Chart 1: AAATA Millage Vote Survey. Of the 841 registered voters surveyed, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax. Half the respondents were asked about a tax at the rate of 0.5 mills while the other half were asked about a 0.9 mill tax. There was not a significant difference in the two groups. The amount of the potential millage request in 2014 is 0.7 mills.

The AAATA’s release of partial survey results on Feb. 7 comes about two weeks before the next monthly meeting of its board of directors, on Feb. 20. At that meeting, the board will almost certainly consider whether to place a millage on the ballot – either for May 6 or later in the fall of this year.

The purpose of the potential millage – which would be the first one ever levied by the AAATA – would be to fund a 5-year plan of service improvements, approved by the AAATA board at its Jan. 16, 2014 meeting. The millage itself would last for five years.

Generally, those improvements include increased frequency during peak hours, extended service in the evenings, and additional service on weekends. Some looped routes are being replaced with out-and-back type route configurations. The plan does not include operation of rail-based services. The AAATA has calculated that the improvements in service add up to 90,000 additional service hours per year, compared to the current service levels, which is a 44% increase.

If a millage were approved in May, those improvements that involve extending the hours of service later in the evening and the weekend could begin to be implemented by late 2014. However, increases in frequency along routes, which would require acquisition of additional buses, would take longer.

The AAATA refers to the plan in its communications as the 5YTIP. The AAATA has calculated that the additional tax required to fund the 5YTIP is 0.7 mills. A draft five-year plan was presented to the public in a series of 13 meetings in the fall of 2013. Changes to the five-year plan made in response to public feedback were included in the board’s information packet for the Jan. 16 meeting. [.pdf of memo and 5-year improvement plan] [.pdf of presentation made to the board on Jan. 16]

The dedicated transit tax already paid by property owners in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti is levied by each city and passed through to the AAATA. Those taxes would stay in place if voters in the AAATA’s three-jurisdiction area approved a 0.7 mill tax. For Ann Arbor, the rate for the existing millage is 2.056 mills, which is expected to generate a little over $10 million by 2019, the fifth year of the transportation improvement plan. For the city of Ypsilanti, the rate for the existing transit millage is 0.9789, which is expected to generate about $314,000 in 2019. For the owner of an Ann Arbor house with a market value of $200,000 and taxable value of $100,000, a 0.7 mill tax translates into $70 annually, which would be paid in addition to the existing transit millage. The total Ann Arbor transit tax paid on a taxable value of $100,000 would be about $270 a year.

The transit improvement program also calls for an additional $1,087,344 to come from purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs), based on increased service hours in Pittsfield, Saline, and Superior townships.

A subset of a financial task force that had formed during an effort in 2012 to expand the AAATA to a countywide authority has concluded that the 0.7 mill would be adequate to fund the planned additional services. At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, on Feb. 5, DDA board member Bob Guenzel stated that he had continued to participate on that task force, and reported that the group had forwarded its finding on the currently contemplated 0.7 millage to the AAATA.

Besides Guenzel, who is former Washtenaw County administrator, the current configuration of that group includes Mary Jo Callan (director of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development), Norman Herbert (former treasurer of the University of Michigan), Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK), and Mark Perry (director of real estate services, Masco Corp.) and Steve Manchester.

The survey on voter attitudes toward a millage was conducted for the AAATA by CJI Research with a mixed methodology – of telephone contacts, and a mail invitation to respond online – during October and November of 2013. The sample of respondents was divided into two groups – those who were asked about their attitudes toward an additional 0.5-mill tax and those who were asked about their attitudes toward an additional 0.9-mill tax. According to CJI, the groups showed virtually no difference in the distribution of responses.

Of the 841 registered voters surveyed, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax.

The Feb. 7, 2014 press release issued by the AAATA highlighted three of its conclusions from the survey results: (1) that the AAATA is highly regarded by voters in the three member jurisdictions; (2) residents in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township are supportive of transit service expansion even if it means a new tax; and (3) among survey respondents, the best reasons to support a transit expansion are to help retain and attract jobs, generate economic activity by taking customers and workers to area retailers and other employers, and to improve service for seniors and the disabled. The margin of error for the survey was no more than 3.4%, according to the press release.

At the Jan. 16 AAATA board meeting, board chair Charles Griffith indicated that he felt the board would be taking the next step on implementing the program very soon. That indicates a probable vote on the millage question at the next board meeting, on Feb. 20. If the board voted then to put a millage question on the ballot, that would be in time to meet the Feb. 25 deadline for a millage request to be placed on the May 6, 2014 ballot.

A new millage would be decided by a majority vote of all three member jurisdictions of the AAATA. The two Ypsilanti jurisdictions were added as members of the AAATA just last year. The Ann Arbor city council voted to approve changes to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – to admit the city and the township of Ypsilanti as members – at its June 3, 2013 and Nov. 18, 2013 meetings, respectively.

This most recent survey conducted by CJI is the third biennial study the AAATA has commissioned, starting in 2009. The 63% positive attitude in this most recent survey – confined to just the three member jurisdictions of the AAATA – is somewhat stronger than the support measured among residents countywide in 2009 and 2011. Results from all survey years are shown in Chart 1 and Chart 2 below:

Chart 1: AAATA Millage Vote Survey. Of the 841 registered voters surveyed in the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax.

Chart 2: Millage Vote 2009 and 2011 Surveys. Asked early in the survey if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of survey respondents countywide said they definitely or probably would. Asked later in the survey, a combined 59% of voters said they’d probably or definitely vote for a 1 mill transit tax.

The geographic distribution of support for the most recent survey showed strongest support in the city of Ann Arbor (66% definitely/probably yes), followed closely by the city of Ypsilanti (65% definitely/probably yes), followed by Ypsilanti Township (57% definitely/probably yes). Opposition was flipped from support, with 28% of city of Ann Arbor voters saying they’d definitely/probably vote no, 31% of city of Ypsilanti voters definitely/probably voting no, and 36% of Ypsilanti Township voters definitely/probably voting no. The city of Ypsilanti had the fewest number of undecided voters: 4%. Those results are shown in Chart 3:

Chart 3: Millage Vote Geographic Distribution 2013 Stacked bars indicate by geographic location those who said they’d definitely or probably vote yes on  a transit tax (blue), definitely or probably vote no (red) or didn’t know (yellow). (Data from the AAATA, chart by The Chronicle)

That’s similar to the support measured in those same specific areas two years ago. In 2011, 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%. In that year, the two Ypsilanti-area jurisdictions were grouped with Pittsfield Township. About 56% of Ypsilanti-area plus Pittsfield said they would definitely or probably support a millage. Those results from past years are shown in Chart 4:

Chart 4: Millage Vote Geographic Distribution 2011. 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.

All the surveys attempted to measure how effective respondents think arguments are – for and against a transit tax. This year’s survey results were in at least some ways consistent with previous years’ surveys: Additional service for seniors and those with disabilities is seen as a persuasive argument to support a transit tax. Those results are presented in Chart 5 and Chart 6 below.

Chart 5: Arguments for Public Transit – Fall 2013 Survey. Perceived as the best argument for supporting a transit tax was the importance of transit service for seniors and those with disabilities. Perceived as less persuasive arguments were the ideas that the member jurisdictions need a faster way to get places and that transit is important to protect the environment.

Chart 6: Arguments for Public Transit – 2011 Survey. 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.

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!

View of the downtown Ann Arbor library building at 343 S. Fifth Ave., from the corner of Fifth and William. The orange cones are tied to construction of what's tentatively called the Library Lane parking structure, being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Library staff and board members are again discussing whether to renovate or rebuild this main library location. (Photos by the writer.)

At the board’s April meeting on Monday, AADL director Josie Parker summarized results of the phone survey, which was conducted in early March by the Lansing firm EPIC-MRA. It included 400 responses. She noted that the library’s five-year strategic plan, approved by the board in 2010, includes an initiative related to the downtown building.

The survey indicated that if a vote were taken today – on funding a $65 million renovation or new construction project with a property tax increase of 0.69 mills – 45% of survey respondents would vote yes, and another 15% would lean toward a yes vote. That compares with a total of 37% who said they would either vote no or lean toward no.

Support was even stronger among survey respondents for scaled-back options with lower tax increases. [.pdf of survey results]

“This is a beginning, but it’s a very positive beginning after a long four years,” Parker said, referring to the board’s decision in 2008 to halt redevelopment of the downtown building because of faltering economic conditions.

Later in the meeting, the board voted unanimously to appoint a three-member special facilities committee, charged with making recommendations to the full board.

The April 16 meeting also included a presentation of the draft 2012-2013 budget, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. The budget is based on levying 1.55 mills – unchanged from the current levy, but below the 1.92 mills that the district is authorized to collect.

The budget anticipates tax revenues of $11.203 million for fiscal 2012-13, representing a 1% increase in tax revenues compared to the current projection of $11.091 million for fiscal 2011-12. The overall FY 2012-13 budget revenues – including tax revenue, state aid and other revenue sources – is $12.254 million, compared to the current budget of $12.191 million.

The board is expected to vote on the budget at its May 21 meeting. That meeting is also expected to include a public hearing on the budget, as well as a formal director’s evaluation and renewal of a space use agreement with the Friends of the AADL, which operates a used bookstore in the downtown library’s lower level.

Downtown Library Building

Two items at the April 16 meeting related to ongoing consideration of a possible new or renovated downtown building: (1) a report on the recent survey commissioned by AADL;  and (2) formal formation of a special facilities committee.

By way of background, several years ago the AADL board had spent months evaluating the condition of the downtown building – located at 343 S. Fifth Ave. – and working with the local firm Luckenbach Ziegelman Architects on designing a new structure. But in late 2008 the board voted to suspend redevelopment of the downtown building, citing the shaky economy. [See Chronicle coverage: "Citing Economy, Board Halts Library Project."]

The topic has been addressed at subsequent AADL board meetings: “New Downtown Library? If, When and Where,” and “Board Renews Library Building Discussion.” And in November 2011, the board took a concrete step, voting to provide $45,000 in funding for consultants to help resume the process of possibly redeveloping that downtown building. The building is located south of the city’s new underground parking structure, which is being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and is now tentatively named the Library Lane Parking Structure.

During her director’s report at this week’s board meeting, AADL director Josie Parker said she wanted to alert the board to a change made in the library’s five-year strategic plan, which the board had adopted in 2010 and which runs through 2015. She noted that the plan is intended as a guide, and has been updated based on changing conditions – for example, changes in electronic publishing or demand for special collections.

One initiative in the plan’s section on facilities relates to the downtown building, Parker said. The plan includes this goal: “Renovate or replace the downtown library with attention to the condition of the existing building; tax base; revenue stream; development of surrounding properties and demographics.”

The library had commissioned the Lansing firm EPIC-MRA to conduct a phone survey regarding attitudes toward the library’s services and facilities. The survey was conducted from March 3-5, 2012 and reflects a sample of 400 responses, with a margin of error of ±4.9%.

Parker said she was pleased that the results showed that this community continues to highly value education and learning, and the position that the AADL holds in contributing to that isn’t questioned. Even in the era of the Internet, the library is considered as relevant as ever, and many people felt it was more relevant, she said.

Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker

The survey also revealed that people would be willing to spend more to ensure that this community and its future generations continue to have library services, Parker said. That’s very positive, she added – and it would have been impossible to guess that outcome, given the economy.

The questions on the survey had been very explicit regarding funding for a new or renovated downtown facility, Parker said.

If a vote were taken now – on funding a $65 million renovation or new construction project with a property tax increase of 0.69 mills – 45% of survey respondents would vote yes, and another 15% would lean toward a yes vote. That compares with a total 37% who said they would either vote no or lean toward no. A mill is equal to $1 for each $1,000 of taxable value for a property. [.pdf of survey results]

The survey also asked about support if the project were scaled back, requiring an 0.51 mill increase or an 0.25 mill increase. In those cases, the project received favorable support (yes or leaning to yes) of 61% and 72%, respectively. Results from the survey also indicated an 82% positive rating of the current downtown facility (41% excellent and 42% pretty good). Those who indicated a negative perception of the downtown building cited construction (20%), parking (20%) and “needs upgrades” (15%) as the main reasons for that perception.

Parker stressed that no decision has been made about the downtown building, and that not even a timeframe for making a decision has been determined. ”This is a beginning, but it’s a very positive beginning after a long four years,” she said.

There was no discussion among board members following Parker’s remarks at the board meeting.

Earlier in the month, at a partnerships committee meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Parker had described to committee members the role of the downtown location as an anchor institution for that area of downtown – generating around 600,000 visits annually. Depending on the choices that are made on the future of a downtown AADL facility, she raised the possibility that the figure could substantially increase, perhaps even double.

Downtown Library Building: Special Facilities Committee

Later in the meeting, the board was asked to appoint formally a special facilities committee. The committee includes AADL board members Prue Rosenthal (chair), Ed Surovell and Nancy Kaplan. At the board’s March 19 meeting, Rosenthal reported that the group had already met informally with library staff.

The committee’s charge is to gather information and make a recommendation to the board about AADL’s facilities, including but not limited to a review of information that was collected in the past regarding the condition of the downtown building. The term of the committee is through 2012.

There was no discussion among board members on this resolution.

Outcome: The board unanimously appointed the special facilities committee.

Budget & Finance

There were two presentations at the April 16 meeting related to budget and finance: (1) a monthly financial report, and (2) a report of the draft 2012-13 budget, which the board will be asked to approve in May.

Ken Nieman,  associate director of finance, human resources and operations,  gave both reports. In summarizing the monthly financial results as of March 31, he described it as a normal month. The unrestricted cash balance was $10.49 million, with an operating surplus of $339,229 and a fund balance of $8.05 million. The library has received nearly 98% of its budgeted tax receipts for the year, he reported. [.pdf of March 2012 financial report]

The three line items that are over budget – materials, software licenses and supplies – are expected to fall back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year on June 30. Nieman also noted that the library has received $40,873 in state aid so far this year – about half of what it expects to get by the end of the fiscal year.

Board members had no questions or comments about the monthly financial report.

Budget & Finance: Draft 2012-13 Budget

Nieman also summarized a draft of the budget for the coming fiscal year, beginning July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. [.pdf of draft budget]

The budget had been reviewed by the board’s budget and finance committee, chaired by Barbara Murphy. At the board’s March 2012 meeting, another committee member, Ed Surovell, had reported that although the committee typically reviewed the budget in March, there were too many unknowns regarding revenue sources and a draft budget hadn’t yet been developed at that time. Those uncertainties related to local property taxes, personal property taxes, and penal fines.

Subsequently, more information became available, including the county’s preliminary equalization report, which is the basis for determining taxable value of property in the county and in turn indicates how much tax revenue is collected by local taxing entities.

During her committee report, Murphy praised the staff for their work. She noted that the budget is able to increase some line items – including employee salary and benefits – while still collecting an amount lower than the library is authorized to levy. AADL’s millage rate for the current fiscal year is 1.55 mills – below the 1.92 mills that the district is authorized to levy.

Based on collection of that same 1.55 mill tax, the 2012-13 budget anticipates tax revenues of $11.203 million for fiscal 2012-13, compared to the current budget projection of $11.091 million for fiscal 2011-12. That represents a 1% increase in tax revenues. The overall FY 2012-13 budget revenues – including tax revenue, state aid and other revenue sources – is $12.254 million, compared to the current budget of $12.191 million.

Nieman noted that in recent years, because of the uncertainty of state funding for public libraries, the AADL has not included that revenue in developing its budget. For the coming fiscal year, however, funding seems more certain and the budget includes a projected $80,000 in state aid.

On the expense side, employee benefits are budgeted to increase from $1.476 million this year to $1.565 million in the next fiscal year. In part, that reflects an increase in the amount that AADL must contribute to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) – from 24.46% this year to 27.37%. The proposed budget also includes a 3% merit raise pool for employees. In recent years, there has been no increase in merit pay.

In addition to the budget for 2012-13, the library finance staff is projecting a surplus of $292,025 for the current fiscal year.

Budget & Finance: Draft 2012-13 Budget – Board Discussion

There was little discussion among board members. Prue Rosenthal asked for clarification of the revenue line item called “grants and memorials,” which is budgeted for $90,000 in FY 2012-13. The library expects to receive $122,551 from that revenue source in the current fiscal year.

Nieman explained that the main source is from the Friends of the AADL. The library typically receives more from FAADL, as well as from other gifts, but the projection is for $90,000.

Nieman concluded by saying that the budget might need to be revised based on final estimates of tax revenues. AADL director Josie Parker also noted that the budget is an estimate. She’d held a staff meeting earlier in the day focused on the budget that was attended by about 85 employees. The staff understands that this is an estimate, too, she said.

The board is expected to vote on the FY 2012-13 budget at its May 21 meeting. In a resolution related to that meeting, board members set a public hearing on the budget for that meeting.

Outcome: Board members unanimously voted to set a public hearing on the 2012-13 budget for its May 21, 2012 meeting.

Director’s Report: Friends of the AADL

In addition to her comments regarding the EPIC-MRA survey, Josie Parker briefed the board on the space use agreement with Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library (FAADL), a nonprofit that operates a used bookstore in the lower level of AADL’s downtown branch at 343 S. Fifth Ave. Proceeds of the store are given to the library.

At its May 2011 meeting, the AADL board approved a one-year extension to the space use agreement. [.pdf file of FAADL space use agreement] Parker said she plans to bring another one-year extension to the board’s May 21 meeting for approval.

Parker reported that she’d met with FAADL president Pat McDonald to talk about the agreement. McDonald is taking the agreement to the FAADL board to make sure there’s nothing they want to change, but it’s not expected that there will be any revisions, Parker said. This process has become a normal annual routine, she added.

FAADL is doing well, Parker said – door count numbers and revenues are up, as is membership. That’s good for them and good for the library, she said.

During his finance report, Ken Nieman – associate director of finance, human resources and operations – told the board that the library expects to get about $90,000 annually from FAADL.

Director’s Evaluation

Board president Margaret Leary reported that the director’s evaluation committee, which she chairs, had met to discuss the annual evaluation of AADL director Josie Parker. Committee members – Leary, Prue Rosenthal and Jan Barney Newman – had reviewed Parker’s self-evaluation and had discussed it with her.

In executive session at the April 16 meeting, the board as a whole had discussed the evaluation with Parker, Leary said. Leary added that she’ll bring a formal public letter regarding the evaluation to the May 21 meeting.

Public Library Associates

In March, Celeste Choate  – associate director of services, collections and access – and DeAnn Doll, manager of human resources, spoke on a panel at the Public Library Association conference in Philadelphia. The panel focused on the development of the next generation of librarians, and highlighted AADL’s public library associate (PLA) program.

At the April 16 meeting, Choate gave a brief presentation to the board about the PLA program. PLAs are paid part-time positions filled by graduate students who are working on degrees in library science or related fields. The program began about 10 years ago as a partnership with the University of Michigan’s School of Information, focused on providing jobs, training and mentoring to minority students. It has evolved into a broader program and now includes relationships with Wayne State University and several online institutions.

AADL hires eight PLAs each year, working in different areas of the library, including the youth/adult services department, IT and production, and outreach. They typically work for 9 to 18 months, although one position is reserved for a student supported with a full scholarship at UM, who works as a PLA for two years.

Choate said the program provides opportunities for the students to learn the profession, but it also benefits AADL and therefore the public that AADL serves.

PLAs have gone on to jobs in the Library of Congress and other libraries nationwide. AADL has also hired some former PLAs as full-time staff after they’ve graduated, Choate said.

AADL director Josie Parker noted that the PLAs often get more experience than in a traditional job. Some of them manage small budgets, or develop programming. She noted that some have served on selection review committees, which are formed when the choice of material at the library is questioned or criticized. That’s something many people never have the opportunity to do in their career, she said.

The AADL pays for PLAs out of its operational budget, Parker said – there’s no grant money to support the program. [Responding to a later email query from The Chronicle, Parker reported that $90,000 is budgeted annually for the PLAs. She noted that these are positions that the library would need to fill even if the program didn't exist.]

In response to a question from Nancy Kaplan, Choate explained that some PLAs get academic credit for their work, but it’s not automatic.

Kaplan also asked about the difference between PLAs and interns. Parker noted that unlike PLAs, interns don’t work directly with the public – interns wouldn’t staff a reference desk or lead a children’s storytime program, for example. Also, internships are not paid positions. PLAs are paid and take advantage of the professional development opportunities available to regular staff, Choate said.

Jan Barney Newman asked how many libraries have this kind of program. Not many, Choate said. It’s even rarer for a library to support it without being reliant on grant funding, Parker added.

Margaret Leary commented on the benefits of working with students who can bring new ideas and creativity to the library, while learning from experienced staff. She also noted that it’s an example of AADL taking advantage of UM’s outstanding School of Information.

Given that AADL gets contacted by other libraries across the country that are interested in the program, Kaplan encouraged Choate to write an article about it for a professional journal.

Present: Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Rebecca Head.

Next meeting: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the library’s fourth floor meeting room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. 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!

Asked toward the start of the interview if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of respondents to the survey 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.

For the survey, Washtenaw County was divided into four areas: Ann Arbor, the Ypsilanti area, other eastern areas of the county, and the western part of the county. [.pdf of survey map] [.pdf of Ann Arbor survey report][.pdf of Ypsilanti area survey report] [.pdf of eastern Washtenaw survey report] [.pdf of western Washtenaw survey report]

The AATA also released a final version of the comprehensive report, along with an executive summary. [.pdf of AATA final survey report] [.pdf of AATA final executive summary]

On a key question about survey respondents’ inclination to support a 1 mill property tax, asked towards the beginning of the survey, 54% answered that they would definitely or probably support such a tax. [On  a similar question asked on a similar survey in 2009, 51% of respondents across Washtenaw County answered that they would definitely or probably support a 1 mill additional property tax to support transportation. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value.]

Asked a similar question towards the conclusion of the recent survey, 59% answered that they would definitely or probably support such a tax.

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.

The 1,356-person sample for the survey was drawn from registered voters in Washtenaw County, with interviews conducted by telephone or online. For each of four separate geographic regions, more than 300 interviews were administered: in Ann Arbor, the Ypsilanti area, eastern Washtenaw, and western Washtenaw. The populations of each of those areas is different; however, survey results were weighted accordingly.

The survey research was done by CJI Research Corp. 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.

CJI was 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.

[.pdf of survey text] [.pdf of survey solicitation letter] [.pdf of survey reminder postcard] Added after initial publication: [.pdf of presentation to the board]

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

Of the three respondents to the AATA’s RFP, the one from CJI was the top-rated proposal with respect the criteria: price, experience, and technical approach. CJI was the firm that conducted the AATA’s most recent on-board and telephone surveys in 2009.

CJI has experience with polling for ballot initiatives. That experience is significant, because at some point it’s expected that a proposal will be put before voters across Washtenaw County that would levy a transit tax. The draft fiscal year 2012 budget for AATA includes $75,000 for an on-board survey of riders and a telephone survey of Washtenaw County voters.

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

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

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

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

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

Treasurer’s Report

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

Treasurer’s Report: Background

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

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

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

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

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

Michael,

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

Second time this has happened.

Treasurer’s Report: Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Ajegba: Even if it is beyond your control?

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

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

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

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

Accessibility and Transparency

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

Accessibility: Board Meeting Time and Location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessibility: Board Packets

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

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

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

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

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

The move to digital text will eliminate those disadvantages.

Survey Says!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Advisory Committee Charge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Charles Griffith, Sue McCormick

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

Jesse Bernstein, who chairs the AATA board's performance monitoring and external relations committee, outlined a plan for expanding service that sees the next six months devoted to making the organization more transparent and gathering information from the community. (Photos by the writer.)

The emphasis on community engagement and listening to the needs and wants of the people who might use an expanded service – before trying to design the specifics of the service – would not be something confined to this particular initiative. Said Bernstein: “This is not a one-shot campaign; this is how we’re going to behave going forward.”

The board adopted a resolution to advance their plan for the future of public transportation in the county.

The board also heard a presentation on the results of a survey of voter attitudes towards a possible transit millage in Washtenaw County. The survey measured support of a millage at 51% – with 17% and 34% of voters saying they’d definitely or probably vote yes, respectively.

In other business, the board adopted its capital and categorical grant program, approved a contract to replace some doors and windows at AATA headquarters, authorized an application to the Michigan Department of Transportation and approved a 21-month purchase-of-service agreement with the city of Ypsilanti.

Countywide Millage Survey of Voter Attitudes

The AATA has been actively exploring the issue of expanding its service countywide for 18 months or more. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA Plans for Countywide System," "AATA Adopts Vision: Countywide Service," "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

Hugh Clark of CJI Research and Bob Dykes of TRIAD Research Group gave the board a presentation on the survey they’d conducted for the AATA to explore the likelihood that a countywide transit millage would be approved by voters.

The survey also explored attitudes of voters towards the county where they live, their awareness and satisfaction with AATA, and the impact on voter attitudes of additional information about the millage (arguments for and against).

Survey Sample

The 1,100-person sample was drawn from registered voters in Washtenaw County, with interviews conducted by telephone. For each of four separate geographic regions, 275 interviews were administered: Ann Arbor, non-Ann Arbor urban areas, eastern Washtenaw, and western Washtenaw.

The populations of each of those areas is different; however, survey results were weighted accordingly.

Survey Questions

Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with Washtenaw County as a place to live?

61% very satisfied
35% somewhat satisfied
 3% somewhat dissatisfied
 1% very dissatisfied
 1% not sure

-

Q: 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?

39% same
25% worse
24% better
12% not sure

-

Q: Have you or has anyone in your household ridden any of AATA’s buses in the past year?

40% yes
59% no
 1% not sure

-

Q: Overall, would you say you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable opinion of Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA?

26% very favorable
39% somewhat favorable
 4% somewhat unfavorable
 1% very unfavorable
 2% mixed (volunteered)
23% not sure
 5% have not heard of AATA

-

Q: How would you rate the job AATA currently does of providing public transit services?

15% excellent
44% good
11% only fair
 1% poor
28% not sure

-

Q: How important do you think it is to provide public transit services in Washtenaw County?

35% extremely important
37% very important
19% somewhat important
 7% not very important
 2% not sure

-

Hugh Clark, of CJI, said the most important result of the survey was measurement of how important voters thought providing transit services was: 72% of those surveyed thought it was either extremely or very important.

Q: [BEFORE information was presented] Sometime next year, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA, may have a tax issue on the ballot for the purpose of providing and expanding public transportation throughout all of Washtenaw County. Assuming that it would increase property taxes by one mill …

17% definitely yes
34% probably yes
21% probably no
20% definitely no
 7% not sure

-

Q: [AFTER information was presented] Sometime next year, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA, may have a tax issue on the ballot for the purpose of providing and expanding public transportation throughout all of Washtenaw County. Assuming that it would increase property taxes by one mill …

24% definitely yes
34% probably yes
17% probably no
20% definitely no
 6% not sure

-

The support of the millage was characterized as soft – because most of those who say they’d support the millage would only “probably” do so, as opposed to “definitely.”

Looking at the impact on voter attitudes of information on both sides, more people moved from outside the “definitely/probably yes” category into that category than people who moved into the “definitely/probably no” category:

48% consistent positive
11% moved positive
 3% undecided
 5% moved negative
33% consistent negative

-

Q: If Livingston and Washtenaw counties decide to develop the WALLY line, what if some of the money from this tax increase would be used to provide the Washtenaw County share of money to operate the WALLY line?

26% more likely
26% less likely
43% no difference
 5% not sure

-

Q: There has also been some discussion about operating a commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. What if some of the money from the tax were used to provide the Washtenaw County share of money to operate the commuter rail service?

42% more likely
22% less likely
31% no difference
 4% not sure

-

So offering north-south commuter rail (WALLY) as part of expanded service would have little impact either way on voters’ attitude. Offering east-west rail as part of the service had a somewhat positive effect on voters’ likelihood of supporting a millage.

The survey tried to explore what kinds of arguments might be effective against a millage. The survey did not find great support for the ideas that there’s enough public transit already and we don’t need to expand it, or that AATA spends a lot of money on things that aren’t important. On the other hand, the ideas that they couldn’t personally afford it or that the economy is too uncertain tended to resonate quite strongly.

Hugh Clark, of CJI Research, presents survey results to the AATA board.

The survey also tried to determine what ideas would generate support among voters. It found that providing door-to-door transportation for seniors and those with disabilities was an idea that resonated with voters: 59% said it was very important and 30% said it was somewhat important.

Survey respondents also reacted favorably to the idea that county service might be more coordinated between AATA, the WAVE (Washtenaw Area Value Express) and People’s Express: 46% said they’d be more likely to support a millage with some kind of coordination, with 41% saying it made no difference.

Among the perceived benefits of transit, the survey found, 80% agree (strongly or somewhat) that public transit is important in attracting jobs, 78% agree (strongly or somewhat) that it’s important for seniors or disabled people to be able to get around, and 76% agree that they or someone in their family might need public transit services.

Board Deliberations on Survey Results

Board chair Paul Ajegba focused on the poor job performance rating reflected in the survey, which was only 1%, and told CEO Michael Ford that congratulations should be passed along to the AATA staff.

Board member Charles Griffith wanted to know to what extent it made sense to sculpt a message to target specific audiences. Bob Dykes, of TRIAD, allowed that there might be some advantage to highlighting different issues with different groups, but advised that obviously you don’t want to say something that’s 180-degrees opposite to different groups.

Board member Rich Robben wanted to know what the margin of error was for the survey – it was 3.8%. But Dykes said that more importantly, the survey had been done rigorously by people with experience. He also pointed out that on a typical poll reported on TV, the sample is taken from 1,500 people from across the U.S., and this survey was based on 1,100 respondents across Washtenaw County.

Dykes also advised that in a publicity campaign for transit, you can’t make a case to most people by telling them they should spend money on it because they’re going to use it – they’re still not going to use it, he said. A question on that came from the audience – which board chair Paul Ajegba allowed, as Dykes was already mid-sentence in responding: Did that mean that the 40% of households with a member who’d ridden an AATA bus would not increase?

Dykes allowed that he was exaggerating – he gave an example of an Ohio transit system that had increased that percentage of households from 7% to 24%. His point, though, was that the majority of people will still not be using mass transit after expansion. So it’s not a compelling case in putting together a campaign.

What might lead people to support a millage, Dykes suggested, was the idea that they should pay to help disabled and seniors get around: “It’s hard to run against seniors,” he said.

Paul Ajegba chairs the AATA board. Before the meeting he was getting his paperwork in order.

In his public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen would point out that the survey was conducted by telephone – it was 1,100 people who’d agreed to participate in a very long survey by phone.

But speaking to the issue of possible negative arguments, he noted that while the information presented in the survey was negative, it was still reasonable. A negative campaign, he cautioned, didn’t have to be reasonable.

One point that Dykes made during his presentation on the survey was that if someone says they can’t afford it, you can’t argue with them.

At that, Jesse Bernstein was animated: “That’s not what we’re going to do,” he said. “What we have to do is say: ‘What do you want?’ We tell them what they could have. The campaign is not to convince, it’s to come up with a plan.”

A large portion of the agenda separated these comments of Bernstein’s from the discussion of the board’s resolution on advancement of a plan for shaping the future of public transit. But at that time, he picked up where he’d left off.

Resolution on the Future of Washtenaw Public Transit

When the board came to the last item on its agenda, after quickly dispatching all of its other business, board chair Paul Ajegba declared: “Now for the big one!”

Bernstein said that in his one and a half years serving on the AATA board, this was the most important thing he’d ever seen the board do. The old days, he said, of trying to convince the public were gone and instead they would take a “ready, aim, fire” approach where they would spend the next six months talking to stakeholders – including all the agencies that already have transportation plans.

In mentioning other agencies with transportation plans, Bernstein was alluding to remarks made by Jim Mogensen during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Mogensen cautioned the board to consider the fact that all the agencies that have begun participating in the needs assessment process have transportation plans of their own – the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the city of Ann Arbor, University of Michigan and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA).

Mogensen said he saw the role of the consultant the AATA expected to hire as playing a similar role of a conference committee to hash out a healthcare bill from the version proposed by the House, Senate, and pharmaceutical companies. He wondered, though, whether there’d be a “public option” for the transportation plan.

Carolyn Grawi, in her public commentary turn at the conclusion of the meeting, stressed that it was important for the AATA to be at the table for the master planning efforts in surrounding townships, like Pittsfield. She’d attended a Pittsfield Township meeting on master planning for the township, but the AATA was not there, she said.

In his deliberations, Bernstein said that after they had an idea of what people needed and wanted, and people had an idea of what was possible, they could embark on implementing not a 2-3 year plan, but a 25-30 year plan.  There’d be a series of 3-5 year plans on how to get to the 30-year point, said Bernstein.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Nancy Kaplan would ask Bernstein about the 25-30 year horizon the board was considering and the use of census data in planning: “Do you expect the population to increase?” she asked.

Bernstein pointed out that transportation interacts with growth and land use. “Think about Washtenaw Avenue,” Bernstein said, “it’s single-story buildings, because there’s no incentive to build anything else.” He then offered the possibility of a different pattern of land use if, at the intersections of Hewitt and Washtenaw or Golfside and Washtenaw, there were a transit center – there’d be the possibility of a town center developing. It would send the message to developers: Here’s a resource you can use permanently.

Bernstein went on to describe how in Denver and in Charlotte, development had followed fixed rail when it went in. However, Bernstein cautioned that “If people don’t want it, let’s not do it.” He said the system should be one where people who ride it say, ‘Great – that’s what I need,’ and people who don’t ride it still support it, because they think it’s important.

That was the same kind of sentiment that Bernstein summarized before the board voted. The Chronicle’s paraphrase: “We need to get together and find out what people want and what they need and once we do figure out what that is, we can fund it and build it.”

That’s the paraphrase The Chronicle read to Alan Haber on Thursday night, at the meeting of the RFP review committee that’s considering proposals for the Library Lot. Haber is one of the proposers of the Community Commons, which was set aside by the committee for further consideration on Thursday. One of the proposals that was retained for further consideration was a conference center and hotel that is supported by Bernstein.

Against that background, The Chronicle asked Haber if that quote sounded like him, and Haber allowed that yes, it did. Told that it was not him, but rather Jesse Bernstein talking about countywide transportation the previous evening, a smile lit Haber’s face.

Outcome: The “ready, aim, fire” plan was unanimously approved by the board.

Reports from Committees and the CEO

The committees in large part reported their activities by referring interested people to the board packet with the committee meeting minutes.

Committees

Jesse Bernstein did note one highlight for the performance monitoring and external relations committee: There’s interest from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in resurrecting the downtown circulator called The LINK.

He also said that he’d been looking at alternative sites for the board meeting room – the “ready” phase of the plan adopted by the board for the future of county transportation calls for the following [emphasis added]:

A) Assure that the entire community has access to clear and understandable information about AATA’s service delivery system and how to measure our performance using multiple communications methods, including traditional and existing as well as emerging technologies, such as improving the content and accessibility of our web site and providing video coverage of meetings, to promote transparency and accountability.

For video taping, one possibility being considered is the Ann Arbor District Library downtown location. Thomas Partridge, in his public commentary at the end of the meeting, called on the board to find a larger venue, with TV broadcast facilities, because it was vital that the board go public.

To try to accommodate more people, on Wednesday the board met in an alternate room instead of the board room. It was the second alternate location that’s been tried in the last two months. Last month, the long narrow room that was used put audience members at some distance from the board members, and combined with the sound of ventilation fans, this led to complaints about the ability of audience members to hear.

Reporting from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), Rebecca Burke passed around a letter to the board asking for language revisions to the LAC’s charge: words like “handicapped” needed to be replaced with “disabled,” for example.

Ted Annis, the board’s treasurer, did not attend Wednesday’s meeting. However, he did send along a one-page treasurer’s report that calls for the hiring of a chief financial officer for the AATA.

CEO’s Report

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, reported that he’d been meeting with city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti officials.

He said that a letter had been sent to the owners of the Arborland property – who last summer did not extend the long-time agreement they’d had allowing AATA buses to use a bus stop in the parking lot of the shopping center.  Owners – but not tenants – had objected to use of parking spaces by bus commuters as an informal park-and-ride lot. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA to Arborland: We Could Pay You Rent"] In the month and a half since sending the letter, Ford reported no response. AATA is working with the city of Ann Arbor and Michigan Department of Transportation on coming up with a solution to the difficulties caused by having a bus stop located on Washtenaw Avenue.

The Blake Transit Center RFP (request for proposals) will go out at the end of January 2010 for its reconstruction on the same footprint as the current station. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Board: Get Bids to Rebuild Blake"] There’ll be a two-phase design and construction phase, said Ford.

AATA board member Jesse Bernstein, left, and AATA CEO Michael Ford at the Library Lot RFP presentations held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library on Jan. 20, 2010.

Ford reported that he’d attended the presentations at the downtown library by respondents to the city of Ann Arbor’s RFP for the library lot.

He also reported that AATA had met twice with University of Michigan officials to work towards a mutually beneficial arrangement on the M-Ride agreement.  By way of background, M-Ride is a program where UM affiliates – students, faculty and staff – can board buses by swiping their MCards, with their fares paid through a combination of UM payments to AATA, plus federal grants for which UM qualifies. The deal was extended for one year when UM and AATA could not reach a longer-term agreement.

Ford reported that UM and AATA would be meeting once a week to work through the deal.

Other Business

The board passed four additional resolutions. Of these, the most significant was the approval of a purchase-of-service agreement with the city of Ypsilanti for $312,330 from Oct. 1 2009 through June 30, 2011. [Chronicle coverage: "Buses for Ypsi and a Budget for AATA"]

The board also approved its capital and categorical grant program – which reflects some changes in light of federal stimulus money that AATA has received.

And the board authorized a contract with Ann Arbor-based JC Beal – which was selected from five bidders – for $169,950 to fix doors and windows at the AATA headquarters.

The annual submission of AATA’s application for funding to the Michigan Department of Transportation was also authorized.

Other Public Commentary

Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, in addition to calling on the board to involve itself and others in all relevant planning processes [included elsewhere in this report], announced that she was pleased that the AATA bus would now be stopping in front of CIL on Research Park Drive.

Thomas Partridge began his remarks at the end of the meeting by saying that he had not majored in engineering or transportation at Michigan State University – a remark that prompted Paul Ajegba to quip, “We’ll forgive you for that!” Partridge continued by saying that he’d attended a conference that was also attended by Ford Motor Co. and Boeing, which are companies planning advanced transportation systems – in other countries like South Africa and India. Why not in the U.S., Partridge wondered.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Paul Ajegba, Rich Robben

Absent: Ted Annis, Sue McCormick

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

Citizen Survey from The Ann Arbor Chronicle. Take it.

Two weeks ago, we made available an online survey asking for perspectives from people on a variety of topics. We’d like to encourage readers who have not done so already to take this survey.

We encourage readers who have already taken the survey to share the link with others. To that end, we’ve added a widget at the top of the survey itself to facilitate the flinging of the survey through various online communities.

The topics and wording of the survey questions reflect suggestions from Chronicle readers.

In the context of the recent annoucement that The Ann Arbor News will cease publication this summer, we think that some survey items might be of particular interest: those addressing how people get their information, what topics they’re sick of reading about, and what topics they would like to read more about. So share your thoughts, and we’ll share the results.

A few months ago we wrote about developing an online citizen survey here at The Chronicle, and wrote confidently: “We’ll launch the survey on Jan. 1, 2009.”

Happy New Year.

With input from several readers on topics and wording, we’ve put together a final draft. Here’s the survey link for readers who’d like to get started right now. For others, here’s a couple of notes about how it’s set up.

The whole survey is presented on a single screen. First, Chronicle readers will be accustomed to using their vertical scroll bars. Second, you can give it a quick overview at the beginning and assess whether you think you’ve got time to complete it. We think it will take around 10-15 minutes.

We’ve tried to sample from a variety of issues – some of them quite current and pressing, others ongoing. Not all readers will be familiar with every issue. We’ve supplied opt-out choices. Plus we’ve allowed for only partial completion of the survey.

Based on suggestions from readers, we’ve eliminated questions about the market potential for apparel themed with Bezonki (our once-a-month Sunday Funnies feature), as well as some especially tedious exploration of readers’ understanding of tax-increment financing. We’ve added some items about media creation, neighborhood coherence and transportation as well as adjusted wording and scales on several items.

The survey is hosted on the domain homelessdave.com. Do not be alarmed if you see that in a URL somewhere. That’s a world that belongs to The Chronicle, too.

We’ll let the survey run for an as-yet-undetermined period, but it won’t be left up forever. We’ll compile the aggregated results in some reasonable way. Here’s the survey link again. Have at it.