The history of this partnership dates back to 2010. The county board voted initially to join the Southeast Michigan Regional Energy Office (SEMREO) – a separate entity from the SEMREO Community Alliance – at its March 17, 2010 meeting. At the time, SEMREO was a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, a Ferndale-based nonprofit that’s led by county commissioner Conan Smith. Smith abstained from the March 17, 2010 vote, following conflict-of-interest concerns raised by other commissioners. SEMREO later split off from the Michigan Suburbs Alliance as a separate organization, but Smith serves on its board of directors.

Washtenaw County became involved in the SEMREO Community Alliance in 2011. On Aug. 3, 2011, the county board voted to join the SEMREO Community Alliance and approved the original interlocal agreement. According to Sam Offen – SEMREO director and co-director of the SEMREO Community Alliance – the alliance was created in order to pursue certain grant funding that’s not available to municipalities directly. It includes six partners: Washtenaw County, and the cities of Lathrup Village (in Oakland County); Sterling Heights and Roseville (in Macomb County); and Lincoln Park and Southgate (in Wayne County). [.pdf of original interlocal agreement] Smith was absent from the Aug. 3, 2011 meeting when the Washtenaw County board voted to join the alliance.

On Feb. 6, Smith was also absent for the vote to amend the SEMREO Community Alliance interlocal agreeement, arriving at the meeting after the vote had been taken. However, he asked the board if he could record affirmative votes for all items that he had missed – which included the SEMREO Community Alliance item. None of the other commissioners objected.

According to a staff memo, the amended interlocal agreement includes 13 changes, summarized in the county board’s resolution. [.pdf of interlocal agreement resolution] Changes include: (1) clarifying local government appointment and removal powers; (2) allowing video conferencing for quorum and voting; (3) allowing teleconferencing for participation, but not voting or quorum; (4) adding forms and rules for additional parties to join the alliance; and (5) clarifying the entity that determines how costs and expenses are to be distributed. A full copy of the amended interlocal agreement was not provided in the board’s Feb. 6 meeting packet. Offen emailed it to The Chronicle following the meeting. [.pdf of amended interlocal agreement]

Washtenaw County is the last of the six partners to authorize the amendments. The amended agreement has been reviewed by the state attorney general’s office and will now be sent to Gov. Rick Snyder for his approval.

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

From left: Washtenaw County commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, and Pete Simms, management analyst with the county clerk's office.

Their work is laying a foundation for soliciting proposals later this year – possibly by September – for an entity to handle the county’s animal control services. The county currently contracts with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for that work.

A separate work group, led by sheriff Jerry Clayton, is developing a cost structure for those services. A preliminary cost analysis has already been drafted, but a more detailed report is being prepared that will give estimates for different service levels that might be offered.

The policy task force and cost work group were created by the county board at its Feb. 15, 2012 meeting, when commissioners also approved a $415,000 contract with the HSHV to provide animal control services for the county through Dec. 31, 2012. The task force and work group will likely come together at a July 25 meeting, another step toward setting a new scope of services tied to costs.

The July 25 discussion is expected to include representatives from other communities that have their own animal control ordinances, including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. Commissioners also plan to invite county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie to the table as well – his office has purview over prosecuting animal cruelty cases and other legal issues related to animal control, which have an impact on expenses.

At the June 29 meeting, there was some discussion about issuing a preliminary request for proposals (RFP), to get responses about costs for a minimum level of service. However, it’s not clear whether that idea has traction. Rob Turner, the county board’s liaison to the cost work group, said he was shocked that such an approach might be considered, given the amount of work that’s being done to develop a policy and cost structure as the basis for issuing an RFP. Conan Smith, the board chair who is spearheading this effort, indicated it was not his intent to sideline the existing process.

Throughout the June 29 meeting, commissioner Barbara Bergman was vocal in her support of keeping costs to a minimum and in sticking to the county’s mandated services. She said her compassion is for human beings who don’t have food or shelter, and she doesn’t want to be considered uncompassionate just because she wants the county’s funding to be spent on humans.

A representative from the Humane Society of Huron Valley – Jenny Paillon, HSHV director of operations – told commissioners that ideas for generating new revenue are also being developed, and could be presented at the July 25 meeting. That meeting is scheduled from 8-10 a.m. at the lower level of the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor.

All of these meetings are open to the public and are being facilitated by members of the Dispute Resolution Center. Information related to this process – including meeting minutes and materials provided to commissioners – are also posted on the county’s website.

Timing – A Preliminary RFP?

The June 29 discussion began with a question about when to issue a request for proposals (RFP). Conan Smith noted that the board had originally planned to issue an RFP in September of 2012, but if it could be done sooner, that would be better. He said it might be possible to issue a “preliminary” RFP prior to the main RFP, to get responses about a baseline level of service.

Barbara Bergman said she had proposed this approach to Smith. By September, there are only three months left in the year, she said, and it’s cutting the time too short. Bergman told the others at the meeting that she had attended the first task force meeting on May 9, but not the other meetings – as she felt the work was being done too late. But Smith had convinced her to come to this meeting, she said. [At the May 9 meeting, the only commissioners to show up were Bergman and Smith, so the meeting had been canceled. Since then, two other meetings had been held in addition to the one on June 29 – on May 23 and June 13. Bergman did not attend either of those.]

Bergman wanted to send out a preliminary RFP as fast as the county’s procurement staff could issue it. That would send the message that the county isn’t complacent about this process, she said, and that they have a fairly tight budget.

Smith said he’d follow up on that idea, but he wanted to talk to the procurement staff to see if it made sense from a purchasing perspective. Based on that feedback, he said, it might be possible to bring a preliminary RFP for board approval at the July 11 board meeting, he said. [As of July 9, there is no RFP for animal control services on the July 11 agenda.]

Rob Turner said he was shocked. Two groups have been working on this issue – the task force on policy, and a separate work group led by the sheriff to develop specifics about costs. Now, even before these groups finish their tasks, the county is going to issue an RFP for minimum service levels? “I’m really lost,” he said. Turner said commissioners were still trying to determine what level of service they want to provide, and what they could afford.

From left: Washtenaw County commissioner Barbara Bergman and Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center. Four DRC facilitators have been attending these policy task force meetings.

Smith clarified that a preliminary RFP would not set a scope of services. He then said that maybe the term “RFP” isn’t the right one to use. It’s almost like a pre-bid process, he said. Smith also cautioned that he’d had only a very brief conversation with Bergman about this approach the previous day, but hadn’t yet talked with county administrator Verna McDaniel or other key county staff about it. They might give the advice that this isn’t the best approach to use, he said.

Smith stressed that he wanted to honor the process that the board and staff had laid out – he’s not interested in sidelining that.

Bergman noted that there might be other people who can provide services, not just the Humane Society of Huron Valley. And if the county board doesn’t get that kind of information about other service providers, she added, then they’re just “whistling in the wind.” HSHV is satisfied to provide a certain level of service at a certain price, Bergman said. But the county might be able to get the service at a lower cost. If they don’t get that information before September, she said, then they’ll have nowhere to turn except HSHV.

At this point, McDaniel walked into the room and delivered a cup of coffee to Bergman, joking that it was “anti-grouch juice.”

Rolland Sizemore Jr. described the situation as a mess. In preparing the 2012 budget, the county administration hadn’t discussed how much to cut back on the HSHV payment before making the budget proposal late last year, he said.

By way of background, until Dec. 31, 2011, the county had paid HSHV $500,000 annually. The 2012 budget approved by the county board in late 2011 cut funding for animal control services to $250,000, although commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV – if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. That brought the total amount budgeted for animal control to $430,000 in 2012. HSHV officials rejected that contract offer, saying that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Through mid-February 2012, the county and HSHV operated under a $29,000 month-by-month contract, while trying to reach a new agreement. At the county board’s Feb. 15 meeting, commissioners approved a $415,000 contract with HSHV that will provide animal control services for the county through Dec. 31, 2012. [.pdf of current HSHV contract] The intent was to give the county time to develop and issue a request for proposals (RFP) later this year to solicit bids for the next contract.

At the June 29 meeting, Sizemore said he didn’t want to rush things. He noted that the county had already looked for outside service providers, but didn’t find any that could do the work of HSHV. Smith pointed out that Sizemore was referring to the county’s search for an interim service provider – the county didn’t issue an RFP for taking over the animal control work permanently.

Sizemore then complained that not enough commissioners are involved in this discussion – that’s part of the problem, he said. [The only commissioners who have attended the three full meetings of the policy task force are Conan Smith, Rob Turner and Wes Prater. Others who have attended at least one of the meetings: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Dan Smith. Leah Gunn and Alicia Ping have not attended any of the three full task force meetings, which have been held on weekday mornings.]

Sizemore stressed that HSHV provides the best quality service. He again stated that he didn’t want to rush things.

At this point, Conan Smith told the group that he wanted to sidebar this conversation. He could hear the tension around the table, and he vowed to have a “fulsome” discussion with all commissioners. The sheriff’s work group is developing a cost structure, Smith noted. When the policy task force has finished its work, that policy information will be sent to the sheriff’s work group so that the group can provide a cost estimate for each level of service. That will provide a standard from which the board of commissioners can make its decisions, he said.

Levels of Service

Belinda Dulin, executive director of the Ann Arbor-based Dispute Resolution Center, told commissioners that she appreciated the passion she heard around the table. Their task today was to finish the serviceability matrix that they had started to develop at the June 13 meeting, she said. [.pdf of serviceability matrix]

The intent is to identify different levels of potential service, from a baseline minimum or mandated service (Level 1), through increased levels of service that the county might want to provide beyond its state mandate. Level 3, for example, would be the best level that could be provided, if cost were not a factor. The mandated level is based on research by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, who has summarized the county’s mandates in a memo to commissioners. [.pdf of Hedger's memo]

Dulin noted that at the next meeting (on July 25) the group is planning to tackle the issue of cost for those different serviceability levels.

Levels of Service: Discussion at June 13 Meeting

The matrix includes three categories of services and duties: (1) the county’s general legal obligations; (2) mandated services/duties; and (3) non-mandated services/duties. Line items within each category are:

General Legal Obligations:

• Licensing of dogs
• Licensing of kennels
• Duty to hold unlicensed dogs (4 business days), licensed dogs (7 business days) and dogs, cats, or ferrets (10 business days if suspected of rabies)
• Euthanize abandoned strays

Mandated Services/Duties:

• Dangerous animal to be held pending the outcome of legal proceedings – owner is financially responsible.
• Any law enforcement officer can bring a dog-fighting animal to a shelter at any time.
• Any animal found in an animal cruelty case must be held for a minimum of 14 business days, following an initial 72 hours during which an owner can claim the animal.

Non-Mandated Services/Duties:

• Urgent medical attention
• Palliative care
• Cruelty investigation
• Long-term care
• Ownership identification
• Emergency identification
• Respond to nuisance complaints
• Adoption

The commissioners who attended the June 13 – Conan Smith, Felicia Brabec, Wes Prater and Rob Turner – had already worked through a portion of the matrix related to mandated services. The following is a summary of the general consensus reached at that meeting.

For licensing, Level 1 was described as the current service, with licenses required for all dogs older than six months. The proposed Level 2 would allow animal owners to buy licenses from veterinarians, in addition to local government offices. Level 2 would also entail the county increasing its enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with dog licensing. For Level 3, the county would require that cats and exotic animals be licensed, in addition to dogs.

For the licensing of kennels, the current level is the baseline – if you operate a kennel, you come to the county for a license. Conan Smith had argued that Level 2 should entail enforcement, to ensure that all kennels are complying. Level 3 could be inspections of licensed kennels.

For the mandate to hold a stray animal, Level 1 is the base requirement for dogs – four business days if unlicensed, or seven business days if licensed. For dogs, cats or ferrets, the law requires holding for 10 business days if they are suspected of having rabies. Commissioners discussed setting Level 2 as a more robust information-sharing approach to help owners locate strays, as the HSHV currently does by posting information about found animals online. Level 3 could entail keeping all animals until they are adopted.

Regarding the euthanization of abandoned strays, the county at minimum has a mandated duty to euthanize if strays are not claimed by their owners. There did not seem to be a clear consensus among commissioners at the June 13 meeting about higher levels of service – that is, how long should the county pay to hold strays before they are euthanized. Conan Smith advocated for euthanization to be the last resort, but Wes Prater was concerned about cost.

At the June 13 meeting, the group also discussed the non-mandated services of urgent medical attention, with the first level being to address the immediate emergency medical needs of an animal, such as dealing with a broken leg or open wound. There were no other levels in this category.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services

At the June 29 meeting, Crystal Collin of the Dispute Resolution Center facilitated the discussion and started with items related to non-mandated services. She began with the first item that had been addressed at the June 13 meeting – urgent medical attention.

Barbara Bergman, who had not attended that meeting, asked for clarification about what urgent medical attention means. If a leg needs to be amputated, for example, is that done? Jenny Paillon, HSHV director of operations – who has attended all the meetings as an observer – told commissioners that HSHV provides palliative care, but only takes extra measures if the owner comes forward. Conan Smith noted that an extra level is required in animal cruelty cases as well.

Bergman wanted more information about what would trigger specific kinds of emergency attention, and what it would cost. ”There are only so many body parts, and only so much you can do to an animal,” she said.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Animal Cruelty

Barbara Bergman wanted to know what happens if an animal cruelty investigation doesn’t result in prosecution – does the county still bear the cost of that investigation? Yes, Conan Smith replied. Jenny Paillon of the HSHV noted that the animal cruelty law provides a definition of animal cruelty. [.pdf of Michigan animal cruelty statutes]

Bergman expressed concern about how to determine whether to investigate. It would be possible to investigate “ad nauseum,” she said. Rob Turner pointed out that the sheriff’s work group has been provided with a breakdown of information related to animal cruelty calls. [.pdf of animal cruelty data] He noted that only 5% of cases lead to prosecution.

Jenny Paillon, director of operations for the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

In that case, Bergman said, that’s a lot of investigative service that she didn’t think the county should be paying for. She did not want to pay to educate the public about what constitutes cruelty, for example. The Humane Society has endowments and donors for such things, she said. Conan Smith replied that it’s a question of the minimum level of service, compared to additional services that the county might want. Paillon later noted that many of the HSHV donor funds are designated for particular programs, and can’t be used to pay for county mandated services.

Commissioners talked about the need to bring county prosecutor Brian Mackie into the conversation, to talk about what triggers prosecution. Smith noted that if an owner is prosecuted, that person is obligated to cover the costs associated with the case. Recovery of those costs can be difficult, however.

Smith said that the Level 1 service for animal cruelty is to cover the cost of prosecution – that’s a state mandate.

Bergman again stressed that the county shouldn’t pay for education. Rob Turner pointed out that in the long run, educating people about how to care for their animals might be cheaper than covering the cost of an investigation. Paillon clarified that HSHV doesn’t hold classes or anything like that. Rather, if they get a call about a possible animal cruelty case, they go out and talk to the owner to see if the animal is getting proper care. If it’s a borderline case, she said, they’ll give the owner a chance to correct the situation rather than immediately pursuing prosecution.

Wes Prater said that nowhere in the animal cruelty law does it mention education. The issue is one of law enforcement, he said.

Smith also wanted to clarify what triggers an investigation. Is it just a phone call from someone, or does a formal complaint have to be filed? There’s a question of volume, he said.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Long-Term Care

Conan Smith said that long-term care is an issue that relates to more than just palliative care, which he described as Level 1. The second level could be to determine a certain amount of time during which the county would invest in helping an animal recuperate. Level 3 could be bringing an animal to full health and caring for it until adoption, he said.

Barbara Bergman pointed out that the state mandate relates only to dogs. What about cows, for example – how would that be handled? she asked. Where would the county house a herd?

Smith noted that animal cruelty laws apply to all animals, not just dogs. That’s why the question of forfeiture is so important, he said. The owner is supposed to bear the cost, but in fact it becomes the county’s cost because the owner often doesn’t pay. “So we have to take care of Bossy and her sisters?” Bergman asked. Yes, Smith said, until the owner forfeits ownership. At that point, though, the county’s mandate ends, he said.

Rob Turner had framed it well at the May 23 task force meeting, Smith said – saying the issue is finding balance between the mandated duty and the county’s moral duty of compassion.

Bergman replied that her compassion is for human beings who don’t have food or shelter. She doesn’t want to be considered uncompassionate just because she wants the county’s funding to be spent on humans. Smith agreed, saying the conversation needs to include a variety of interests.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Owner Identification

The county doesn’t have a mandate to identify the owners of stray animals. The task force seemed to reach a consensus that a Level 2 of service would be to support online efforts to identify owners. Jenny Paillon of the HSHV indicated that the web-based approach is the best option, so the group did not identify additional levels of service beyond that.

The item of emergency identification was eliminated, as it seemed to overlap with owner identification.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Respond to Nuisance Complaints

After a brief discussion, commissioners decided to eliminate this item, as it seemed to relate to law enforcement rather than animal control.

Levels of Service: Non-Mandated Services – Adoption

Barbara Bergman felt that the county had no obligation to be involved in adopting out animals. Conan Smith argued that if a stray animal is adopted out fast, the county will pay less because the animal won’t be held as many days. Jenny Paillon of the HSHV added that adopting out an animal also eliminates the cost of euthanizing it – those costs work out to about $40 per animal, depending on its size. “But it might take forever” to adopt, Bergman replied.

The group seemed to arrive at a consensus that Level 2 would provide for holding an animal longer than the minimum number of days required by law, with the hope that it would be adopted. Level 3 would be that every animal is held until it is adopted.

Levels of Service: Mandated – Dangerous Animals

Commissioners also addressed items in the mandated category that had not been covered at the June 13 meeting. Dangerous animals are required to be held pending the outcome of legal proceedings, and the owner is financially responsible. Conan Smith said county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie should be involved in this conversation. The mandate requires that the county hold the animal for at least 72 hours, but unless the owner forfeits the animal, the county is required to hold the animal until the end of legal proceedings.

If the county can develop a policy with Mackie so that Mackie’s office would regularly request forfeiture, “it opens up our options,” Smith said.

Rob Turner noted that this issue was also discussed at the sheriff’s work group. There could be huge costs savings with the approach that Smith described, he said.

Barbara Bergman brought up the example of cows again – where would a herd of cows be housed, and who would pay for that? That’s when different levels of service would be triggered, Smith replied. He joked that if someone is a “destitute cow abuser” and can’t pay for housing the herd during legal proceedings, then the county has to decide what it’s willing to pay for.

Wes Prater pointed out that this isn’t a county board decision – because the law leaves it entirely up to the county prosecutor to determine whether to request forfeiture. Smith said he thought Mackie would be amenable to developing a policy with the board.

Next Steps

As the June 29 session wrapped up, Belinda Dulin of the Dispute Resolution Center noted that there were a few issues that had been tabled but that would need to be addressed at some point: (1) how to identify other potential service providers; (2) how to determine indirect costs; and (3) reaching out to the county prosecutor and judges to include them in this discussion.

Washtenaw County commissioner Wes Prater and county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Conan Smith stressed the importance of including county prosecutor Brian Mackie and county treasurer Catherine McClary into the conversation, saying they have tremendous influence over cost and recovery issues.

Rob Turner said the sheriff’s work group will pull together a document to identify costs for the levels of service that are described by the policy task force. Members of the work group then could meet with the policy task force to review those costs. Barbara Bergman noted that Jenny Paillon of the HSHV had been very helpful, but Bergman didn’t want to expand the meetings to include people who aren’t part of the task force or work group. She noted that the meetings were open to the public, and anyone could come to observe.

Smith suggested that at the July 25 meeting, both groups would merge into one for the remaining discussions, to talk about costs and scope of services.

Paillon said that HSHV is also working on ideas for generating new revenue, and those ideas could be presented at the July 25 meeting.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that some of the other municipalities with animal control ordinances have requirements and services that are different than the county. “We need to respect that,” she said. Smith told commissioners that they had been given copies of those ordinances to review – for the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township. [.pdf of Ann Arbor animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti animal control ordinance] [.pdf of Ypsilanti Township animal control ordinance]

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec (arrived at 8:40 a.m.), Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi (arrived at 9:20 a.m.), Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith (left at 9 a.m.), Rob Turner. Also from the county administration: Verna McDaniel, Greg Dill.

Next meeting: Wednesday, July 25, 8-10 a.m. in the lower level of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date and location]

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

Ann Arbor planning commissioners and staff on a late April bus tour along Washtenaw Avenue, focusing on a project to improve that corridor between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The iconic Ypsi-Arbor Bowl sign has since been removed. (Photos by the writer.)

The board got an update on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project, an effort to revitalize the county’s most congested – and, in many sections, blighted – commercial stretch. The project is focused on the roughly five miles between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which also crosses land within Pittsfield and Ypsilanti townships. All four communities are involved in the project and several government leaders from those jurisdictions attended the working session, including Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock, Ann Arbor councilmember Tony Derezinski, Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe, Ypsilanti Township planning commissioner Larry Krieg, and Craig Lyon, director of Pittsfield Township utilities and municipal services.

Anya Dale, the Washtenaw County planner who’s been coordinating the project, briefed commissioners on both the history and the current status of efforts along the corridor. One of the main questions – how the four communities will formally partner on the project – remains undecided. One option would be to form a corridor improvement authority (CIA), a tax increment finance (TIF) district that would provide revenues to fund improvements. Though governing boards and councils for each jurisdiction have passed resolutions of intent to form a CIA, Dale said they’re waiting on possible state legislative changes that would allow for one CIA to be formed along the entire corridor.

Another uncertainty relates to staff: Commissioners learned that Dale is leaving the county to take a job at the University of Michigan’s Office of Campus Sustainability. She’s been spending about a third of her time on the Washtenaw Avenue project, and it’s unclear who will pick up that work.

The same meeting also included an update from Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, on a possible countywide transit system. That presentation will be included in an upcoming Chronicle report.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement Project: Overview

Anya Dale’s presentation covered familiar ground for anyone who’s attended other public forums on this project. [See Chronicle coverage: "What Does Washtenaw Corridor Need?"]

She began by describing the project’s genesis three years ago as an outgrowth of the planning effort called Ann Arbor Region Success, which involved about 70 community leaders. [The group was formed in response to news that Pfizer was pulling out of Ann Arbor and closing its large drug research complex here.]

Out of that effort, recommendations were made to focus on six major areas: (1) business acceleration and attraction; (2) secondary school options; (3) regional transit; (4) workforce housing; (5) workforce/talent development; and (6) revitalizing the eastern side of the county.

One major deficit identified was a lack of affordable housing options that are connected to vibrant parts of the county via high quality public transit. It’s especially difficult for young people who are starting their careers – they can’t find affordable housing that’s close to where they work and to the services and amenities they need, or that provides high quality public transit options.

With these things in mind, Dale said, the four communities along Washtenaw Avenue decided to focus on redeveloping that corridor. The goal is to use “smart growth” principles to enhance the quality of place for current residents, encourage efficient transportation, and accommodate the needs of the creative economy – which generally includes professions like architecture, graphic design, software development, film and music, among other fields.

In addition to the local governments of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township, the project involves other public and private sector partners too, Dale said, including the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT), the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), the University of Michigan, and the real estate developer and property manager McKinley, among others.

Dale said public outreach has engaged many others, and has included multiple community forums, presentations to local government boards and councils, landowner and business meetings, and an online survey.

Washtenaw County planner Anya Dale, prepping for a presentation to the county board of commissioners on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project. At the June 2 working session, commissioners learned that Dale is leaving the county to take a job with the University of Michigan.

Dale described several challenges found along the five-mile stretch. In many places, there are no sidewalks for pedestrians, and no safe way for people to get to bus stops or to cross the busy five-lane road. It’s the most congested corridor in the county, with high crash rates – both car-to-car, and car-to-pedestrian. Vacancy rates in buildings along Washtenaw Avenue are also high, Dale noted.

There are also opportunities, she said. It’s located close to major employment centers, residential neighborhoods, retail and service businesses, and provides access to a major highway: US-23, with a nearby connection to I-94. There’s already high public transit use along the corridor, and ample land for redevelopment – more than 100 acres that’s either vacant or severely under-utilized, Dale said, including some that’s eligible for brownfield redevelopment.

So the four communities along the corridor realized they had common goals, she said. Among them:

• Creating a mixed use corridor, with housing, retail and office space all accessible via high-quality transit.
• Connecting vibrant neighborhoods to commercial areas via pleasant, safe walking and biking options.
• Modernizing plans and regulations to encourage infill and development.
• Removing barriers and creating incentives for development.
• Increasing the local tax base.
• Coordinating efforts to fund improvements for pedestrian, bike and vehicle uses, and enhanced transit service.

The vision is to attract people to the corridor – these goals aim to enhance the quality of life for residents and workers, Dale said. It includes providing more choices for transit, and making housing more affordable. One way to increase affordability is through improved public transit, she said – it’s not cheaper to live somewhere if you’re forced to use a car.

The corridor project also aims to reduce sprawl and pollution, Dale said, cut infrastructure costs and increase property values. From an economic development perspective, it could enhance the county’s competitiveness to attract businesses and workers, provide investment stability, and connect low- and moderate-income people to jobs through improved transit access.

The corridor hasn’t realized its potential for business investment, and it’s currently dragging down the taxable values for some of the communities there, Dale said.

Partners in the project spent much of 2009 doing public outreach and developing a vision, Dale said. In 2010, they developed recommendations for land use, transportation, and governance models, such as a corridor improvement authority (CIA). She pointed commissioners to the Reimagine Washtenaw website for more details on these recommendations.

Some University of Michigan graduate students did a redevelopment feasibility study of the corridor – their market analysis found that there’s demand for compact, mixed-use development near transit, Dale said, and that Washtenaw Avenue is an appropriate location for workforce housing.

Dale outlined several transportation improvements suggested for Washtenaw Avenue. For public transit, those include extended service hours, faster and more frequent service, Park-and-Ride options, and improved infrastructure including bus stops and pull-offs, signs and sidewalks. Improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians include  pedestrian refuge islands, intersection improvements, and connections to existing bicycle pathways. And traffic congestion could be addressed by improving access to sites, reducing curb-cuts and coordinating traffic signals.

Several improvements are already underway, Dale said. They include:

• Pedestrian improvements at the US-23 interchange – part of a broader MDOT project there that will likely start construction next year.
• Sidewalks built in the Pittsfield Township section.
• Construction of a multi-use path up to Tuomy Road in Ann Arbor.
• New developments proposed at Golfside in Ypsilanti Township, and at Platt in Ann Arbor.
• A conversion from four to three lanes on Golfside Road from Packard to Clark, with bike lanes and sidewalks.
• Improvements at the Oakwood intersection.
• AATA transit improvements to Route #4.
• Improved Night Ride service.
• A Glencoe Crossings park-and-ride lot.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement: Governance

Dale described steps that have been taken regarding the governance piece of the project, much of it related to a corridor improvement authority (CIA). She noted that the four communities have all passed resolutions of intent to form a CIA, but they’ll continue to look at whether a CIA is the best approach.

A pedestrian crossing heavy traffic on Washtenaw Avenue, south of Arborland. She eventually made it safely to the opposite side, where an AATA bus stop is located.

A CIA is a financing mechanism that would provide a way for the four communities to fund improvements to the corridor. CIAs would allow for tax-increment financing, similar to a downtown development authorities but specifically designed for commercial corridors. A tax-increment finance (TIF) district is a mechanism for “capturing” certain property taxes to be used in a specific geographic district – taxes that would otherwise be used by the entity with the authority to levy the taxes.

The benefits to a CIA are that it creates a formal partnership that allows the entity to pursue more funding options, Dale said. In addition to TIF revenues, those funding options could include federal grants, donations, special assessments, and the ability to issue bonds. Working via a CIA would bring regional consistency to development standards. It would also coordinate public investment, as well as marketing, promotion and incentives that might be offered, Dale said.

Like a downtown development authority, the CIA would be governed by a board with representatives from each community, as well as local property owners, residents, and business owners.

There are 16 CIAs in Michigan, Dale said. The Washtenaw Avenue group is using the CIA formed by Lansing, East Lansing and Lansing Township as a model, because of the multiple jurisdictions involved.

If the four communities decide to pursue a CIA, Dale said, they’d need to act within 60 days of the last public hearing focused on it. A public hearing was held earlier this year, but more than 60 days ago – and no action was taken. That means another public hearing would need to be held, if the CIA approach is pursued.

If tax increment financing is sought for this corridor, they’d need to draft a TIF plan and have it approved by the governing bodies for each of the four communities.

They’d also need to hold public hearings on the TIF plan. Taxing entities would have 60 days from those public hearings to decide whether to opt out of their revenue being captured for the district.

Aside from the decision about a CIA and TIF, next steps in 2011 and 2012 include: (1) incorporating a corridor strategy into the master plans for each jurisdiction; (2) updating zoning, parking and design standards in each jurisdiction; (3) selecting a method for an expedited permitting/review process for developments; (4) developing a project list; and (5) making a joint application for a transportation enhancement grant.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners asked a range of questions about the project, and generally seemed supportive of it.

Barbara Bergman asked Dale how much the county was paying to support the project – what’s the funding source? It’s mostly a contribution of staff time, Dale said, adding that about a third of her time is spent on the corridor. They’ve also received small grants, she said, which were either spent internally or paid for contract work.

In response to a query from Bergman about what kind of additional support is needed, Dale said it would be good for the county to continue to provide staff time. It’s helpful to have an outside entity like the county involved in moving the conversation forward, she said, as well as to make grant applications. The project has great momentum, which Dale hoped would continue.

Leah Gunn asked about the tax increment finance (TIF) district that’s one possible funding option. Would it capture taxes from only the four jurisdictions involved in the project? Or would the TIF capture include other taxing units, like the county, the Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw Community College?

Washtenaw County commissioner Leah Gunn, whose district covers part of Ann Arbor, talks with Ann Arbor city councilmember Tony Derezinski at the county board's June 2 working session.

Dale said it would be possible for taxing entities like the county to opt out. The percent of tax increment capture could also be negotiated, she said – it wouldn’t have to be 100%.

Yousef Rabhi noted that when the county board had held a working session on intergovernmental cooperation earlier this year, the turnout hadn’t been great. By comparison, the turnout for this corridor working session is huge, he said, and that’s a testament to how concrete the project is, and the value that multiple communities see in it.

Noting that the board had been discussing the issue of brownfields recently, Dan Smith asked Dale to identify the location of brownfields along the corridor. Dale didn’t have an exact number, but said that many of the sites have underground storage tanks at gas stations. In addition, there are many buildings along the corridor that have been vacant for more than five years, and are functionally obsolete.

D. Smith said the brownfield component would be one obvious place where the county might be involved in the corridor project – brownfield plans submitted through the county’s brownfield redevelopment program require board approval. Would the county be asked to join a corridor improvement authority?

Dale said she thought that anyone could join a CIA, but so far, the 16 authorities in Michigan all have fewer than four members. They’re working on state legislation to broaden the language in Public Act 280 so that there could be greater representation in the CIA, she said.

County commissioners understand the complexities of tax increment financing, D. Smith said. TIF districts have benefits, but also short-term downsides. They divert tax revenues at a time when revenues are declining anyway – the county is facing a $17.5 million two-year deficit in 2012-2013, he noted. “It’s a difficult trade-off to make sometimes,” he said, and one they should be aware of.

Ronnie Peterson observed that this is one of the few times he can remember when people from Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township “came in peace.” That reflects their commitment to work together on this project, he said, and he hoped they would come back again.

Peterson asked Dale whether they would have to wait until legislation was passed in Lansing. Dale replied that the CIA was only one of the tools they’re considering. It would be possible right now for each of the four jurisdictions to form their own CIA, she said, but they’d rather form just one – and that requires changing the CIA enabling legislation. State legislators aren’t likely to act on it until the fall at the earliest, however. Until then, there’s work on master plans and grants that can be done, Dale said.

Peterson said he’d hate for Dale’s departure to cause the project to lose momentum. Tony VanDerworp – director of the economic development & energy department, and Dale’s boss – told commissioners that they’re still working out details of staff assignments as part of a proposed merger of three county departments: economic development & energy, the office of community development, and the employment training and community services (ETCS) department. [For background on this reorganization, see Chronicle coverage: "Three County Departments to Merge"]

The county has applied for a grant that would cover administrative costs to manage the corridor project, VanDerworp said. If they don’t get the grant, they’d likely need to talk to partners in the four Washtenaw Avenue jurisdictions to find other ways to move the project forward.

Brenda Stumbo, Ypsilanti Township supervisor, spoke to Ann Arbor planning commissioners on a bus tour of Washtenaw Avenue in late April.

Peterson complained about how the reorganization and merging of departments would bury economic development efforts within a human services department – he’s not in favor of that approach, given that the county invests significantly in economic development. He felt like the government leaders who attended that night’s working session were looking for the county to make a clear commitment – they weren’t there for just a pat on the back, he said. He asked Rabhi, who chairs the working sessions, to schedule one on the status of state legislation affecting this project, and to make sure the board gets updates on work in the corridor as it progresses. ”I don’t want us to be the dragging link to this chain,” Peterson said.

Wes Prater asked about the project’s timeline. Dale said there are several things in the works. Most communities are updating their master plans to include language related to the corridor improvement – Pittsfield Township is the farthest along in that. There are monthly meetings with a large group that includes elected officials, as well as monthly meetings of just the planners from each jurisdiction. [.pdf of tentative timeline through 2012]

If the grant doesn’t get approved, Prater wondered if the communities involved in this project would be asked for funding. Dale said the project would likely move along at a slower pace, as funding allowed. Having a staff person who could coordinate efforts of the four communities, as well as with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, would move things along more quickly, she said.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement: Local Communities Weigh In

Several people from other municipalities who attended the working session spoke to commissioners about the project.

Tony Derezinski, an Ann Arbor city councilmember who also serves on the city’s planning commission, reported that the city council had passed a resolution of intent to work with Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township and the city of Ypsilanti to explore establishing a corridor improvement authority (CIA) along Washtenaw Avenue. [The council acted on this resolution at its Dec. 20, 2010 meeting.]

Derezinski pointed out that the city’s planning commission has put a priority on transportation corridors. Included in the planning staff’s work plan is a focus first on Washtenaw Avenue, then South State Street, Plymouth Road and North Main.

At the planning commission’s retreat in late April, the group combined its interest in corridors with an emphasis on regional planning, Derezinski said, which they see as crucial to the area’s future. That resulted in the group doing a “corridor crawl” on an AATA bus along Washtenaw Avenue, with stops along the way in each of the jurisdictions: Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and the city of Ypsilanti. [The Chronicle attended the five-hour retreat, and rode along with planning commissioners and staff during the bus tour.]

Ann Arbor city planner Matt Kowalski, right, shakes hands with Al Berriz, CEO of McKinley, during a stop at Glencoe Hills as part of the planning commission's April 26 retreat. In the foreground is Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township supervisor. Glencoe Hills is an apartment complex owned by McKinley that's along a stretch of Washtenaw Avenue in Pittsfield Township.

At many of those stops, the planning commissioners talked with staff, elected officials and others who have a vested interest in that stretch of Washtenaw Avenue. One of the longer stops was at Glencoe Hills, a McKinley-owned apartment complex east of Carpenter Road in Pittsfield Township. There, the group heard from McKinley CEO Al Berriz and Mandy Grewal, Pittsfield Township supervisor, who each spoke about the importance of the corridor project.

The retreat also included a stop across from Arborland, and at the intersection of Golfside and Washtenaw, where planning commissioners talked with Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and Pittsfield Township planner Paul Montagno. [Ann Arbor planner Jeff Kahan told the group that this intersection "is where the communities kiss."] The final stop was at the western edge of Ypsilanti, at Mansfield and Washtenaw, and included a discussion with Ypsilanti city planner Theresa Gillotti.

At the June 2 county board working session, Derezinski told county commissioners there’s an exciting air of collaboration regarding the Washtenaw Avenue project – it’s the first major project where regionalism has a chance to succeed, he said.

Stumbo also spoke briefly to commissioners, calling the corridor project a great opportunity for economic development and a chance to break down some of the barriers between the east and west sides of the county. [Carpenter Road is itself a major commercial corridor running north/south and intersecting with Washtenaw Avenue near the US-23 interchange. It is considered by many to be a de facto dividing line between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.]

She noted that some people are leery of TIF (tax increment finance) districts, but the township is looking at it as an opportunity to stabilize its tax base through economic development. She said her understanding is that while a 50% tax capture is typical, other amounts are possible. Stumbo noted that Ypsilanti Township’s board had passed a resolution of intent regarding the corridor. If there’s a positive side to the economic downturn, she said, it’s that barriers are coming down and people are starting to work together.

Also addressing the board was Larry Krieg, a member of the Ypsilanti Township planning commission and author of the blog Wake Up, Washtenaw, which focuses on transportation issues. Krieg told the county board that he has two grandchildren living in the city of Ypsilanti, and he’s interested in building a community in which they can grow and prosper. What encourages him is that local communities are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Everyone knows that Washtenaw Avenue needs help, he said. Often times, people take one of two attitudes – either seeking outside help, such as federal grants, or saying “Why bother?” and giving up. For this project, Krieg said, he sees communities coming together and saying that they can do it themselves – they can improve the corridor, attract jobs and retain young talent. He said he hoped every county commissioner would support it.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Kristin Judge, Alicia Ping, Conan Smith

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision Statement

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

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

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

Here’s what Ford proposed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form an Act 196 Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The System: The Ride Goes Countywide?

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

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

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

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

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

Integration

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

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

Sketch of the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission, Vision, Values

The relatively unassuming item in the agenda of “Consideration of Resolution Adopting Mission, Vision and Values Statements” led to some of the richest back-and-forth among board members since The Chronicle began covering AATA board meetings in the fall of 2008.

For readability, we divide the board’s deliberations on the single resolution on the three statements (mission, vision, values) by individual statement. Why? When there appeared to be difficulty reaching a consensus on wording for the mission and values statements, the idea of tabling the resolution adopting the three statements was briefly contemplated. But Sue McCormick weighed in for splitting the resolution so that the board might adopt at least one or two of the statements, if not all three. Much of the content of the deliberations reported below on the separate statements was chronologically intertwined, and came before the decision to split the resolution into three parts.

Intermediate outcome: The resolution to adopt the mission, vision, and values statements was split into a separate resolution on each statement.

On the Word “Options” and “Cost-Effective” in the Mission Statement: The board’s discussion of the resolution to adopt mission, vision and values statements began on a wording issue to which Jim Mogensen had drawn attention during public time at the start of the meeting.

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen noted that mission statements are always fun to create and oftentimes when they’re revised, the text just gets reused and edited as opposed to recreating them from scratch. He said he’d noticed that “cost effective” had replaced the word “affordable” in an earlier version of the AATA mission statement. Mogensen said that even though you could think of them as synonymous, they’re really quite different things: Cost-effective has to do with how much things cost, whereas “affordable” has to do with whether people are able to pay for those things. So, “attractive transportation services at competitive prices” – a quote from the proposed vision statement – might not actually be “affordable,” said Mogensen.

Mission Statement (adopted)

It is the mission of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to provide useful, reliable, safe, environmentally-responsible, and cost-effective public transportation options for the benefit of the greater Ann Arbor community.

Responding to Jim Mogensen’s comments during the public time, board member Ted Annis said that the previous version of the mission statement  didn’t say “cost effective” but rather “cost optimized.” Annis said that it was meant to be a statement  about operating  buses at the least possible cost. Board member Charles Griffith also tied the discussion back to Mogensen’s comments, saying that the benefit of operating the buses at the least possible cost is supposed to be affordability.

When giving his summary of planning and development committee activities earlier in the meeting, Ted Annis had mentioned that he’d be offering a  friendly correction when discussion of the mission statement took place:  the elimination of the word “options”  in the phrase “public transportation options.” When the discussion unfolded, Annis said the AATA doesn’t provide the options, it provides the transportation. A potential rider has options, like a car, a bike or a bus, said Annis, but the AATA doesn’t provide the options of a car or a bike – it provides the bus.

Sue McCormick’s take on the word “options” was that it was somewhat ambiguous, but that when she read it, she took it to allude to the idea that the AATA aspired to be more than just a bus company.

Paul Ajegba, who served on the ad hoc committee charged with formulating the various statements, urged some reflection on why the word “options” was there in the first place, instead of simply striking it. Charles Griffith said that the rationale for “options” had to do with the fact that the AATA acted in some cases as a conduit for pass-through funds, as opposed to providing the transportation directly. Griffith pointed to the contrast made in the vision statement – which the board was also considering – between providing transportation directly and indirectly: “… AATA will be the primary provider or facilitator of public transportation.”

A motion to strike the word “options” found support only from Annis and McCormick, and thus failed.

Outcome: The resolution adopting the mission statement passed, with dissent from Annis.

Vision Statement: Small, Medium, or Large: It was Charles Griffith who first  opened the question of what the vision statement was supposed to accomplish. He assessed the draft this way: “As a vision statement, it’s not very visionary. It says what we do, but not where we are going.” He said that the vision statement should ideally outline a strategy for moving forward as opposed to saying what we’re doing now.

The planning and development committee had vetted the various statements being considered by the board. Its chair, Ted Annis, made two brief points. First, the language for the various statements came from the ad hoc committee and for that reason, the planning and development committee had taken a fairly hands-off approach to redacting any language. Second, said Annis, from his perspective he would just get rid of the vision statement.

McCormick was quick to reply that the AATA needed a vision statement, but that it needed to be clear and concise, as opposed to the somewhat lengthy draft the board was considering. McCormick outlined what the point of a mission and vision statements were: The mission statement should say why the AATA was created; the vision statement should say what the AATA wants to do. The vision statement is about direction, while the mission is about identity, she said.

Rich Robben disagreed with McCormick’s assessment that the vision statement needed to be short and concise and that in his experience vision statements could be quite lengthy.

For his part, board chair David Nacht declared, “These exercises are generally stupid. In our case, however, we’re actually grappling with what our vision is.” He concluded by emphasizing that it was an extremely important process  for the AATA. Robben supported Nacht’s assessment by saying that if what the AATA wanted was to change its culture, it was  important to have a vision statement and actually to reference it in day-to-day operations.

McCormick suggested  postponement. Griffith supported the idea, saying he was somewhat caught by surprise and he felt it required a bit of time to further digest.

Annis wanted clarification about whether the planning and development committee would be charged with the task of making revisions, and indicated that he was willing to shorten up the text. [The AATA board has moved increasingly to a committee-based work structure over the last few months.]

Nacht floated the idea that “figuring out who we are and where we want to go is perhaps one thing that we could do as a committee of the whole, as all seven of us together – we never do anything together anymore.”

Outcome: The vote on the vision statement was postponed to the next board meeting, where the wording would be discussed.

Jesse Bernstein emphasized that it was important in advance of the next board meeting to determine what kind of statement they would be trying to craft: a long, medium or short kind of statement. In contemplating how to collaborate in advance of the meeting, Nacht said that HyperOffice software employed by the AATA  probably wouldn’t be suitable as a mechanism to conduct discussion, because the public would not have access. He suggested e-mailing and CC-ing messages to Dawn Gabay so that they could be easily provided in response to a FOIA request.

Vision statement (postponed to March meeting)

The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) will be the primary provider or facilitator of public transportation for those without access to a private vehicle within the greater Ann Arbor community. It will be a viable, valuable and frequently-used transportation option for those able to choose between private automobiles and other transportation modes. AATA will be responsive to its customer needs.

AATA will increase ridership by offering attractive transportation services at competitive prices using the highest professional standards, collaborative efforts, public relations and customer interactions to remain responsive to the transportation needs of the community and encourage the use of alternative transportation options.

AATA will be an excellent steward of public funds and resources and will foster collaborative transportation partnerships with public and private entities for the benefit of its customers and the community.

AATA will provide frequent, customer friendly, reliable, safe, and convenient transportation services that are environmentally conscious and contribute to the reduction of climate changing emissions and vehicle miles traveled.

AATA will contribute to the enhancement of the quality of life and the economy of the greater Ann Arbor community while improving air quality, decreasing traffic congestion, and reducing dependence on foreign energy sources.

AATA will support a variety of size and type of land development and redevelopment within transit service areas to foster walking, bicycling, carpooling, and vanpooling, thereby enabling the residents, workers and visitors to the Ann Arbor community to be closer to transit facilities and services.

AATA will actively pursue opportunities for joint development that can benefit the community as well as its ridership and system goals.

AATA will respect and value its stakeholders, customers and employees and will recognize and celebrate the great diversity within the Ann Arbor community. It will encourage its employees to do their best work and will provide the tools, training, and environment to enable them to excel.

Values Statement: Nacht read forth the values statement.

Outcome: The values statement was unanimously approved with no significant discussion.

Values Statement (adopted)

The core priorities guiding the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s conduct toward its customers, stakeholders, employees and the entire greater Ann Arbor community are embodied in the following values:

SAFETY from harm, injury, or loss.

RELIABILITY based on consistent performance over time.

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION due to providing the highest level of service.

RESPECT resulting from attentiveness, consideration, and courtesy.

INCLUSIVENESS without discrimination.

COOPERATION toward the common good.

RESPONSIBILITY by being accountable for both actions and conduct.

INNOVATION aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness.

FLEXIBILITY to adapt to new, different, or changing conditions.

INTEGRITY from incorporating principles of right and wrong into principles of moral behavior.

ENVIRONMENTALISM centered on a concern for the conservation and improvement of the environment.

Executive Director Search

The AATA has had an unfilled executive director position since the resignation of Greg Cook in early 2007. At the beginning of the meeting Nacht announced that he’d received a letter, whose lead author was Nancy Shore (former AATA board member and current director of the getDowntown program), about the executive director search. The letter, said Nacht, contained thoughts about the executive director search – things that the board should be thinking about in connection with it.

Asked to provide the letter to The Chronicle, Shore sent it along, and we include a link to a text file with its contents. Signatories to it besides Shore were Richard Sheridan (Menlo Innovations), Jeff Irwin (Washenaw County Board of Commissioners), Conan Smith (Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners), Chuck Warpehoski (Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice), and Joan Lowenstein (Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C. and Downtown Development Authority board member).

The first point made by the letter is one that the board grappled with Wednesday evening: the importance of a vision.

The search committee, reported Nacht, had identified five finalists, but noted it would be inappropriate to comment further, because none of the finalists had been notified yet. There were 62 candidates in all, which were narrowed to 20 by the headhunter, and further winnowed down to 5 by the AATA search committee, which is chaired by Paul Ajegba.

Remarks from the Mayor of Ypsilanti: Paul Schreiber

At the meeting partly in order to speak to the board about the executive director search was Paul Schreiber, who is mayor of the city of Ypsilanti. He encouraged the board to keep working hard on the executive director search and to identify somebody who has the know-how to work constructively with the community.

He also asked the board to continue to work towards creating a countywide authority, because the purchase-of-service agreement model doesn’t allow forward-looking thinking. He characterized the current system as somewhat of a piecemeal approach.

When Schreiber concluded his remarks, board member Jesse Bernstein asked if he could depart from the usual protocol of not having a back-and-forth with public speakers, given that Schreiber is the mayor of Ypsilanti. After a quick check with the rest of the board, Nacht gave Bernstein the green light. Bernstein curious to know if Schreiber had any specific thoughts on an equitable way of financing the countywide authority. Schreiber said that he did not have a specific proposal, because he didn’t have an in-depth understanding that would really allow him to offer such an opinion. However, he did note that Ann Arbor was a leader in this area with its  transportation millage.

Schreiber also said he expected that the demand for transit was only going to increase, citing as an example the fact that the city of Ypsilanti  had received two offers for parts of the Water Street property along Michigan Avenue. He said this reflected the fact that developers are starting to give up on green field space – as opposed to already-built infrastructure. And that meant that the area would need to find ways to provide more mass transit – for people to get from Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor and from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti. As an example of the latter, Bernstein offered: “To go have have dinner at Haab’s.” To which Paul Schreiber added, “And breakfast at Beezy’s.”

Committee Updates and Communications: Crisis Contingencies and WALLY Update

Nacht solicited two-minute updates from committees. The governance committee, which he chairs, did not meet since the last full board meeting because he’d been sick.

Planning and Development Committee: Ted Annis reported that the committee had met two times since the last full board meeting. He said that they had worked on the countywide authority formation under Act 196 but there was no news yet to report. At another point in the meeting, interim executive director, Dawn Gabay, indicated that the two attorneys, Jerry Lax and Jeff Ammon, who’d been engaged as consultants on the matter would soon be providing some more concrete options.

Another main focus of the committee had been on contingency planning, said Annis. He said the idea was to develop a contingency plan that would be ready to use in the event of an adverse economic situation – which he felt we would in fact be facing. So AATA staff had been asked to develop responses in the event of 10%, 20%, and 40% revenue losses. And he said there would be a report forthcoming divided essentially into three parts: (i) revenues, (ii) services that would be cut, and (iii) the internal cost cuts that would be undertaken. Annis said the idea was to figure out how to get the cost per service hour down from its current level of $103 per hour to the $77 per hour that Grand Rapids runs its system on.

Performance Monitoring & External Relations Committee: Sue McCormick reported that the committee had met the previous Friday. She said they had focused on performance criteria and taking an exceptions-based approach to them. That is, they had set up a system to review the performance data that would call their specific attention to items that fell outside of expected ranges. She said that the same exceptions-based approach was being applied to the financial piece of performance.

Federal Transit Administration: AATA’s interim executive director, Dawn Gabay, reported that the tri-annual review by the FTA would be happening on May 26-27. At the time of the AATA’s last review there had been no findings, she said.

North-South and East-West Commuter Rail: Nacht asked for an update on the north-south WALLY commuter rail project. Gabay said Tom Cornillie (AATA staff) was working out the scope of work for services. The planning and development committee had directed staff to look at the east-west commuter rail project, which is being headed up by SEMCOG, and that had temporarily shifted its focus from the north-south WALLY initiative.

Nacht noted that as a board they had voted to have staff “work it up” to have a policy consideration. They’re not taking a position that they’re necessarily heading down that path, no matter what, he said. Nacht reiterated later in the discussion with respect to WALLY: “We’re not backing off from that.” He said that a vote had been taken on WALLY, and they’re not trying to slow it down, they’re going to do it right. The idea behind taking a look at the east-west commuter rail project was to get an idea of what kind of resource commitments would be required for that project, so that AATA could assess better the ramifications on the WALLY project, he said.

In the context of the balance of commitments to the east-west project versus the north-south WALLY project, Bernstein emphasized that the role of the AATA in the east-west project was as a “connector” to the project, not as the entity running the project (as with WALLY). McCormick said that the east-west rail was much closer to reality than the north-south one, which was another reason it was worth putting some time into now. “About the east-west rail, we hear dates,” she said. Those dates are fall 2010 for a demonstration project, and in that light, she said, we need to know how the AATA is going to connect with that service.

Part of what had prompted the east-west rail conversation was Nacht’s introduction of the topic of AATA service to the Detroit airport. In response to a query from Nacht, Gabay said that  in 2002-03, they had approached the airport for consideration of east-west service and determined that it was at that time not feasible. Nacht asked if it had to do with a charge for entry to the airport facility. Gabay said there would be no charge for entry. What was the barrier then, wondered Nacht. Gabay said there was a possible lack of a state match, because operating east-west service to the airport might be taking business from a private operator already providing that service.

Nacht then noted that AATA routes had been altered to support a private service, and Gabay confirmed that the AATA routes had been changed to go closer to Wolverine Tower.

Nacht then declared that he would like to have active consideration of providing the Ann Arbor community with bus service to the airport. He said that he didn’t want to hear back simply, “It’s too expensive,” which prompted Ajegba to observe that this seemed contradictory to the mission statement to provide service in a cost-effective manner. Griffith said Nacht wasn’t saying the cost doesn’t matter, which Robben agreed with, saying  that it was a question of not wanting to dismiss it out of hand. Gabay said that the timing of such a service needed to be coordinated with east-west rail that might be going in.

Resolutions: Procurement Manual and Project List

Besides the item on mission, vision, and values statements, two other resolutions were on the agenda, the first concerning the adoption of a procurement manual, which came out of McCormick’s performance monitoring committee. The procurement manual was postponed after Nacht asked that it be systematically reviewed with an eye towards ensuring that potential issues of inappropriate influence and conflict were adequately addressed.

The remaining resolution concerned the adoption of a revised project list in light of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) a.k.a the “stimulus package.” It was approved unanimously by the board. Under the provisions of ARRA, the AATA expects to receive around $6 million, to be administered through the Federal Transit Administration. Of that amount, at least 50% of the funds allocated to AATA must be obligated within six months and the remainder within a year. The AATA has identified the following projects for implementation within 180 days:

• Construction of a park-and-ride lot on Plymouth Road at U.S. 23
  Expected cost: $1.4 million
  Expected contract award: July 2009
• Purchase of 4 hybrid-electric buses
  Expected cost: $2.1 million
  Expected contract award: March 2009 (option on existing contract)
• Improvement of the safety and accessibility at selected bus stops
  Expected cost: $0.2 million
  Expected contract award: June 2009

Public Time: Reflections on Buses that Don’t Stop

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen’s comments on the mission statement, reported above, came at the start of the meeting when comments are supposed to focus on topics related to the agenda, which the mission statement was. At the end of the meeting there’s time for the public to weigh in on whatever topic they like.

At the end of the meeting, Mogensen reported that on Jan. 29 he took the No. 4  bus to Arborland intending to transfer to the No. 22 to get back home. But the No. 22 bus drove past without stopping. He then had to transfer back to the No. 4. But because he had ridden the No.  4 he had to pay another dollar fare – because you cannot “transfer” to  the same bus. He said that the experience had reminded him of a few policy issues: (i) In the Ride Guide there is no prominent printing of a telephone number for complaints, (ii) the signage on major routes needs to be somewhat better so the drivers can more easily spot where to stop, and (iii) the transfer policy has impacts on short trips. When Mogensen concluded his remarks, board chair David Nacht said: “I’m sorry on behalf of the organization.”

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

Next meeting: Wednesday, March 18 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave. [confirm date]

Hey, the party is over. We don’t save much anymore. We spend what we earn, borrow some more from other governments, to buy all of the latest plasma electronics at low prices at Wal-mart. America’s largest retailer then ships the $10 billion we borrowed in merchandise payments back to China each year and we start the cycle all over again.

When the financial market’s balloon recently exploded, our government blows up another balloon by printing more money and distributing it out to banks to loan to us so we can keep spending and avoid the party-ending migraine hangover. This new infusion of money cheapens the value of the dollar so we have to borrow more to just maintain the same lifestyle. In some respects this spend-and-borrow lifestyle is our own Madoff ponzi scheme with our children and grandchildren being the eventual victims of our own actions.

To withdraw from this spend-and-borrow addiction, we in the private sector need to start making competitive American products for the global marketplace and saving a part of the profits. Those of us in the public sector need to shrink the size of government and make it more efficient.

Why do we need 1,242 townships in Michigan? Can’t the townships’ duties of assessing property, collecting taxes, conducting elections, and providing fire and police services be turned over to local counties (who also provide most of these services) in an effort to pull Michigan from its fiscal crisis? I could just as easily send my taxes to the county offices as to the township treasurer’s farm on Old U.S. 12 (who then remits the taxes back to the county). On second thought, why do I have to mail the payment anywhere? I should be able to pay the taxes over the Internet, just as I do many of the other household bills.

Why do we need 84 county road commissions in Michigan? Are the roads in Washtenaw County so different than the roads in Livingston that we need separate commissioners, lawyers, accountants, auditors, maintenance supervisors, etc.? Recently I was trying to get to Detroit Metropolitan Airport on a snowy afternoon. I had no problem on Washtenaw roads but when the snowplow got off at the county line, the Wayne section of the freeway had not been plowed and traffic was at a crawl. If the Washtenaw road supervisor had more regional responsibility, I likely would have made my flight on time.

These local entities were established before Michigan became a state and their size allowed people living on the perimeter to walk to the township hall and return the same day. The argument for the status quo is that the township people are friendlier and provide more personal service. Unfortunately, this form of localism is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Public and private sector consolidations will eventually happen. A weak dollar and a shrinking property tax base will require that hard choices be made. The party is over. Let’s not leave our hangover to our children.