.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Next regular meeting: Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

A-Ride is a transportation service for people who are prevented from using AATA fixed-route bus service due to a disability. It’s provided with taxis, small buses or lift-vans.

The new contract differs from the old one by reducing the advance reservation booking window from two weeks to one week. The amount of time drivers are expected to wait (vehicle dwell time) was increased from two minutes to five minutes. Pricing of trips changed from an hourly rate to a flat per‐trip rate.

AATA has experienced reduced use of its A-Ride and paratransit services since implementing fare increases for that service in May 2009 (from $2 to $2.50) and May 2010 (from $2.50 to $3). AATA also attributes part of the decrease in use to the fact that the fare increases for A-Ride were coupled with elimination of fares to A‐Ride‐eligible passengers who chose to use the fixed‐route regular bus service.

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