Outgoing AATA board member Sue McCormick receives the traditional token of appreciation from the AATA – a mailbox marked up to resemble an AATA bus. (Photos by the writer.)

Background for the meeting included a proposed four-party agreement between the AATA, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County that would set a stage to allow voters countywide to transition AATA into a countywide-funded transit authority. On Dec. 7, 2011, Ford presented the four-party agreement to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. The Ann Arbor city council also received a presentation on the proposed four-way agreement at a Dec. 12, 2011 working session.

The four-way agreement is in large part an if-then statement: If an adequate funding source can be identified for a countywide authority (likely through a voter-approved tax) then the assets of the AATA would be transfered to the new authority, along with the existing transit tax the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti currently levy. The county would file the articles of incorporation, but would not incur any liability.

Also in December, a subcommittee of the advisory group that is reviewing financial aspects of the countywide transit master plan (TMP) met to continue its work analyzing the proposed elements of expanded service. The intended early January finish date for the group’s white paper to be delivered to the AATA has slipped somewhat, because of legislation that may start moving through Michigan’s House of Representatives in January 2012.

Current AATA initiatives mentioned at the Dec. 15 board meeting include ongoing contract negotiations with Michigan Flyer to provide public transit service from Ann Arbor to Detroit Metro airport, the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center, and the development of a new website.

Other highlights from the board’s meeting included a discussion of the two-grocery-bag limit for AATA’s para-transit service, and public commentary on a pending lawsuit against the AATA over its decision to reject an advertisement for the sides of its buses that calls for a boycott of Israel.

Internal Organizational Review by Consultant

The board considered a resolution that would have authorized signing a contract with two consulting firms to review and make recommendations on the internal organization of the AATA.

The two consultants are Generator Group LLC and D. Kerry Laycock. After responding to an RFP (request for proposals) issued by the AATA for the work, the two were identified as the top firms among the 10 that responded, and were asked by the AATA to partner on a proposal. The partnership was meant to use the different strengths of the two firms. Generator Group, out of Portland, Oregon, has transit experience, while Laycock taps local talent.

Laycock has been previously hired by the city of Ann Arbor in various reorganizational efforts, including its recent approval of the outsourcing of police dispatching to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

The AATA’s approved FY 2012 operating budget allocates up to $250,000 for such a project. The contract with Generator Group and Laycock would have amounted to $247,000, but no amount was explicitly stated in the resolution the board was asked to approve – a source of concern eventually expressed during deliberations.

Sue McCormick led off the board discussion by noting that the planning and development committee minutes reflected a staff-estimated cost for the contract of $250,000. [Resolutions come to the full board after being vetted by the relevant board committee.] McCormick also noted that the meeting minutes reflected an objection from board member David Nacht, who said he didn’t want to commit more than $100,000. She wondered what the dollar amount was for the contract the board was being asked to approve – no dollar value was indicated in the resolution.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein told McCormick he’d talked with Nacht and with staff, and what they decided was that the staff had heard Nacht’s concern loud and clear. Monthly reports on the consultants’ work would be provided, so that the board would have an “audit procedure.” Coming back to the issue of the dollar figure, McCormick asked if there would be a dollar value when the contract was executed. AATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that the year’s budget called for $250,000 and the contract would be for $247,000. McCormick told Ford that if it’s a $247,000 contract, the resolution should specifically state that amount.

Left to right: AATA board members David Nacht, Anya Dale and Rich Robben.

Nacht then declared that he was going to vote no. He allowed that he did believe it’s important to get feedback on the AATA as an organization. He also had no problem with the process of the vendor selection. However, he did have a problem with how much was planned to be spent. He noted that the dilemma involves the fact that the AATA is undergoing significant changes as it prepares to make a possible transition to a countywide transit authority.

Nacht called it a “chicken and egg” question. An argument for having a broader consulting contract now to analyze the organization is that if the currently unincorporated U196 board becomes a fully-incorporated board with a funding mechanism, then that new board for a countywide authority would benefit from the consultant’s analysis, and that would help the new board to understand how the organization works. However, funding for the countywide authority does not yet exist. And if the countywide authority doesn’t come into being at all, or not at the level that might be anticipated, he would rather see the money spent on direct transit services.

Bernstein wondered if it might be a reasonable option to table the resolution. Responding to Bernstein, Ford noted that he and the board had talked about this consultant analysis through the process of its retreats. Ford said it’s important to make sure that internally the organization can withstand the stresses of a transition – whether that’s to a countywide or “countywide-lite,” authority. [Ford was alluding to the possibility that some municipalities throughout the county might opt out of participating in a new countywide authority.]

There are many factors the AATA is grappling with, Ford said. He noted that the union is very supportive of having the organizational analysis done. Ford characterized the analysis as “overdue.” With resources that he’s requesting, Ford said, he felt he could get the job done.

McCormick wanted to know what the time frame was: Is it a six-month effort or something longer? Ford indicated that it was a 12-month effort. The first phase is an assessment of the organization. From that point, it would be possible to focus on specific areas. McCormick wanted to know the cost for the first phase. Rich Robben, who chairs the committee that had reviewed the resolution, responded to McCormick by saying he’d reviewed the proposal with its various tasks and phases, and found it to be fairly comprehensive and broken down into a good level of detail. There was a good list of deliverables and hours for each consultant. The rates seemed reasonable to him – under $100 per hour. Robben concluded that it was a well thought-out game plan.

Responding to a request from McCormick, Robben said that in the first two months of 2012, the cost – for 180 hours of consultant time – was $14,680, which works out to $81.55/hour.

McCormick told Ford a lot of value could be gained from consultant work under the $100,000 cap for contracts that could be executed without board approval. She ventured that he could work within that cap.

Ford responded by saying that there are checks and balances built into the arrangement. To sign the contract, he said, it had to be for a specific dollar amount. He ventured that it might be possible to proceed with the understanding that he would not enter into the second phase of the organizational analysis without concurrence from the board.

Bernstein suggested that Ford could spend up to $100,000 and as he came close to that amount, he could come back to the board. Ford asked for clarification about whether the contract he’d execute would be for $100,000 or $240,000?Robben suggested that it would be done in multiple phases.

Nacht noted that it’s true that the money is budgeted, and stressed that Ford had not done anything incorrect. He was not questioning Ford’s judgement. But he wondered how much time a bright person needs to read some history, interview a bunch of people, and review previous work. When he did the rough math, Nacht said, it didn’t come close to $247,000.

Bernstein suggested that procedurally, the motion could be withdrawn, with the understanding that the board supports the first two phases, and that the expectation for the third phase is that the board would be inclined to look favorably on it.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize the execution of the consultant contract was withdrawn.

CEO Performance Review, Salary

Board member David Nacht introduced the motion on CEO Michael Ford’s salary and compensation. Board chair Jesse Bernstein asked Nacht to elucidate on the motion and what it contained. Nacht described a letter addressed to Ford, signed by the board chair and board member Sue McCormick in her capacity as treasurer.

The highlights of the provisions, said Nacht, include a base salary of $164,800 annually. [That's an increase of $4,800 from his previous base salary.] Other highlights were one $10,000 lump-sum payment into a 457 deferred compensation plan, and vesting in the AATA employee pension plan effective Oct. 1, 2011.

By way of background, Ford did not receive a raise last year, but was given a one-time additional payment equal to 4% of his annual salary. At the board’s May 19, 2011 meeting, the AATA board had approved a new employment contract with Ford, who was hired in the summer of 2009. [For a Chronicle report on Ford's April 2009 final interview, see: "AATA, CEO Candidate Start Talks"]

Ford’s personnel evaluation took place at a special meeting held Dec. 5, 2011 at the AATA headquarters, and was conducted in a closed session in accordance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. Closed sessions are permitted for a variety of reasons, including the regular performance review of personnel, if the employee requests a closed session. When asked by the board at the Dec. 5 meeting if he did request a closed session, Ford confirmed he did, making plain that the OMA requirement for closed sessions was met. The session lasted well over an hour, some of which was conducted with Ford present.

At the Dec. 15 meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein praised Ford’s work as one of the best experiences Bernstein had ever had in hiring someone. He said he’d been involved in many hirings over the years, both in his own companies and in the course of his service on other boards. Ford has done a great deal of good for the AATA and the community. Right now, Bernstein said, Ford is effectively running two boards – the AATA and the U196 organization that could be a precursor to a fully incorporated Act 196 transit authority. When you talk about herding cats, it’s two herds of cats, said Bernstein.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the compensation for Ford outlined in the letter.

Countywide Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

For its Dec. 15 meeting, the AATA had no items on its agenda that dealt explicitly with the countywide transportation master plan (TMP), which has been under development for nearly two years. However, the TMP and a possible transition of the AATA to a countywide transportation authority found its way into the board’s meeting in the form of the regular briefings that staff give the board, as well as during public commentary.

During public commentary at the Dec. 15 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board she’d been attending quite a few of the transportation master plan (TMP) meetings. She’s attended those of the financial advisory group, as well as meetings of the unincorporated U196 board. Armentrout thanked Michael Ford for making the meetings open, accessible and for providing information to the audience.

Armentrout said it appears that a new theme has emerged, namely: Maybe a countywide millage will not be necessary. She allowed that Gov. Rick Snyder had floated the idea of a vehicle registration fee that could be used to fund public transportation, but she’d called her state representative’s office and learned that there’s currently no bill in process to establish such a fee. [For additional background, see "Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux"]

Armentrout felt there was only a remote possibility that such a proposal would be enacted in time to affect local decision-making. She reported that the federal TIGER III funding grants have been announced and the north-south WALLY commuter rail line is not on the list. She told the board she’s waiting to hear if the AATA’s transit master plan will be adjusted to acknowledge that.

TMP: Four-Party Agreement – Ann Arbor City Council Reaction

During his verbal report to the board on Dec. 15, Ford highlighted his presentations to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners and the Ann Arbor city council, which he’d made earlier in the month. He told the board he will be circling back in the next month to ask those two bodies to sign off on the “four-party agreement.” [The Ann Arbor city council is expected to have the item on its Jan. 9, 2012 agenda. It's expected to be on the agenda for one of the county board's meetings in January as well.]

The four-party agreement – between the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti and the city of Ann Arbor – is a key stage-setting step for any decision that might be made to transition AATA to a countywide transportation authority. Highlights of the four-party agreement as currently drafted include the role of Washtenaw County – it would approve, sign and file the articles of incorporation for the new transit authority, under Act 196 of 1986. AATA currently operates under Act 55 of 1963.

Under the draft four-party agreement, the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would pledge their existing transit taxes to the new Act 196 authority, instead of to the AATA. For Ann Arbor, that’s currently just over 2 mills. [At the Ann Arbor city council working session when Ford made a presentation, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stressed that the charter millage is actually for 2.5 mills, but has dropped due to the Headlee amendment. ]

The Ann Arbor city council’s Dec. 12, 2011 working session included a presentation about the local development finance authority (LDFA). From right to left: Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor Spark, which has a contract with the LDFA to operate a business accelerator), Skip Simms (vice president, entrepreneurial business development, at Ann Arbor SPARK), and councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Krutko is serving on the financial advisory group that is assessing funding options for the AATA’s planned expansion of services countywide.

For Ypsilanti, which uses the proceeds of its tax (approved in November 2010) to fund a purchase-of-service agreement with the AATA, the levy is just under 1 mill. [One mill is $1 for each $1,000 of a property's taxable value.] The city millage proceeds would only go to the new transit authority after a dedicated countywide funding source for that authority is identified.

Also under the terms of the draft four-party agreement, AATA’s assets (land, buses, facilities, etc.) would be turned over to the new Act 196 authority, but only after a countywide funding source is identified. The draft four-party accord specifies a voter-approved funding source, to be passed no later than Dec. 31, 2014, as a contingency for the transfer of assets to the new Act 196 authority.

Under scenarios currently being discussed, if voters countywide are asked to support a millage, Ann Arbor’s existing transit tax would also remain in place. The time frame specified in the draft four-party agreement means that there are three opportunities in a general election to ask voters to support countywide transit by agreeing to a tax: in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Recent discussions at the state level have explored the idea of creating enabling legislation for a regional transit authority that could be funded in part by vehicle registration fees. Depending on how that legislation is crafted, local units might be able to impose vehicle registration fees to fund transit without a voter referendum. If that is the scenario that unfolds – i.e., no voter referendum is held, but a countywide funding source is identified – it’s not clear whether the conditions of the draft four-party agreement would be met. [link to annotated .pdf file of four-way draft agreement]

At the Ann Arbor city council’s working session on Dec. 12, 2011, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned how the transit service benefits to Ann Arbor taxpayers would be guaranteed. They wanted to ensure that the burden on Ann Arbor taxpayers would be equitably shared with Washtenaw County taxpayers outside of the city.

At that working session, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked that the four-party agreement stipulate that Ann Arbor’s transit tax only be transferred to the new Act 196 authority if a new countywide millage were to gain a plurality of votes within the city of Ann Arbor. That stipulation would guard against the possibility that a countywide millage failed among Ann Arbor voters, but was approved by a wide enough plurality in other jurisdictions that the countywide millage passed.

TMP: Financial Advisory Group – Politics of a Millage

Compared to the scenario that Taylor is concerned about, most observers see the opposite scenario as far more likely: a countywide millage would likely fail among voters outside of Ann Arbor, but the plurality that the proposal might win inside the city would give it enough votes to pass countywide. That’s the view that state representative Mark Ouimet (R-District 52) expressed at a Dec. 16 meeting of the TMP financial advisory committee.

The group that met on Dec. 16 is a committee of a larger group that is reviewing the financial viability of the expanded services outlined in the AATA’s TMP. Their starting point was a two-volume document on funding options. [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options].

The plan itself is laid out in two other volumes. [.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

State Rep. Rick Olson (R-District 55) sat in the audience of a Dec. 16 meeting of a financial advisory committee that is looking at funding options for the AATA’s planned expansion of services in and outside of Ann Arbor.

The Act 196 legislation – under which the countywide transportation authority would be incorporated – provides an opportunity for an individual municipality to opt out of the authority. In a municipality that opts out, no millage would be levied, and correspondingly no transit service would be offered.

At a Dec. 7 meeting of that same financial advisory committee, Paul Krutko – who’s CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK – ventured that one way to attract Ann Arbor votes for a countywide millage would be to at least incrementally reduce the transit tax that Ann Arbor residents already pay. Terri Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), responded to Krutko by saying she felt that if Ann Arbor’s tax were reduced, such a move would reduce support outside the city for a countywide millage.

Jonathan Levine, professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan, commented on the research he’d done to try to discover which voter attitudes lead to positive votes on transit millages. While some people talked about the need to pitch transit millages to drivers, on the idea that they would get a benefit from reduced traffic on the roads they use, he said that’s not what correlates most strongly with yes votes on a millage.

Instead, he said, the strongest predictor for yes votes on a transit millage was being generally supportive of other government services like libraries and schools. If you basically support the government as a provider of services, then you are also inclined to support transit, he said. Outside of Ann Arbor there are more “small government” types, he said, while inside of Ann Arbor, there are more “big government” types.

Jonathan Levine, professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan, during the Dec. 7, 2011 meeting of a financial advisory committee. In the background are Jim Kosteva, director of community relations for UM, and Ric Devore, regional president of PNC Financial Services Group Inc.

Levine said that if he voted for the countywide millage, as a “softhearted, bleeding-heart liberal” his working assumption would be that there’s a cross-subsidy for areas outside of Ann Arbor. That is, Ann Arborites will get more service than they do now, if they vote for an additional millage, but that additional service may not match exactly the extra they’ll pay in a countywide tax. He said he felt as a voter, he’d need to give non-city residents slightly more service than what they were paying for, because those residents fundamentally might not perceive the benefit of public transit.

Part of the audience at the Dec. 16 meeting of the financial advisory committee was state representative Rick Olson (R-District 55), who was there to help educate himself further on transportation issues. He told The Chronicle that sometime in January or February 2012, he thought that enabling legislation for a regional transit authority and for the ability of local jurisdictions to assess vehicle registration fees might start moving through the House. If it turns out that vehicle registration fees can be tapped as an alternative funding source, it might not be necessary to ask voters in Washtenaw County to approve a new transit millage.

TMP: Airport Service

One of the themes that has emerged in many of the financial advisory group’s discussions is the idea of public-private partnerships. Not everyone in the group supports every possible such partnership. As the committee worked its way through the list of expanded services planned by the AATA, some members questioned the idea that the AATA would provide transportation service between Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport.

For example, Paul Krutko has expressed a reluctance to have the AATA compete with existing private companies that currently provide the service. [At the city council's Dec. 12 working session, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed a similar concern, contending that airport transportation is an already well-developed market.] Countering Krutko was Jonathan Levine, who argued that the existence of a service provided by the private sector did not necessarily mean that the service is adequate.

The AATA continues to move ahead with its plans to offer airport service through a private contractor. At the AATA board’s Dec. 15 meeting, CEO Michael Ford reported that the AATA is still working with Michigan Flyer, continuing to negotiate the Ann Arbor-to-Detroit Metro airport service contract, working out different aspects of the deal – including parking, fares, and the connection to other regional transit.

Ford reported he had received conflicting information about airport vehicle entrance fees. He had previously reported there would not be a fee charged to Michigan Flyer to enter the airport, operating as AATA’s contractor, therefore qualifying as public transit. Ford had specifically been told that wouldn’t be an issue, he said, but he had just found out that it might actually be an issue after all.

Blake Transit Center: DDA Partnerships Committee

As part of his report to the board at the AATA’s Dec. 15 meeting, CEO Michael Ford included the fact that AATA’s manager of maintenance, Terry Black, had presented the latest concepts for the Blake Transit Center to the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That committee held its regular monthly meeting the previous day, on Dec. 14.

At the DDA’s committee meeting, Black began his presentation by saying the AATA is excited about the project and that it’s long overdue. The existing center is inadequate for the AATA’s current operation, he said, let alone the kind of expansion of service that the AATA is contemplating. The design has been under development for over a year, he said, and a lot of community involvement has been included. There will be additional community involvement as well, he said.

Black didn’t have exact numbers, but said thousands of riders come in and out of the BTC every day. Some routes are in and out in five minutes, so it’s an active center currently, he said. Responding to a question from Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, Black said the center operates seven days a week. On weekdays, the first bus arrives just before 6 a.m. and the last bus out leaves around 10:30 p.m. at night.

Black ticked through who’s doing the work: the architect is DLZ and the construction manager is Spence Brothers. The design should be finalized soon. It’s expected to be a LEED-certified building. The anticipated construction start date is April or May of 2012.

The design of the floor plan is 95% complete, Black reported. It had helped the project for AATA to acquire an additional 6-foot-wide strip of land to the south of the AATA’s midblock parcel from the city of Ann Arbor. [This was a land sale authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting]. The AATA is now working with representatives from the adjacent Federal Building to obtain a 10-foot easement of land to the north of the center. This would create a mid-block green space walkway that connects Fourth and Fifth avenues, running between the new BTC and the Federal Building, Black said.

This AATA-owned parcel, where Blake Transit Center is located, sits in the middle of the block bounded by Fourth and Fifth avenues on the west and east, and by Liberty and William streets on the north and south. The 6-foot-wide strip that runs along the southern edge of the parcel’s western half was sold to the AATA from the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to higher resolution view. Parcel map and aerial photo from Washtenaw County’s website: gisweb.ewashtenaw.org/website/mapwashtenaw/)

Black described how the AATA had hosted stakeholder advisor committee meetings, and held design committee meetings within the AATA. The AATA had gone before Ann Arbor’s design review board to talk about the process, Black said. The AATA had also done rider surveys before starting the project, asking riders what they’d like to see in a new transit center. In January 2012, the AATA will go back with design drawings and proposed signage to check that what they’ve done is consistent with what riders wanted. The week of Jan. 9 is scheduled for those follow-up surveys. Black mentioned that the AATA is looking to get some credits from DTE for using more efficient HVAC equipment in the new building.

Black said there were two reasons for locating the new building on the other end of the block, instead of building it on BTC’s current footprint. First, this approach will allow for continuous operation of the current BTC during construction. Second, by locating the BTC on the south side of the parcel instead of the north, depending on how the former YMCA lot is developed, the immediately-adjacent location of the new BTC will provide an opportunity for some kind of transit mall. [The site of the former YMCA – located on the north side of William, between Fourth and Fifth avenues – is owned by the city and now used as a surface parking lot.]

Speaking to BTC’s new floor plan, Black described three entry points. He pointed out the bathrooms for the drivers and the ticket lobby. There will be space for three customer reps, as well as for the equipment needed for making photo ids for various kinds of ticketing. Currently, the photo ID service is offered only at the AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway.

At the AATA headquarters on South Industrial Highway, the carpet is marked with the exact location where people should stand to get their photo IDs taken for various kinds of fare media. The planned new Blake Transit Center downtown will have similar facilities. The current BTC does not offer that service.

The layout of the seating in the waiting lobby is currently being finalized. Part of that includes decisions on how to display real-time sign information about bus arrivals and departures. The total square footage, with the first and second stories, is 7,500 square feet. Black characterized it as “not that big.” The AATA is building it to the maximum footprint for the site it has, he said.

The second story will include a remote dispatch area and the AATA’s emergency operation – the agency is required to have a contingency for its headquarters on South Industrial Highway, in case that facility goes down. Also on the second floor will be a supervisor’s office, an IT room, bathrooms, and a driver break room. Black explained that only some drivers pull out of the station with their bus and do an 8-hour shift. Others will drive a four-hour shift, have two or four hours off, then go back and drive four more hours. The second floor would also include a small meeting room, an employee training area, and an office for the getDowntown program.

Pollay noted that the flow of bus traffic will change when the new BTC is constructed – buses will come into the BTC from Fourth Avenue and exit onto Fifth Avenue. She said one of the benefits is that buses will not need to make a left turn across traffic, as they do now. [Fifth Avenue is one-way southbound, the direction of the turn that buses will make.] DDA board member Sandi Smith noted that with an entrance to the new underground parking garage located just upstream from the BTC entrance onto Fifth Avenue, that lane is likely not to have traffic.

DDA board member John Mouat asked Black about the implications of the AATA’s planned countywide service expansion for the role of Ann Arbor’s downtown transit center. Is there enough space? Black said it would be nice to have some space to the south as well. Zipcars, for example, could be stationed there, as well as other types of service. The current plan for BTC addresses the AATA’s needs today and in the future to a certain extent. The adequacy of the new center will depend in part on how the countywide program grows and develops, Black said.

Chair of the AATA board, Jesse Bernstein – who also attended the DDA’s committee meeting – noted that adding more frequent service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – which will start in January 2012 – will already have some impact. The facility will have its limitations at some point, he said. The north-south rail connector, WALLY, may also have an impact, Bernstein said, if it is eventually funded. If 500 people arrive on a train at one time, that’s 10 buses that need to take them somewhere. From his standpoint, Bernstein said, BTC will always be needed. Black supported Bernstein’s comments by noting that in response to a survey, over 50% of riders indicated that for them BTC is a destination.

The DDA committee also discussed the fact that the design plans for the new BTC include footings that would support a taller structure, if there was interest in building something on top of the planned two stories. Black and Bernstein indicated that the design of the structure would accommodate future development to the south on the former YMCA lot as well. For example, although there is not an entry point from the south, there’s a southern wall that’s designed as not load-bearing, so that the new BTC could be opened up from that side sometime in the future.

This view is from the southwest to the northeast, and shows how AATA’s new transit center will sit on the Fifth Avenue side of the block. In the foreground is the former YMCA lot, now used for surface parking.

This view is looking from the northwest to the southeast (across Fourth Avenue and the parking lot of the federal building). The reddish building shown behind the new BTC is the Ann Arbor District Library.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Dec. 15 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: A-Ride – Safety, Two-Bag Policy

During his verbal report to the board, Ford responded to continued criticism from resident Thomas Partridge, made during public commentary at several board meetings, that the SelectRide vehicles are unsafe. SelectRide is the contractor for AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service. Previously, Ford had conducted an investigation of the maintenance procedures and found that there was not a problem. Now, he reported, he will personally ride some of the higher-milage vehicles used by SelectRide to check out the situation for himself.

Ford also reported that he is looking into obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to bags that riders of the AATA’s A-Ride paratransit service can bring with them. He reported that he’d spoken with the AATA’s contractor, SelectRide, about the issue. Ford noted that it’s a “shared ride,” so there’s a limit of two bags to make sure there’s enough room for other passengers.

Ford’s remarks came in the context of public commentary from the board’s Nov. 17, 2011 meeting.

Speaking during public commentary at that meeting, Christopher Harris described his experience riding the AATA’s paratransit service, A-Ride, on Nov. 3. On that day, he was doing his grocery shopping, which he does once a month at Kroger. He told the board that his eight-year-old daughter, who accompanied Harris to the board meeting, is his PCA (personal care attendant). He told the board he has Stargardt disease – he’s legally blind.

Harris described being denied a ride because of the number of grocery bags he had – he allowed that in the past he had been told that might happen. At that board meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein told Harris that he wanted to follow up with him after the meeting to see what the AATA could do. [The A-Ride paratransit service offered by the AATA is a shared-ride transportation service for those who are not able to ride AATA's fixed route service. There's a limit of "one armload or the equivalent to two (2) grocery bags, or two (2) pieces of luggage." .pdf of A-Ride policy]

During question time at the Dec. 15 meeting, board member Charles Griffith asked for more information on the two-bag limit and wondered whether that’s appropriate. The rider who addressed the board at its Nov. 17 board meeting had a concern that seemed reasonable, Griffith said. So Griffith wanted to know if the two-bag limit is reasonable.

Ford responded by saying he would need to check on the size of the vehicle. From AATA staff seated in the audience, the clarification came that the vehicle in question was a sedan. Ford told Griffith that it’s a shared ride. SelectRide had made exceptions on a periodic basis, but indicated that apparently on the day the rider complained about, no exception was made. Ford said he was willing to take another look at it. The AATA is trying to maintain a consistent policy, and two bags, he thinks, is reasonable.

Griffith told Ford he was glad Ford is going to take a ride in the SelectRide vehicles himself. Griffith felt that most sedan trunks can handle the number of bags that the rider had described. He noted that people on limited incomes can only take so many trips. The two-bag limit seemed arbitrary to him.

Rich Robben expressed some surprise that the limit was on two grocery bags.

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

Ford responded to Nacht by saying that the AATA does not want to make anyone feel like a second-class citizen. He would take another look at the issue. Sue McCormick inquired whether the passenger was attempting to carry bags in the trunk or in the passenger area – AATA staff in the audience indicated that it was within the vehicle.

Dawn Gabay, deputy director of the AATA, noted that the trunk area also needs to be available for folding wheelchairs. She noted that the two-bag policy is a long-standing policy. McCormick wanted to know if the two-bag policy is consistent with other transit agencies. Ford replied that he had not looked at that, but could. Gabay added that the two-bag policy has been reviewed by the local advisory council (LAC), which advises AATA on policies related to its service to disabled and senior riders.

Comm/Comm: Bus Advertisement Lawsuit

By way of background, the AATA currently faces a lawsuit over its rejection of a proposed advertisement that included the text, “Boycott ‘Israel’ Boycott Apartheid.” [For a detailed account, see Chronicle coverage: "Bus Ad Rejection Affirmed"]

Before approaching the podium, Henry Herskovitz asked if it was appropriate to speak to the lawsuit that had been filed against the AATA about the rejection of a bus advertisement. Herskovitz noted that public speaking at the start of the meeting is intended to be limited to agenda items, and while the lawsuit was not an agenda item, it was included as part of the meeting minutes that were in the board’s information packet for that evening’s meeting. Board chair Jesse Bernstein told Herskovitz it was fine for him to speak on that topic.

Herskovitz introduced himself as a taxpaying supporter of AATA and a frequent rider. Three board members had conflicts of interest, he contended, in making a decision to reject the advertisement. He emphasized that he supported the right of anyone to join any group they like. However, he said it merits pointing out that Bernstein is a board member of Michigan Israel Business Bridge. MIBB is a nonprofit created “to facilitate business and investment opportunities between Michigan and Israel for their mutual economic benefit.”

Herskovitz contended that a second conflict was the fact that Jerry Lax is legal counsel for the AATA and also a member of the Jewish Federation of Ann Arbor. Board member David Nacht is member and supporter of the Anti-Defamation League, he said. [Nacht's profile on Linked In also lists membership in the American Civil Liberties Union, the group that is providing legal counsel for the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the AATA over the bus advertisement.]

The three men, Herskovitz said, support the State of Israel – they’re free to do that. But they had a conflict of interest when polled for their vote on the ad – an ad that was critical of the state of Israel, which they support, he said.

Comm/Comm: New AATA Website

Mary Stasiak, AATA’s manager of community relations, updated the board on progress in designing the new AATA website. They’re looking at the graphic design, making sure it includes everything it’s supposed to, she said. Surveys have been completed at the Ypsilanti Transit Center, the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor and at Busch’s grocery store. Internal staff at the AATA have been asked for input.

A survey was also done at a meeting of LA2M, which is described on its website as ” a non-profit educational organization dedicated to teaching about all things marketing – especially topics related to new media, digital marketing, social media, and web design.” Requests to complete an online survey were sent to the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living email list, all AATA Twitter followers, Facebook fans, and MyRide subscribers.

Stasiak said one thing she’s happy about is that the AATA has a final design contract. That means that by the end of January, the AATA should be able to begin content integration. In response to a question from board chair Jesse Bernstein, Stasiak clarified that the “usability study” phase would not come until there is a “live site” that people can test out.

Comm/Comm: Sue McCormick’s Departure

Through Dec. 16, Sue McCormick was public services area administrator for the city of Ann Arbor. She left that position to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. She also resigned her position on the AATA board.

AATA’s CEO Michael Ford and board chair Jesse Bernstein work as a team to prep Sue McCormick’s parting token of appreciation on the occasion of her last board meeting.

In acknowledging McCormick’s service to the board, David Nacht said he’d learned a tremendous amount from her. He’d become a better public servant because of her membership on the board, he said.

Rich Robben said he was doubly sad because he would not be working with McCormick any longer in two separate venues. As the city’s public services area administrator, McCormick interacted with Robben in his capacity as executive director for plant operations at the University of Michigan. He allowed that sometimes they banged heads, but said she’d be missed in both venues. Board chair Jesse Bernstein wished McCormick the best of luck and said the AATA would miss her.

On the occasion of McCormick’s last meeting as an AATA board member, she was presented with a parting gift that has become a traditional token of appreciation from the AATA to outgoing board members – a mailbox adorned with AATA markings to resemble a bus.

The Ann Arbor city council voted on Dec. 19 to confirm the nomination of the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to replace McCormick on the board. Two councilmembers voted against the confirmation, based on Cooper’s employment with the city. Cooper served previously on the AATA board, from 2005 to 2008. When asked by The Chronicle if he’d received a traditional mailbox for his previous stint on the board, Cooper said he’d not received one.

At the conclusion of the AATA’s Dec. 15 meeting, board chair Bernstein gave McCormick the privilege of making the motion for adjournment.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During the first opportunity for public comment at the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County and recent candidate for state senate. He advocated for expansion of the AATA’s service countywide, but called for all townships to be a part of the system. He opposes the ability to opt out of the system.

Partridge also spoke at the second opportunity for commentary, toward the end of the meeting. He said he was an advocate for all of those who deserve and need AATA’s services in Washenaw County. He called for an end to the glitz and glamor of PowerPoint presentations and full-color printouts of plans that might end up being “pie in the sky.”

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

Absent: Roger Kerson.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

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

AATA board member Roger Kerson at the board's Aug. 24, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

At the board meeting, CEO Michael Ford announced that McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, will be co-chairing a panel of financial and funding experts who will review various funding options for a possible expanded, countywide transportation system.

The board voted to release a funding report to the panel – the third volume of its transit master plan (TMP). [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options]. The first two volumes were released previously.

The report describes a range of funding options, which would likely be used in some combination of strategies: fare revenues, advertising, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking taxes, stakeholder contributions, fuel taxes and vehicle license fees.

In anticipation that the panel could recommend funding options that would require voter approval, the board also approved the selection of CJI Research Corp. as the vendor for survey work over the next three years. That survey work can include on-board surveys of bus riders as well as telephone surveys of Washtenaw County voters.

At the Aug. 24 meeting, the board also approved implementation of a new website, which will provide greater flexibility for AATA staff who aren’t computer programmers to push information to the public. The new site is also intended to make it easier for the public to track the real-time locations of their bus.

The board also changed its pricing policy for the go!pass, a bus pass offered to downtown Ann Arbor employees that allows them to board AATA buses on an unlimited basis without paying a fare. The cost of the fares has historically been paid by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority using public parking system revenues, plus a nominal fee per card paid by downtown employers. The revised policy breaks with AATA’s past practice of charging costs for go!pass rides based on its cheapest full-fare alternative. Those costs per ride will now be lower, based on the DDA’s ability to pay and the AATA’s estimate of what employers would be willing to pay.

In other business, the board approved a revision to its contract with the Select Ride company, which provides AATA’s on-demand paratransit service (A-Ride) for those who are not able to ride the fixed-route regularly-scheduled bus system. The upward adjustment was driven by a recent increase in maximum taxicab fares implemented by the city of Ann Arbor.

The board also approved a master agreement that will apply to all of its contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and adjusted its capital plan to accommodate changes in three projects: the Blake Transit Center, the bus storage facility, and the bus maintenance facility.

Transit Master Plan Funding Report

The board was asked to authorize the release of “Volume 3: Funding Options Report” of its transit master plan (TMP). The TMP is part of the AATA’s effort to fulfill a countywide transportation mission.

The resolution specified that Volume 3 of the TMP was authorized for release to “a panel of financial and public funding experts to review, refine, and adjust the document.” The first two volumes were released to the public earlier this year. [.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

During the Aug. 24 meeting, CEO Michael Ford announced that co-chairing the panel will be Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc., and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.

Funding recommendations made by the panel of experts are to be forwarded to a fully constituted but unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) for further consideration and action. The transition of transportation service from the AATA to an authority formed under Act 196 of 1986 is the most likely scenario under which transit funding would be established on a countywide basis.

At its July 19, 2011 meeting, the board authorized the board chair to appoint three of its members to the U196 board, and authorized the AATA’s CEO to use AATA resources in support of the U196.

Immediately following the Aug. 24 meeting, the AATA made the funding report available in digital form: [.pdf of Part 1 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report] [.pdf of Part 2 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report]

In reporting out from the AATA planning and development committee’s regular monthly meeting, Rich Robben – the committee’s chair – said the committee had expected to vote on the release of the TMP funding report, but it was not finalized at the time of the meeting. Committee members had received it by email and recommended via email that the report come forward to the full board.

During board comment on the funding report, board chair Jesse Bernstein said the third volume of the TMP was the most difficult section to write. He said the AATA staff had made a heroic effort. The report would be helpful in understanding where the AATA is and where it wants to go, he said.

The report describes funding options, he continued, which will need to be developed in conjunction with a service delivery model. He described the collection of people on the funding task force, which will study the report and make recommendations based on it, as an “excellent group of folks.”

Among the funding options described in the report are: fare revenues, advertising, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking taxes, stakeholder contributions, fuel taxes and vehicle license fees.

Charles Griffith called the report valuable, because it lays out how transit funding works generally. He allowed that at certain points, his eyes glazed over trying to get through it, but he did find it illuminating for at least thinking about how to fund different elements of the transit master plan. He said he looked forward to the feedback the board received on the report.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the release of the funding report.

Voter/Rider Survey Vendor

Before the board for its consideration was authorization of a three-year contract with CJI Research Corp. to conduct survey research. The contract has two additional one-year options.

Of the three respondents to the AATA’s request for proposals (RFP), the one from CJI was the top-rated proposal with respect to 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, if approved. 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.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the selection of CJI as the vendor for the survey work.

New Website

A resolution on the agenda called for approving the use of $140,000 in federal funds to implement the redesign of AATA’s website. The bid for the redesign had already been awarded to the Michigan firm Artemis Solutions Group Inc.

Among the improvements desired by the AATA is a way for staff – who do not have programming skills – to update the website. AATA also wants its new website to be a tool that staff can use to broadcast information to AATA riders via email, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Among the enhanced information the AATA wants available on its website is real-time bus location information that includes a way for third-party developers to create and distribute smart phone applications using AATA’s real-time data.

AATA board member Anya Dale had some questions about the new website.

The new website will also allow the AATA to provide a “performance scorecard” to display metrics that include finances, operations, ridership, environmental impact, maintenance and safety performance. The website is supposed to allow AATA to comply with section 508 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards, and provide translation into multiple languages.

During board deliberations, Anya Dale asked if anything would be changed to the way that routes and schedules are looked up. She noted that when she first started riding the bus, she found some parts difficult to navigate. Board chair Jesse Bernstein asked John Gilkey of Artemis Solutions if he could provide a presentation and if so, how long that might last. Gilkey said his last presentation had lasted 45 minutes. Bernstein wondered if it might not be possible to get a five-minute version.

After some back and forth, board members seemed content not to receive a presentation at the board meeting, but they wanted to see a demonstration of some of the working functionality before the new website goes live. Roger Kerson, in particular, was keen to establish that some kind of usability testing would be done before launch. He asked specifically if the budget included a usability study. Gilkey said it was not planned – Artemis had done data collection and collected input in advance of design.

John Gilkey, of Artemis Solutions, was prepared to give a presentation on the AATA's new website that his company will implement. The board blanched at the 45-minute estimated time it would take, and decided to forgo the presentation for that meeting.

Kerson responded to Gilkey saying that he felt strongly that usability testing should be included and that it needn’t be expensive. Gilkey then said that Artemis does a lot of usability testing and would be testing out the implementation with users – he’d understood Kerson’s original question to be whether Artemis would be undertaking a full-blown scientific study, using something like Michigan State University’s usability lab.

Kerson noted that users “always find stuff we don’t find.” Kerson stressed that he’d like to see what’s included in the new website, before AATA rolls it out, so that they can find what the bugs are. Bernstein asked Mary Stasiak, AATA’s community relations manager, to keep the board posted as progress is made on the implementation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the implementation of the new website.

Go!pass Rides

The board was asked to vote on a change to the price AATA charges for rides taken under the go!pass program. The go!pass can be purchased by downtown Ann Arbor employers for their employees at a cost of $5 per pass annually.

AATA board member Rich Robben. In the background is Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program.

The change authorized by the board might go unnoticed for holders of the passes, who do not pay fares to board the bus. But the change will include an increase from $5 to $10 for the annual fee paid by employers per pass. That’s an increase that will be implemented by the getDowntown program, which administers the go!pass. However, in the action the board was asked to approve on Aug. 24, the AATA was actually in effect lowering the price per go!pass ride.

Here’s why. Holders of the go!pass card can board the bus without paying a fare, and there are no limits on the number of rides that can be taken with the card. The number of those rides is counted as they’re swiped at the fare box. [Before the fare boxes were converted to swipe-able technology, drivers recorded such rides with a button press].

The cost of such rides is funded in small part by the $5/card fee paid by employers, but in largest part by revenues from the city’s public parking system provided through the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA authorized three years worth of funding for the go!pass program. For the second two fiscal years of that funding, approval amounted to $438,565 (FY 2012) and $475,571 (FY 2013).

The number of rides taken using the go!pass has increased each year for the last decade, but has jumped significantly during the last year. In the past, the AATA has priced go!pass rides in a way that matches the revenue per go!pass ride to the amount that bus riders would pay if they paid the full fare under a regular 30-day pass – the cheapest full-fare option. So, as go!pass ridership has increased, the total amount charged to getDowntown by the AATA for the rides has also increased.

In the past, the DDA has increased its level of support to match what the AATA has charged. As the DDA is under increasing financial pressure due to the new public parking system management contract recently signed with the city of Ann Arbor, as well as a possible need to return excess tax increment finance (TIF) revenues that have been collected, it’s not anticipated that the DDA will be able to increase the amount it contributes to the go!pass program.

Given the levels of funding now pledged by the DDA, the price that employers would need to be charged per go!pass per year would be $26 – if the same policy is maintained of charging for go!pass rides so that their cost matches what the cheapest full-fare option would be.

In recent presentations to the DDA, Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, has recommended an increase from $5 to $10, not to $26. The advisory board of getDowntown has approved the increase to $10.

The action the AATA board was asked to take on Aug. 24 essentially sets the charge for go!pass rides at a flat rate – equal to the DDA’s current level of pledged support, plus an estimate that the total employer contribution (at $10/pass/year) would be $71,000 per year, based on the roughly 7,100 go!passes sold to employers so far this year. That is, the price charged for go!pass rides for the next two fiscal years will be $509,565 and $546,571, respectively – independently of the number of rides taken by go!pass holders.

The board’s action translates to a decision to accept a $16/pass/year shortfall in revenues from go!pass rides, compared to what the previous pricing policy has been, or a shortfall of roughly $113,600 (16*7,100).

In introducing the background of the go!pass issue for board members, Chris White, manager of service development for AATA, described how the proposed pricing change was really only an interim solution, for the next two years. Three years from now, he said, the DDA may not have funds to support the program at all.

Shore, who attended the board meeting, noted that in the last 10 years, fares have gone up, gas prices have gone up, and an increase from $5 to $10 per year per pass for the employer contribution seemed feasible. She noted that it’s a “universal pass,” which means that employers must purchase the passes for all their employees, whether employees use the passes or not. It’s not an option to purchase passes for just a subset of employees.

Shore said that very few employers she’d talked with had much of a problem with the increased $10 cost. She compared it to a health care benefit – some employees would use it more and some would use it less. She noted that there’s been a huge uptick in use of the pass and it was important to maintain that benefit to everyone.

Go!pass rides by month, charted year by year. (Links to higher resolution image.)

Charles Griffith wondered if the resolution was worded properly – was the board being asked to approve the increase from $5 to $10? White clarified that the board was being asked to approve the cost for the go!pass program as a whole. That would then be conveyed to the getDowntown advisory board, which sets the cost for employers. White described the situation as one where the AATA essentially sells the go!passes to the getDowntown program.

The proposal before the board would establish a fixed cost for each pass instead of linking the cost to the number of rides that are taken, White explained. White allowed that it’s a bit of a strange relationship, because the getDowntown program is currently part of the AATA – its two staff members are compensated as employees of the AATA. [Discussions are currently taking place about the future of the program, and whether the getDowntown program will become part of the DDA. For recent coverage, see "DDA Board Mulls Absorbing getDowntown Staff into DDA"]

Rich Robben noted that when board members had questioned the issue at the planning and development committee meeting, from the AATA’s perspective, if there’s a dramatic increase in ridership, then the AATA recovers less per ride. Historically, Robben said, the go!pass program has panned out nicely for the AATA.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change in price structure for the go!pass.

Amendment to Capital Plan

Before the board for its consideration was approval of a revision to AATA’s capital and categorical grant program to accommodate three projects: the Blake Transit Center (BTC) reconstruction in downtown Ann Arbor, the bus storage facility expansion, and the bus maintenance facility upgrade.

The scope of the BTC project has expanded, with a total estimated cost of $5.5 million. The estimate is based on a schematic design that is not yet complete. Already secured is $4.195 million in grant funds, which leaves a balance of $1.044 million.

At the Aug. 24 meeting, CEO Michael Ford said that AATA is looking to finalize design of a newly reconstructed Blake Transit Center in the next month. The AATA is still working with the city to obtain the use of a six-foot strip of land on the southwest edge of the AATA parcel, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The AATA is planning to issue construction bids in October or November 2011 with the hope that construction work can start in the spring of 2012.

The bus storage expansion was AATA’s final project approved for federal stimulus funds – $1.01 million in stimulus funds were allocated to the project. With a current cost estimate of $2.404 million, there is a balance of $1.394 million.

The bus maintenance facility upgrade includes the addition of a urea filling station. Already approved in grants for that work is $0.598 million. The total cost will be $1.244 million, leaving a balance of $0.647 million.

The board’s action on Aug. 24 revised the AATA’s capital and categorical grant program to provide a total of $2,676,678 for the three projects from the AATA’s federal formula funds.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the adjustment of its capital plan.

A-Ride Deal

The board was asked to consider an increase in AATA’s contract with Select Ride, to provide service for the AATA’s A-Ride – an on-demand program offered to those with disabilities preventing them from riding the regularly scheduled AATA fixed-route service. The increase in the contract authorized by the board is 2.9% – from $2,793,481 to $2,873,481.

The increase reflects the recent increases in taxicab rates, authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its May 16, 2011 meeting. The increase authorized by the council was from $2.25/mile to $2.50/mile, which had been requested by several taxicab companies in light of rising fuel prices.

The contract with Select Ride is structured so that the company is paid based upon the distance that passengers are transported, together with the fare structure for the taxicab rides. The contract increase reflects a compromise under which the AATA is shouldering only part of the increased cost due to the taxicab fare increase.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change in the A-Ride deal.

MDOT Master Agreement

A resolution on the agenda called for authorizing standard terms and conditions for a five-year master agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The master agreement will facilitate future contracts with MDOT for state funding, as well as to pass through federal funding to the AATA. The standard terms and conditions are established as part of a master agreement so that they don’t have to be spelled out in every future contract individually.

The current five-year master agreement expires on Sept. 30, 2011. The board’s action authorized a new agreement that reflected only minor changes from the current one: third-party contracting procedures are updated, and reference to a regional program was eliminated because it no longer exists.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the five-year master agreement.

Commuter Rail Communications: WALLY

During his communications to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the last planning and development committee meeting had included discussion of the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. AATA continues to look at the project and evaluate it, Ford said. He’d come back to the board in September on the issue, Ford told the board, but there would be additional discussion by the planning and development committee to focus on the status of the project, the money that’s been spent so far, investments in the WALLY corridor, and a description of the project’s major issues.

Ford said an “analysis paper” would be created to describe the WALLY project’s status and an action plan going forward, which would clarify the role of the state (via MDOT). Work would include talking to Livingston County and other community partners, as well at to Ann Arbor Railroad.

In reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben, chair of that committee, characterized the committee’s conversation about WALLY as “quite a discussion.”

In relevant part, the minutes of the planning and development committee meeting read as follows:

David Nacht stated that he was opposed to any further spending of funds at this time on architectural services for WALLY noting that these funds have been provided by AATA’s WALLY partners, and suggesting that at this point it is very unlikely that the project will go forward. He suggested that an offer be extended to the WALLY partners to return the funds, or ask for permission to spend the funds on other projects that will benefit transit. Michael Benham explained that the completion of station design would aid with qualifying for additional federal grant funds and added that the WALLY project was rated the top project by the State of Michigan to receive funding to improve signals and ongoing development of the project.

Committee members and staff engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding WALLY. It was suggested that absent the political will in Washtenaw and Livingston County, it is unlikely that trains will run. In contrast, it was noted that even if WALLY does not go forward, the tracks (which have already been improved) can still be used by freight cars.

Michael Ford was requested to contact the Governor’s office and the head of the Michigan Department ofTransportation (MDOT) to ascertain whether the project is a priority of the current administration, and if so, will that support lead to the needed capital and operating support for WALLY. Michael Ford indicated that he recently met with Kirk Steudle (the Director of MDOT). They discussed the idea of identifying more incentives to develop and urge collaboration between communities.

Rich Robben suggested tabling the WALLY discussion with a caveat that the funding not be spent without specific authorization from the board. Mr. Robben requested the opportunity for more discussion on operating funds. Michael Ford requested confirmation (which he received) that the funds for WALLY will remain in the draft budget, but will not be spent without specific action from the Board.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the board entertained other various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Shorter-Term Service Improvements

In addition to the work on the transit master plan (TMP) and the governing body that would be the countywide authority, CEO Michael Ford mentioned shorter-term initiatives that the AATA is working on to enhance service: Ypsi-to-Ann Arbor service, van pool service, extension of A-Ride (paratransit) service to the East Ann Arbor Health Center, and airport service.

Ford reported that because the AATA had received more than one response to the request for proposals (RFP) it had issued for the airport service contract, the project would be delayed by six to eight weeks, but the AATA was still moving forward with that, he said. AATA is collaborating on funding issues with private and public partners, which includes talks with the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. He reported that AATA would be meeting with the Wayne County Airport Authority, as well as with Wayne County EDGE to discuss how the AATA might operate out of the airport.

The A-Ride service was extended on July 1 to the East Ann Arbor Health Center. Ford reported that training was held for employees on the details of the new service.

An RFP was issued for van pool service in late June, Ford reported, and a recommendation could be ready for the planning and development committee to review at its meeting in September.

In the area of improving the Ann Arbor-to-Ypsilanti workforce transportation service, Ford said that Night Ride would be expanded to Ypsilanti in the fall. AATA is also looking at doubling the number of weekday trips on Route #4, which would begin in January 2012. That’s already included in the 2012 budget, Ford said.

The AATA continues to work with community partners to support service, Ford said

Comm/Comm: Landscaping

Ford reported on the in-progress landscaping project at the AATA headquarters facility.

Landscaping work underway at the AATA headquarters facility on South Industrial Highway.

He noted that the ivy, dead trees and rocks were gone and they’d be replaced with low-maintenance plants. Accessible concrete ramps are also being installed.

Comm/Comm: CTN Viewership

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith told his board colleagues that board meeting online viewership on Community Television Nework was included in the board information packet. Counts reflect the number of views, not necessarily the number of unique IP addresses, and do not include views of the regular cable broadcast, which CTN does not track.

Sep. 16, 2010: 27
Oct. 21, 2010: 44
Nov. 18, 2010:  2
Dec. 16, 2010: 50
Jan. 20, 2011:  9
Mar. 17, 2011: 23
Apr. 21, 2011: 21
May  19, 2011: 12
Jun. 16, 2011:  9

-

Comm/Comm: Performance Update

Charles Griffith, chair of the board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, characterized the financial operating data as “in good shape.” He allowed that expenses have started to go up on a per-service-hour basis, but are still under the target amount. The AATA continues to see an uptick in ridership.

Ridership numbers on fixed-route service through July 2011. (Links to higher resolution image.)

It’s now possible to compare on an apples-to-apples basis, he said, because it’s been over a year since the last fare increase was implemented. Ridership in July 2011 was up 6.2%, he said, adding that they can only speculate why.

Griffith said it might be possible for the October 2011 on-board survey to help shed some light on that. He noted that ridership for the demand response component of the AATA’s service is down 3.5%, which is a continuation of the downward trend since the fare increase.

Comm/Comm: Information on Intermediate Stops

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board that she had a suggestion for a service improvement: The stops that are intermediate to those listed in the schedule are not listed anywhere that she could find.

That had caused her some confusion at times, Armentrout said, though overall she was delighted with her Route #13 service. The drivers are considerate and courteous, she reported. But sometimes she thinks there’s going to be a stop and then there’s not. She ventured that one reason it might not be possible to put those intermediate stops into the schedule is that it would take away some flexibility. But she wished for a list or some way that information could be accessed.

Comm/Comm: Wake Up, Washtenaw!

Larry Krieg spoke during both times available for public commentary. He called the board’s attention to several recent developments indicating the role of transit in growing the economies in the regions it serves. He noted that the American Society of Civil Engineers had released a study recently concluding that by 2021, the average American household will lose $7,000 in spending power, unless additional funds are spent on roads, bridges and transit.

He noted that the Michigan State Police had released a report stating that the direct cost of car crashes in 2009 was $4.9 billion, with indirect costs in pain and suffering of $4.0 billion. And Orlando, Florida has begun work on SunRail, a 39-mile commuter line, using existing rail right of way, despite initial objections from Florida Gov. Rick Scott. There’s no doubt that operation costs for SunRail will be fully covered by public and private sources in addition to farebox revenue, he said.

Larry Krieg of Wake Up, Washtenaw! addressed the board.

Transit has an important role to play in the economic development of the community, Krieg said. Now is no time to hang back. In the time allotted for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Krieg returned to the podium to describe some steps that his group – Wake Up, Washtenaw! – is taking to promote economic development through transit.

Krieg said he felt that opposition to investment in transit is generally based on a lack of information. There needs to be a strong voice for each transit project. So Wake Up, Washtenaw! proposes to continue support for Partners for Transit, a citizen group promoting the transit master plan. The group will also engage civic and business leaders in Washtenaw County and surrounding counties. He also suggested convening a roundtable discussion of transportation funding alternatives, that would involve business leaders, transit officials and the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). He suggested that the discussion should include alternative legal and financial structures that could bring public transit closer to being self-sustaining. Krieg concluded by inviting people to email him at wakeupwashtenaw at gmail dot com.

Comm/Comm: Paratransit, Human Rights

Thomas Partridge complained about the time for public commentary at AATA board meetings, which is limited to two minutes (at the start and the end of the meeting), calling it undemocratic censorship. He called on the board to give priority to monitoring the AATA’s paratransit service performance. He contended that he’d be victimized, even though he’d taken a limited number of taxi rides through the service. He contended that some of the taxicabs have more than 250,000 miles on them and don’t ride well or drive well and have non-functioning air conditioning. Partridge contended that the AATA board members are not performing their functions well, because they don’t take ride themselves and inspect buses themselves. They don’t know what’s going on in the streets, he said.

Partridge also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary. He lamented the fact that public meetings have become “routine” for participants and for board members and employees. What the public needs to understand, he said, is that public transit is a primary human rights and civil rights issue. Support for transit should be garnered on this basis, he said. Partridge contended that transportation services are being rationed out on a discriminatory basis. Drivers and other personnel are stressed, and service is strained too far, he contended. Vehicles are assigned to drivers in a racist and discriminatory manner, he claimed.

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

Absent: David Nacht, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 15, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

The program was developed in partnership with UM’s office of technology transfer.

This brief was filed from the regents meeting in the boardroom of the Fleming administration building on UM’s Ann Arbor campus. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The board tabled a resolution that would have appointed three current AATA board members to an unincorporated board, which is expected to serve as an interim entity that could lead to the incorporation of a formal Act 196 organization. The rationale for appointing only three board members to the unincorporated board – called the U196, with the U standing for “unincorporated” – was based on the idea that appointing four members would constitute a quorum of the current AATA board any time the U196 met. The board decided to table the resolution until greater clarity could be achieved about what the role of the interim U196 would be in developing the eventual governance of a countywide transit authority.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein wrapped up the topic of a future governing body by saying he saw the issue of governance as very much still an open conversation.

This brief was filed shortly after the AATA board’s retreat, held at Weber’s Inn. A more complete report of the meeting will follow: [link]

At least five public meetings will be held in May to introduce the plan to the community. From the resolution, the AATA staff are directed “to schedule and publicize at least five public meetings during the review period at locations throughout the County, and to undertake additional discussions with citizens, officials and organizations as those opportunities arise and to take comments on the draft Plan documents.”

All  meetings are scheduled for 6-8 p.m: May 9 at the Chelsea Library, 221 S. Main St., Chelsea; May 10 at SPARK East, 215 W. Michigan Ave., Ypsilanti; May 11 at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor; May 16 at the Dexter Library, 3255 Alpine, Dexter; May 27 17 at Saline City Hall, 100 N. Harris St, Saline.

After a 60-day review period, the document will come back before the AATA board, at its June meeting, for final approval.

The draft plan is split into two parts – one outlining a vision and the other outlining how that vision is to be implemented.

[.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

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

Washtenaw County commissioner Wes Prater, right, talks with Michael Benham of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority following the April 7, 2011 working session of the county board. During the meeting, Prater raised concerns over the proposal for governance of a countywide transit system. (Photos by the writer.)

The tentative proposal includes allocating Ann Arbor seven seats on a 15-member board. While most of the other seats are based on population, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would be given special consideration because both cities have millages dedicated to pay for public transit. [Ypsilanti – with a population of 19,435 compared to Ann Arbor's 113,934 – would be allocated one seat.] The assumption of the proposal is that those millages would remain in place, on top of another transportation millage levied on all county taxpayers. A countywide millage would require voter approval.

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

Ronnie Peterson – a commissioner representing Ypsilanti and parts of Ypsilanti Township – expressed strong support for a countywide system, saying details of the proposal could be worked out. It’s important to have a board that allows for all parts of the county to take part in policy-making decisions, he said, noting that’s not the case with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board. Both Judge and Prater said they supported public transit, but were concerned about how the system might be structured.

The proposal for governance has been developed separately from a 30-year transit master plan, which the AATA has been working on for more than a year – a process that has included dozens of public meetings to solicit feedback. If the current proposal stands, a countywide transit authority would be formed to operate a system that could expand bus service throughout the county, as well as bring commuter rail to the area. Capital costs for the system are an estimated $465 million over the 30-year period, with roughly $100 million in annual operating expenses. AATA would be dissolved, and its staff and assets would be transferred to the new entity.

Thursday’s working session was attended by six of the 11 commissioners. Three of the four commissioners representing Ann Arbor – Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn and Conan Smith – were not present.

Countywide Transit System

Michael Benham, project coordinator for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s transit master plan, and Terri Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), gave the board an update on a proposed 30-year master plan for a countywide public transportation system. Many of the commissioners had seen the proposal at other venues – and some had participated in the planning process – but this was the first time that most of them had seen the tentative proposal for a governance structure that might operate the system.

Benham began by giving an overview of AATA’s current services, as well as projects aside from the transit master plan – efforts like improving service to the University of Michigan’s east medical campus and the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

But the focus of his talk was on planning for a countywide transit system, a process that began more than a year ago. His presentation was similar to others given over the past few months – for details, see Chronicle coverage: “Transit Planning Forum: Saline Edition” and “‘Smart Growth’ to Fuel Countywide Transit.”

He related the rationale for a countywide system, the public process that went into getting feedback on three possible scenarios – or levels of service – and why the “smart growth” scenario was chosen as the one to move forward. The smart growth approach would provide the highest level of service – including commuter rail – for an estimated capital cost of $465 million over 30 years, and roughly $100 million in annual operating expenses. It goes beyond mere public transportation, Benham said, by establishing transit as part of the region’s infrastructure.

Benham stressed that the costs would not be borne entirely by the residents of Washtenaw County, and outlined various funding sources. Much of the funding – an estimated 48.5% – is anticipated to come in the form of state and federal grants. Benham said that AATA and its consultants are currently analyzing how to cover the system’s costs. It’s anticipated that a countywide millage would be required.

Benham also outlined expected benefits from a countywide system. By 2040, those are anticipated to include:

• 5.4 million annual car trips taken off the road during peak periods.
• 1,830 additional new jobs created, at a value of $58.5 million.
• An annual reduction of 111 serious road accidents.
• An increase to 94% (from the current 66%) of the county’s senior population living within a 10-minute walk of fixed-route transit.
• A 701-ton annual reduction in emissions.
• $96 million in accessibility and livability benefits to existing and new riders, people with disabilities, rural communities, students and seniors.

In total, Benham said the county would see an estimated $275 million in community benefits over a 30-year period. For every $1 invested in the system, he said, the community would see $3.20 worth of benefits generated.

Countywide Transit System: Commissioner Discussion

The description of community benefits prompted the first question from commissioner Wes Prater. How were those benefits calculated? Unless there’s an underlying model to support those assumptions, he said, it’s a subjective number.

Benham said there’s a 150-page report that documents the techniques used to arrive at these figures. Among others, they used the travel demand model developed by WATS, he said.

If that’s the case, Prater replied, and the forecast is based on data from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), then that’s a problem. Historically, SEMCOG forecasts have been frequently off base, he said. If the 30-year transit plan relies on SEMCOG data, “I don’t think it’s reliable information, quite frankly,” Prater said.

Benham replied that to secure federal grants, they had to rely on these forecasts. It’s not that the data is unreliable, he added, it’s just uncertain. These forecasting tools can’t give you certainty, but it’s the best they can do.

Prater then turned to the projections for federal funding of a possible transit system. Historical trends can’t predict future funding, he said – the economic situation has changed, as evidenced by billions of dollars in looming federal budget cuts.

Michael Benham, project manager for AATA's 30-year transit master plan.

In response, Benham likened the development of a 30-year plan to changing a tire while driving – they’ll need to be flexible, he said. But Prater cautioned that if local governments rely on this data and make a commitment to the countywide transit plan, they’ll be stuck with the bill, no matter what. The transit plan either needs more reliable data, he said, or needs to provide a mechanism so that communities aren’t locked in to a 30-year commitment. “I see some real pitfalls here,” he said, adding that he supports public transportation in general.

Kristin Judge commented on the choice of the smart growth scenario. If you put people in a room and ask whether they’d like a Cadillac or a Ford Fiesta, she said, everyone will pick the Cadillac. Benham had earlier talked about public transit in Chicago – but Washtenaw County isn’t Chicago, she said: “I don’t think we should plan something we’re not.” If they pick a system that’s too ambitious and they can’t deliver it, then residents will be left with the financial burden, Judge added, and not the benefits.

She also wondered why the University of Michigan wasn’t included as a funding source. They need to be at the table as a funder and partner, she said – they’re the reason why commuter rail is needed.

Benham noted that UM officials have been involved in the leadership group that’s met to give feedback on a countywide system. It’s an ongoing relationship, and in the future there will be more contact points, he said. They’ll be a big part of this plan, he added, but he couldn’t comment on how they might be involved in funding.

Judge also asked whether AATA would be going back out to local communities to get feedback after they’d identified the cost for a smart growth plan. Or is the smart growth scenario the one they’ve settled on, regardless of cost?

Benham replied that none of this can happen without community support. They’re trying to position the smart growth plan as the one for the county, he said, but there will be a lot of discussion and revisions – some of them possibly significant. The AATA is an entity for Ann Arbor’s public transit system, he noted, but a countywide system would need a broader organization to carry it forward.

Prater asked Benham to clarify media reports that the smart growth plan had been chosen by the AATA board above all other options. Benham said the board had given direction to move forward with the smart growth scenario as the basis for a countywide system. [See Chronicle coverage of the March 17, 2011 AATA board meeting: “'Smart Growth' to Fuel Countywide Transit"]

Yousef Rabhi asked if there were numbers to indicate how popular the smart growth plan had been. Based on community forums, a survey on the Moving You Forward website, and an AnnArbor.com poll, between 60-70% of people preferred the smart growth scenario, Benham said. He also pointed out that the smart growth option produced the most benefits for the community. This prompted Prater to again note that if those benefits weren’t based on solid data, you don’t really know what benefits you’ll get.

Countywide Transit System: Governance

Benham handed off the next part of the presentation to Terri Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). She began by addressing Judge’s question regarding UM. For the past five years, a representative from UM has served on the AATA board, she said. [She was referring to Rich Robben, UM's associate vice president for facilities and operations.]

Terri Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), addresses the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at their April 7, 2011 working session.

In addition, she noted that last year AATA signed a five-year contract with UM to allow people affiliated with the university to ride AATA buses without paying a fare. UM is paying more than its previous contract, she said. [For details on that contract, see Chronicle coverage of the AATA's Sept. 16, 2010 board meeting: "AATA Approves Budget, UM Agreement"]

Blackmore’s part of the presentation focused on a proposal for governance of the entity that would oversee a countywide system. The AATA is an Act 55 transit authority, with a tax levied just in the city of Ann Arbor. It’s limited to providing service within the city and a 10-mile radius around it, through purchase-of-service agreements – like the one it has with Ypsilanti, which now supports that POS agreement with a millage.

Now, they’re looking at creating a transit authority organized around Act 196, she said. This would allow for countywide and regional service, covering multiple jurisdictions. “This is really going to be a metamorphosis,” she said. [For background on discussions regarding Act 196, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit," "AATA Plans for Countywide System" and "AATA Adopts Vision: Countywide Service"]

The process would begin with communities in the county agreeing to work together under Act 7 – the Urban Cooperation Act of 1967. Local governments would then recommend representatives to serve on a countywide Act 196 board, and those recommendations would be ratified by the county board of commissioners.

Under Act 7, local governments would draft a memorandum of understanding for creating the Act 196 board. The unincorporated Act 196 board would then define a service plan, develop articles of incorporation and bylaws, and explore funding options. After the Act 196 board is incorporated, it would adopt a strategy to implement a countywide transit system, pursue funding, and ultimately phase in operations. AATA staff and assets would transfer to this new “Washtenaw Transit” authority, and the Act 55 AATA entity would be dissolved.

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

Blackmore presented a proposal for board membership: A 15-member board, with seven seats from Ann Arbor, two seats from the southeast sector (Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township), and one seat each for the city of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township, and multi-jurisdicational districts in the northeast, north middle, west and south middle parts of the county.

The assumption is that there would be a countywide millage levied on all county taxpayers, and that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would also pay their existing charter millages for transit. [Ann Arbor's transit millage does not require renewal and can only be eliminated by a vote of the people.] So for those two entities, board membership is calculated based on a combination of the millage paid and population. Other seats are assigned based on population only.

[According to 2010 census figures, the total county population is 344,791. Ann Arbor's population is 113,934, while Ypsilanti has a population of 19,435. By comparison, the proposal's southeast district – which covers Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township – has a combined population of 60,107, and would get two votes.]

Countywide Transit System: Governance – Commissioner Discussion

Prater asked how the AATA had authority to form this countywide board. Blackmore clarified that this governance proposal was separate from the AATA’s work on a transit master plan. She and Brett Lenart, a staff member with the county’s economic development and energy department, have been working on the governance proposal and shopping it around to local communities, she said.

Prater was upset that the county board hadn’t heard about this proposal sooner – it’s far along in being developed, he said. Blackmore disagreed, saying that it’s still in the early stages and they’re seeking feedback.

It seems that AATA is trying to hand off its responsibility to the county, Prater said, and that Ann Arbor is trying to get out from their transit levy. “I don’t like that,” he added, saying the proposal had been kept under wraps.

Blackmore clarified that the proposal assumes that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would keep their current millages. The county board of commissioners wouldn’t necessarily be organizing the new transit board, she said, nor would they be asked to put a new millage on the ballot. The new transit authority would likely do that.

Alicia Ping asked for more explanation about how the board membership would be determined. Aside from Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, the seats would be based on population, Blackmore replied. It works out to about one seat for every 30,000 in population.

What about communities that currently have purchase-of-service agreements? Ping asked. It’s assumed that those agreements would no longer be necessary, Blackmore explained.

Blackmore noted that although it might feel like a Cadillac plan, the system would be implemented in phases over a 30-year period. Because some of the longer-term plans – like commuter rail – require decisions about land use, she added, it’s important to get started now.

Ping wondered what would happen if other communities decided to add a transit millage, like Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti already have. In that case, the composition of the board likely would be reconfigured, Blackmore said.

It would take a vote of the residents to levy new millages in other communities, or to eliminate the existing transit millages in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Blackmore noted that the mayors of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are supportive of the proposed governance plan.

What assurances are there that the millages in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti will remain in place? Ping asked. If Ypsilanti decides to eliminate its millage 10 years from now, what happens to the countywide plan?

If any community opts out of the plan, they wouldn’t receive service, Blackmore said. She added that she couldn’t imagine Ypsilanti residents making that decision – they approved a charter millage increase just last year, with the additional revenue earmarked for public transit. They did that during the worst economy she’s seen in the past 30 years.

We can’t foresee the future, Blackmore added. This plan is predicated on current elected officials working together. Those officials would select the board members who in turn would decide on the transit plan, identify funding and ultimately decide whether to put a countywide millage on the ballot.

Ping asked what kind of communication they’d had with local communities about this governance plan. Blackmore reported that they’d held one-on-one meetings with 15 of the county’s 28 municipalities, but hadn’t met with everyone yet.

Judge clarified that the county board of commissioners would be required to approve the transit authority’s board members, under the proposed plan. Yes, Blackmore said. Then that’s a big deal, Judge said. She wasn’t comfortable with the apples-to-oranges way that the board membership is being determined – the seats all should be based either on the millages, or on population. The current approach, weighted heavily to Ann Arbor, she said, “wouldn’t fly with me.”

When Blackmore pointed out that none of the communities they’ve talked with have had a problem with the board composition, Judge replied that if the county board has a problem, it won’t move forward.

Prater said he was “flabbergasted” that the plan had been developed without bringing it to the county board for feedback. He asked whether Blackmore had discussed this with any of the commissioners. Yes, Blackmore said – with board chair Conan Smith, Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, and former commissioner Jeff Irwin, who now serves in the state House of Representatives. [All three are from Ann Arbor.]

Yousef Rabhi, chair of the county board's working sessions.

Rabhi told his colleagues that Benham and Blackmore had hoped to attend an earlier working session, but he hadn’t been able to schedule them until this meeting.

Prater again expressed his dismay at the process. He said he didn’t understand why they weren’t looking at the model used in Grand Rapids, in which a smaller number of jurisdictions form the transit authority. If a community wants public transit, they should have help in getting it, he said. But Prater said he’s not going to rubber stamp anything. And unless he knows that local communities are buying into the proposal, he won’t support it.

Rabhi described that night’s working session as the first meeting in a long process. Blackmore and Benham will be returning to another working session in June, he said, along with AATA CEO Michael Ford. Meanwhile, they’ve been going out to meet with local communities, “which is what we want,” he said.

“What do you mean, ‘we’?” Prater asked. “Are you in on this?” Rabhi clarified that he meant “we” in the sense of the county board.

At this point Ronnie Peterson, whose district covers Ypsilanti and parts of Ypsilanti Township, spoke at length in support of a countywide transit system. This was the first time he’d seen the governance proposal, but he said he’d previously spoken to AATA staff, who’d been quite helpful in answering his questions. All commissioners should have their concerns addressed, he said, and he hoped that each one of them would meet one-on-one with AATA staff.

Peterson said he’s been an advocate for a countywide system for many years, and had lobbied for it with the AATA’s two previous directors. It’s unfortunate that you can’t travel around the county easily using public transit, he said. This current plan is the farthest they’ve come to realizing the vision of a countywide system, and he described it as a “miracle.” It’s the first time in his political career that such a progressive plan has been put together so swiftly. Communication could have been better with the board, he said, but now they’ve addressed that. While Prater raised valid concerns, Peterson said, it’s important to remember that this is a 30-year plan, and they can work out those issues.

Peterson said he’s always wanted Ypsilanti to have access to policy-making. As it stands, Ypsilanti can pay for service but doesn’t have a voice on the AATA board, because it’s an Ann Arbor transit authority. Contracting out for service leaves you out of the policy-making process, he noted. Under the proposed governance, smaller communities also have the chance to be part of the major metro authority. At this point in the process, they can still alter how that board is put together, he said – the horse hasn’t left the gate, and they can still change the saddle, the jockey or even the horse itself.

He too had concerns about Ann Arbor paying its share, but he noted that even if Ann Arbor got seven members on the board, the rest of the county communities had eight seats. Peterson said it’s fair for them to talk about these issues, but the overall goal of a countywide system is worthwhile.

Dan Smith told his colleagues that he’s enjoyed using public transportation, especially in Europe. But this is Washtenaw County, not a major European metro area. This country – and especially southeast Michigan – has built a society based on roads and cars, he said. There might be external factors that will change this situation, like rising gas prices. But in Europe, public transportation is integrated into society in a way that it’s not in America. He wasn’t sure a countywide system could work without major societal changes as well.

Smith then asked how many other communities operated under an Act 196 authority. Blackmore replied that only about a half-dozen authorities use it – the act is relatively new, she said. [The law was enacted in 1986.]

Smith noted that the state government is encouraging collaboration and cooperation – the board recently had a working session on that topic, he said. But he wanted to come at it from the opposite view: Why not use an existing entity to accomplish the goal, rather than create a new one? Maybe they can lobby for legislation that would allow an entity like the county board or AATA to operate a countywide transit system.

Blackmore pointed out that they’d be replacing one entity with another, not creating an additional authority. She also questioned how quickly they’d be able to get legislation passed – Smith countered that it didn’t have to happen tomorrow.

Prater said he supported public transportation, but only if local communities wanted it. There are less complicated ways to handle it, other than what’s being proposed, he contended. Blackmore noted that communities would have an opportunity to opt out of the system, if they chose.

Judge called the development of the transit master plan a “phenomenal” process, which she had participated in. But she hadn’t been involved in developing the governance plan – it seemed that only Ann Arbor commissioners were consulted, she observed. [Judge represents District 7, which covers Pittsfield Township.] To see the transit board weighted so heavily in favor of Ann Arbor, and knowing that other commissioners hadn’t been consulted – that was of concern to her.

Rabhi encouraged staff of AATA and WATS to meet with commissioners individually. He said he hadn’t been involved in the decision-making of the governance plan – he’d simply been given materials for the presentation earlier, in his role as chair of the working session.

Peterson said he was sorry that Blackmore and Benham “took it in the neck” that night, and he again commended AATA for taking on this project. He hoped they could return at least a couple of times before the summer, to provide additional information.

Peterson also pointed out that they already had an example of a successful countywide program – the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission. That group serves the entire county extremely well, he said, even though the commission members aren’t chosen from individual communities.

Rabhi thanked Blackmore and Benham for coming, and noted that they’d be returning on June 2 with Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO. He suggested that they also come back to a working session before then, to give perhaps a brief five-minute update on their progress.

Prater said he didn’t think five minutes would be long enough.

Present: Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Dan Smith.

Absent: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Rob Turner.

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

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

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

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

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

Smart Growth TMP

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

Smart Growth: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart Growth TMP: Public Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart Growth TMP: CEO Comment, Board Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paratransit Contract

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

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

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

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

Paratransit: Public Commentary

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

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

Paratransit: Board Deliberations

The board did not deliberate on the paratransit contract.

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

FY 2010 Audit

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

FY 2010 Audit – Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2010 Audit – Board Questions, Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Contract

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

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

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

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

MOU: Washtenaw Avenue Bus Pull-Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board: Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

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

Comm/Comm: Ridership Numbers

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

Comm/Comm: Night Ride Expansion

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

Comm/Comm: Website Development

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

Comm/Comm: Report from CEO Ford

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

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

Comm/Comm: Annual Retreat Planning

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

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council – Saying Thank You

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

Comm/Comm: More Transparency

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

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

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

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein points to a pie chart projected on the screen as part of the presentation the board heard about the Plymouth-State street corridor connector study. (Photo by the writer.)

In their one main business item, the board approved the capital and categorical grants program for 2011-15. The program will form the basis for upcoming state and federal grant applications.

Board member David Nacht prefaced the discussion of the connector feasibility study by encouraging his colleagues to share their thoughts on it – because the board had argued a long time about whether to help fund the $640,000 study, along with the other partners: the city of Ann Arbor; the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and the University of Michigan.

In the course of their discussion, the board touched on another major planning initiative: the countywide transportation master planning process.

Beginning Jan. 31, the AATA is launching the final round of public engagement meetings to develop a countywide plan for transit. Currently the AATA is funded by an Ann Arbor transit millage, plus purchase of service (POS) agreements with other municipalities. Voters in the city of Ypsilanti passed a millage in November 2010 that will cover most of the cost of Ypsilanti’s POS, for example.

Twenty additional meetings on the countywide planning effort are scheduled at locations throughout the county, to get feedback on three transit scenarios developed so far. Transit options in the three scenarios – which the AATA has labeled Lifeline Plus, Accessible County, and Smart Growth – are nested subsets, starting with Lifeline Plus as a base, which expands on existing services and focuses on services for seniors and disabled people.

According to representatives of the AATA and its consultant on the project, Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), the goal of the last phrase of public interactions is not for people to appear at the meetings and simply vote for their preferred option. They’re interested in hearing what options from the various scenarios might be combined to build a “preferred scenario.”

In this last round of meetings, which began in the summer of 2010, the AATA is also interested in hearing from community members who have not yet engaged in the planning process, or who simply have their own ideas they want to share.

For example, during public commentary at the last Ann Arbor city council meeting, David Sponseller called for cutting the city’s current transit tax in half, ending the planning for a countywide system and supporting a system limited to Ypsilanti-UM commuter service; circulators among affordable housing units; and dial-a-ride on-demand service for all other areas. At a press preview of the three scenarios, Sponseller’s remarks were described to Juliet Edmonson of SDG. Her reply: “I want to hear that person, too.”

Referring to the city’s transportation program manager, Sponseller also contended that all the Eli Coopers in the world would not be able to break up Americans’ love affair with their cars. Breaking up that love affair, joked Cooper in a later phone interview with The Chronicle, is not part of his prime directive.

This report contains more on the connector feasibility study, the transportation master plan, the serious side of Eli Cooper’s remarks and the usual report out from the board meeting.

Connector Feasibility Study

At the AATA board’s Jan. 20 meeting, Richard Nau of URS Corporation, the consultant for the project, gave an update on the connector feasibility study for the Plymouth and State street corridors.

The shape of the study area has led people to call it a “boomerang map.” The question being studied is whether high-capacity transit along this corridor is feasible. [Chronicle coverage from June 2010 on an initial phase of the study: "Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis"]

Funding of the $640,000 study is being shared by four partners: AATA, the city of Ann Arbor; the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and the University of Michigan. Initial cost estimates from 2008 had put the price to conduct the study at $250,000. Bids had come back considerably higher.

Discussion among the four funding partners about their funding shares unfolded over the course of around a year, with the AATA in July 2009 finally approving a $320,000 share, UM paying for $160,000, and the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA each paying $80,000.

Connector Feasibility: Geographic Scope – Who Pays?

At their Jan. 20, 2011 meeting, the board discussed the geographic scope of the study.

Charles Griffith asked if other corridors like Washtenaw Avenue had been studied as well: How does that corridor compare with State-Plymouth? [Part of the impetus for Griffith's question is the current planning initiative for Washtenaw Avenue, which has resulted in a recommendation to take a step towards forming a corridor improvement authority (CIA). The four municipalities along the corridor have all approved resolutions to take the first step, including Ann Arbor at its Dec. 20 city council meeting. Anya Dale, a Washtenaw County planner, is helping to lead the Washtenaw Avenue study; she also sits on the AATA board. ]

Nau said the study did not look at other corridors besides Plymouth-State. At the first meeting, he said, that possibility was brought up, but the direction he was given was to focus on the State and Plymouth corridors.

Later during board discussion, board member Rich Robben, director of plant operations for UM, made the observation that the original discussion among the partners had included multiple corridors, like Washtenaw Avenue and Jackson Road. The report had developed details for only Plymouth-State. Isn’t there a need for follow-on studies about other corridors? he wondered.

By way of background, the question of study scope could be seen as partly dependent on the composition of the group of funding partners. With UM shouldering a quarter of the funding cost, their primary interest may have been studying the corridors where UM has the greatest transportation need.

And one of the key findings of the connector feasibility study was the documentation of the sheer volume of UM-related traffic in the Plymouth-State corridor, specifically along Fuller Road. The UM blue bus system for the corridor operates at “critical capacity,” Nau told the board during his presentation. That means buses run every two-three minutes during peak periods – from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. People have to stand while riding. In raw numbers, that means 30,700 riders per day, or 2,100 per hour. During 15-minute peak periods the blue bus system along that stretch of road carries 780 riders. The absolute peak number of buses per hour is 60 – one a minute.

In later questioning from Roger Kerson, Nau said they’d observed UM bus operations. People are left standing because the buses are packed full. The UM system adds extra buses as needed. The system is at capacity, as far as how many buses they can stack behind each other at bus stops.

In a separate phone interview with The Chronicle, Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, put it this way: More people travel along Fuller Road in buses than in cars – the total number of vehicles [cars and buses] is in the low 20,000s, but the total number of bus riders is more than 30,000, he said.

The amount of university traffic in that corridor was something Kerson highlighted at the board meeting as one thing he learned from the study: UM already has all the buses they can get onto Fuller Road, so something’s got to happen. Kerson noted, however, that everyone has constituencies they need to mind. He stressed that one of AATA’s constituencies are residents who’d seen the frequency of their service cut from once every 15 minutes to once hourly.

Kerson was alluding to the remarks that Jim Mogensen made during public commentary. Mogensen has raised this point before: basic local service for residents, who pay a transit millage, gets sacrificed for better commuter service for commuters who don’t pay the millage.

At that night’s meeting, Mogensen suggested the funding strategy for the AATA’s commuter express service – from Chelsea and Canton to Ann Arbor – as a test case for the operational costs of high-capacity transit in the Plymouth-State corridor. Mogensen pointed to the four sources of income for commuter express buses: passenger fares, state money, federal money and the local transit millage. He’d calculated that 32% of revenues come from the local millage. So funding high-capacity transit in the middle of the corridor – between the UM campuses and near downtown – depended in part on increased millage revenues, he said: that is, increased property taxes. But any future development in that location would not generate increased property taxes for the AATA millage – because UM doesn’t pay taxes, and in the downtown area, the DDA captures the AATA millage.

In board discussion, David Nacht acknowledged the importance of the future participation of other partners, but said the reality is that transit is currently funded with a city millage. Earlier in the meeting, during the questioning of Nau after his presentation, Nacht had asked what percentage of non-university transit trips took place in the corridor – 25%. He said he’d asked the question out of concern for taxpayers who pay the AATA millage. Though many of them work for UM, it’s still the case that UM has interest in seeing their transit needs met. But the needs of Ann Arbor taxpayers need to be part of the equation, from the beginning, said Nacht. If the transportation system that is built serves UM needs, then UM needs to share the burden.

By way of additional background, the same issue of UM’s appropriate burden arose in discussions about funding for the study. At the June 2009 DDA board meeting, Sandi Smith expressed concern about funding a study for a system that would essentially be a trolley for the university.

Connector Feasibility: Why Study?

In a phone interview with Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager, The Chronicle reviewed the basics of the rationale for the feasibility study.

What kind of feasibility are we talking about? Cooper confirmed that one kind of feasibility is geographic and topographical: Are there inherent challenges in the topography of the area that might represent a “fatal flaw”? Then there’s operational feasibility: If a high-capacity transit system were built in these corridors – be it streetcar, light rail, bus rapid transit – would there be enough potential ridership that could translate into revenue to sustain the system? A third kind of feasibility involves funding: Would a high-capacity transit project in this general location be a likely candidate to receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration?

Connector Feasibility: Defining Transportation Need

In discussing the corridors’ transportation needs, Richard Nau said Plymouth Road and State Street are currently congested. And additional development is expected to occur in the area, based on increased employment. By 2035, said Nau, traffic volume is forecast to increase by 10% along Plymouth Road,  11% on Fuller Road and 10% on State Street.

Later during questioning, Jesse Bernstein wanted to know if the projected increase in traffic volume included UM’s new North Campus Research Complex (NCRC). Last year it was not in use all, he said, but it is expected that 3,000 people will be working there. Nau confirmed that yes, the research complex was taken into consideration. The previous WATS model still assumed around 3,000 employees from the Pfizer employment figures. [Pfizer's operations were previously located on the land where the university's research complex has been established.] He’d confirmed the projected 3,000 figure with UM, said Nau.

In addition to reducing congestion, Nau pointed to regional connectivity as a stated community goal, and cited the discussion about the potential for Ann Arbor-to-Detroit east-west commuter rail, as well as north-south commuter rail to Howell. Both of those initiatives would bring people into the city, who would then need transportation once they get here. Enhanced transit in the corridor would also support countywide transit and would provide intercept service for park-and-ride lots.

Current use of the transit system also points to a clear need, said Nau. The Plymouth Road and State Street corridors are two of the heaviest used corridors in the AATA system. Plymouth Road has service every 15 minutes and serves 2,288 passengers per weekday. On State Street, AATA offers service every 7 minutes, with 2,771 average riders per weekday. Destinations for riders include the UM medical center, downtown Ann Arbor, and UM’s central campus. With some frequency, passengers need to stand, and extra buses have to be added to accommodate peak ridership.

As part of current use statistics, Nau also reviewed the UM bus system statistics for the corridor, which include a peak of one bus per minute along Fuller Road.

Nau noted that bus system performance is also impacted by road congestion: 25-30% of travel time is waiting for signals. With more volume, congestion will increase, and bus arrival and departure times will become less reliable, due to unpredictability and volatility of the system.

With respect to the need for transit, Nau said the DDA thinks that better transit makes Ann Arbor a more desirable place for people to live and work, because it helps maintain jobs, provides an accessible work force, stabilizes the tax base, and supports affordable housing. Transit, from the DDA’s point of view, is an alternative to building more parking spaces.

Connector Feasibility: Findings – Core, Shoulders

Nau ticked through the key findings, which included ridership forecasts. They’d worked with WATS – the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study – to develop forecasts for the corridor, which showed around 40,000 trips per day. Nau noted that many light rail systems operate at 20,000 trips per day in larger metro areas.

Forecast of ridership in the Plymouth-State corridor. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution image.)

The ridership in the corridor is distributed across a high-demand “core,” Nau said, and moderate-demand “shoulders” north and south of the core. That means for the core – which is centered on the area between UM’s north campus and central campus – some kind of high-capacity system would be needed. For the shoulders, a moderate capacity would be appropriate.

So Nau recommends an end-to-end service through the entire corridor that can handle the demand and frequency requirements in the shoulders – bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcars, or existing buses. For the core, something higher capacity and higher frequency would be required – elevated rail, light rail, or bus rapid transit (BRT).

Roger Kerson asked what the difference is between bus rapid transit (BRT) and a bus. Nau explained that BRT would run in a separate “guideway” – it’d be a rubber-tired vehicle that could use a dedicated lane on a roadway. That would give BRT a travel-time advantage over a regular bus. Another difference between BRT and a regular bus is that BRT vehicles are generally articulated with significantly more capacity.

Kerson was curious to know how you get a dedicated space for BRT to run. Do you whack a lane of traffic on each side? he asked. Nau replied that the cost estimates assume a new right of way would get built.

Responding to a question from Kerson about why streetcars wouldn’t work in the core, Nau said that streetcars could almost work there. Really, the biggest difference is that streetcars are typically a single-car versus the multiple-car “trains” of light rail. One concept for implementing the system in the core and the shoulders would be to lay track from end to end. Single car trains would provide end-to-end service. Multiple-car train would operate in the core. That approach drew a favorable reaction from Kerson, who said that what is attractive to riders is taking a single ride. If people had to switch from a bus in the shoulders to a rail system in the core, that would be considered too much of a pain.

David Nacht wanted to know what was envisioned for State Street in the shoulder area, if they went with a cheaper option like BRT. Did they imagine running buses in the Burns Park-Yost Ice Arena section of State Street by having an additional, one-way third lane that would be one direction in the morning and the other direction in the evening? Nacht indicated he didn’t think there was enough room to do that.

Nau told Nacht that they’d looked at Main Street as well as State Street as the actual route. With Main Street, Nau said, you’d serve Pioneer High School and the medium density housing further south on Main Street as you get close to Briarwood Mall. Further study on the State-versus-Main would be required. Nau acknowledged Nacht’s point by saying that State Street has significant space constraints.

Nacht elicited from Nau that the core is not just campus-to-campus. It extends to the UM North Campus Research Complex at the north end and to the downtown area in the south. It tapers off, he said. Responding to Nacht, Nau said that in the core area, non-university traffic – trips that don’t have an origin or destination on the UM campus – is on the order of 25%.

Among the engineering challenges identified by the study are: the Huron River crossing, elevation changes, at least two railroad crossings, right-of-way issues, historic districts and flood plains. Nau stressed that these are challenges, not barriers. But the challenges do affect cost and design, he said.

The study findings include construction costs for the system as follows: bus rapid transit – $15-20 million per mile; light rail – $50-60 million per mile; elevated rail – $200 million per mile.

On the operational side, Nau pointed out that there would be some cost savings by reducing use of the current regular bus system. But depending on the system that is implemented for the corridor, AATA’s operation costs would increase by $0.5-1.5 million per mile in the added system. [The entire corridor from end to end stretches about 7 miles.]

Such a project might qualify for federal New Starts funding of up to 50% of the amount needed to construct it, Nau said. Typically, a multiple-source approach to funding is required, he explained.

If the community is interested in moving ahead with a high-capacity transit option in the Plymouth-State corridor, Nau said, this feasibility study is only the first of a number of steps. Next would come an alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design and then construction. Those steps could take from 5 to 20 years to complete, he concluded.

Connector Feasibility: Board Discussion – Fitting in with Countywide Planning

David Nacht wanted some discussion time on the connector study just amongst the board. Board chair Jesse Bernstein worked in the request during the board’s “question time” on the agenda.

Nacht led off by mentioning the years of debate over whether to do the project. It would seem bizarre if they didn’t talk about it at a board meeting, he said. It did not need to be that night, but he wanted a process to formulate with the funding partners an understanding about how to move conversations forward. And that conversation needed to be initiated in public, he said.

Bernstein said he felt that the Plymouth-State feasibility study fit into the current work they’re doing on developing a transit master plan (TMP) for the county very directly. The three other partners on the study – city of Ann Arbor, the DDA and UM – have also been involved in TMP discussions, he said. The full discussion will take place at the AATA as well as at the next 20 public meetings. He said he totally agreed with Nacht about the need to get it discussed, and he saw that discussion coming in the context of the TMP.

Sue McCormick, who also serves the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator, expressed a note of caution, saying she was not convinced that the connector study can’t be done in connection with the TMP, but also felt that it can be looked at separately and decoupled from the TMP. That has to be discussed with the other partners, because there are different levels of interest in the connector study compared to the TMP. The two initiatives – the TMP and the connector study – could have parallel but independent tracks.

Charles Griffith felt it was the first reading of the report and that AATA staff need to talk to the other partners and get their recommendations for moving the project forward. Funding would need to be discussed, he said, and that relates to the TMP, and the partners and what they’re willing to do. It’s too bad the board doesn’t have more to discuss right now, he concluded, but this was just the initial report on the findings.

Roger Kerson asked if it were appropriate to task the AATA staff with starting the process, saying that the partners also have their own decision-making process of getting to yes, no or maybe. Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, clarified that they’d meet with the partners and they’d keep the discussion going. They’d talked about it internally at the AATA, and they have a plan to do it.

Bernstein said he agreed – that’s one reason he sees it as part of the countywide transit master plan. The TMP will need to bring all of this together, and help everyone decide who’s going to pay for what.

Ford reminded everyone of the “ball of confusion” that existed with all the various independent transit initiatives. The TMP is meant to address that.

Nacht said he’d been on the board long enough to see good consultant work ignored. He said he’s the biggest regionalist he knows. He wants AATA to have a regional mission. He felt he’d been put on the board to be a regional voice, and Ford was hired to develop and implement a regional vision.

Transportation Master Plan

Development of a regional plan to support a regional vision for the AATA is now in a final phase of public engagement, which started in July 2010. The time for completion of the planning process was extended slightly at the board’s November 2010 board meeting. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Moves Engagement Process into Gear" and "AATA Extends Countywide Planning Time"]

The extended time was to needed to include a phase in the process to develop three alternative scenarios – bundles of different transit options – before selecting a preferred scenario, which will likely see AATA board action to adopt a countywide transit plan in April, after reaching a consensus on a preferred scenario in March.

TMP: Three Scenarios

As Juliet Edmonson of the consulting firm Steer Davies Gleave explained at a media briefing held on Jan. 25 at AATA offices, the goal of the final public engagement phase is not simply to ask people to vote for one of the three scenarios, but rather to prompt discussion about which transit options should be added to or subtracted from the three scenarios to create a preferred scenario.

The three scenarios have a subset relation to each other and to existing service. Lifeline Plus, the first scenario, builds on existing service. The second scenario, Accessible County, adds additional options to Lifeline Plus. And the third scenario, Smart Growth, builds on Accessible County.

TMP: Scenario One – Lifeline Plus

The Lifeline Plus scenario would focus on improving service where it exists and extending door-to-door service for seniors and people with disabilities from Ann Arbor to the rest of the county. Circulator service would be added in downtown Ann Arbor and Chelsea, and vanpools services would be enhanced.

This base-level scenario also includes improvements to bus stops and construction of additional park-and-ride lots. Lifeline Plus would also include airport shuttle service.

Just arrived from the Detroit Metro airport at the Jan. 25 press briefing was Fred Beltrandi executive director of Steer Davies Gleave, AATA’s consultant on the TMP initiative. He reported that he’d paid $65 for the cab ride – an amount he thought was a bit high. He’d rather have ridden a bus, he said.

At the press briefing, Michael Ford – AATA’s CEO – confirmed that AATA’s current thinking on airport shuttle service is to approach it with a strategic partnership, possibly with Michigan Flyer. The board had reflected an interest in such a partnership – as contrasted with providing it in-house – at its retreat last year.

TMP: Scenario Two – Accessible County

The Accessible County scenario builds on Lifeline Plus by adding fixed route bus service that would connect all the urban centers: Chelsea, Dexter, Ann Arbor, Whitmore Lake, Ypsilanti, Saline, Milan and Manchester. Circulator service would be added in Chelsea, Dexter, and Saline.

The bus stations in each of these urban centers are envisioned to be transit hubs with a variety of uses – places that people might have an interest in visiting for reasons besides transit.

TMP: Scenario Three – Smart Growth

The Smart Growth scenario builds on the Accessible County package of options by including east-west and north-south commuter rail options, as well as high-capacity transit options in corridors like Plymouth-State and Washtenaw Avenue.

Express service would be available connecting all of the county’s urban centers to Ann Arbor.

TMP: Cost Comparison

In the presentation to be made at the upcoming public engagement meetings, capital costs for the different scenarios break down like this for a 30-year period:

• Lifeline Plus: $48 million
• Accessible County: $51 million
• Smart Growth: $465 million

Annual total operating expenses break down like this:

• Lifeline Plus: ~$73 million
• Accessible County: ~$78 million
• Smart Growth: ~$100 million

The operational cost of AATA’s current service is around $30 million. But for all scenarios, the net operating cost – the amount left to be funded after fare revenues are factored in – are actually similar: around $50 million a year. That’s because fare revenues are expected to account for a higher percentage of funding for the high-capacity transit options included in the Smart Growth scenario.

In an email to The Chronicle, Michael Benham, project coordinator for the AATA’s transit master plan, stressed that the funding analysis is not yet complete. He pointed out that for the parts of projects that cross county lines – like the north-south or east-west commuter rail components of the Smart Growth scenario – there’s not an expectation that Washtenaw County would bear the entire cost. Further, high-capacity options like a connector system for the Plymouth-State corridor may be able to attract significant private investment.

TMP: Projected Benefits

The presentation to be given at the public meetings highlight a variety of benefits – for each scenario, a dollar amount has been calculated that projects a return on investment for operational dollars spent.

At the Jan. 25 press briefing, Benham pointed to projected changes in public transit “mode share” by the year 2040. Mode share for public transit means the percentage of trips taken using public transit, compared to other vehicles. The current mode share for public transit in urban areas – where public transit is available – is 6.2%. Both the Lifeline Plus and the Accessible County scenarios are projected to increase that figure to 9.3%. The Smart Growth scenario is projected to increase public transit mode share to 12.2%.

While the different scenarios show a substantial increases in mode share, they’re still relatively small percentages. In his phone interview, Eli Cooper responded to that observation by describing the role of public transit as skimming enough volume off the passenger vehicle traffic flow to keep traffic flowing smoothly. So he’s not trying to get everyone out of their cars and onto the bus – he’s just trying to make sure the option is available. Skimming a lane’s worth of traffic off of existing roadways by building transit, he said, works out to be cheaper than building an extra lane of road.

TMP: Meeting Schedule

In a recent telephone interview with The Chronicle, AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein said he did not think the TMP planning effort could fail, because whatever the plan is, “it will be what people say they want.”

As part of its effort to hear what people are saying they want, the AATA is holding another series of 20 public meetings at locations across the county to get final input into the countywide transit master plan.

Board Meeting: Jan. 20, 2011

The AATA board meets monthly, typically on the third Thursday of the month, starting at 6:30 p.m. The meeting schedule, along with the online board information packet, is available on the AATA website board of directors page. Time for public comment is available near the start and at the end of each meeting.

The meeting location for the AATA board currently is the boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library, which is located across from the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. The board began meeting there in the fall of 2010, changing from its boardroom at the AATA main offices on South Industrial, in order to take advantage of the videotaping facilities at the library’s boardroom. Video of the meetings can be accessed online through CTN’s video-on-demand service.

Board: Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

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

Board: Comm/Comm – Planning Award to Plymouth Park and Ride

The meeting began with the presentation of an award given by the American Public Works Association. Board chair Jesse Bernstein announced that the APWA had honored the AATA for its construction of the Plymouth Road park and ride lot located near US-23, which opened in May 2010. According to the statement from APWA that Bernstein read aloud, the project was cited for “reducing traffic congestion and improving parking availability in the city of Ann Arbor by constructing a parking facility implementing environmentally preferred best management practices.”

Bernstein presented the plaque to Chris White, manager of service development development, and the rest of the AATA staff. According to an AATA press release, use of the 245-space lot has grown from an average of 60 to 150 cars per day.

Board: Comm/Comm – Ride Guide Praise

Board chair Jesse Bernstein noted that in reviewing the new Ride Guide – the printed publication containing all AATA route information – the first 30 pages had been revised. The beginning section now includes information about the AATA Adopt-a-Stop program, as well as how to connect to other transportation services like Michigan Flyer, the WAVE and MegaBus. Bernstein complimented the staff on an “excellent job.” It seemed to Bernstein that the Ride Guide had been substantially improved. [Online AATA route information is available from the AATA's website or via Google Maps.]

Board: Comm/Comm – CEO’s report

AATA’s CEO Michael Ford reported that two people had attended the second riders’ forum that had taken place immediately before the board meeting. [This was an increase of two over the previous occasion when the AATA had held such a forum.] Ford said they went over new service changes for January. Ford indicated that the AATA would continue to be available to the public in this way.

The last several weeks, Ford said, staff has been focused on developing the three scenarios for the transportation master plan (TMP). Each of the board’s committees has reviewed the presentation. He encouraged board members to participate in the last round of the process.

Ford said the AATA had developed some television commercials and videos to help promote public participation in the TMP public engagement process. Fourteen people were invited, representing different demographics to be filmed, he said. Ford played the video for the board.

Appearing on screen were: Michael Ford, John Hieftje, Susan Martin, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Jennifer Holmes, Donna Moldovan, Albert Berriz, Paul Schreiber, Mary Jo Callan, Ronnie Peterson, Ted Annis, Ann Feeney, Robert Allen, and Carolyn Grawi. [Editor's note: We omit descriptions here, so readers can test themselves to see how many of the public figures they recognize; identifying information is included below.]

Ford reported that they’d reconnected with the AATA legal counsel on Act 55 versus Act 196. As the transportation master plan neared completion, it seemed timely to begin looking at the issue again, he said. He’d met with mayor John Hieftje, Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and Jeff Irwin, newly elected state representative for District 53, to talk about board governance, if the AATA were to be incorporated under Act 196.

Board: Comm/Comm – Planning and Development Committee

Rich Robben gave the report from the planning and development committee. He said the committee had discussed the capital and categorical grant program and recommended it for approval by the entire board. There’d been no major changes in the program since they’d seen it late last year, he said.

Robben said the committee had discussed the presentation that will be part of the transit master plan presentation to the public. They’d also discussed the planning for the board’s next retreat.

Board: Comm/Comm – Performance Monitoring and External Relations Committee

Charles Griffith gave the report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee.

He noted small variances in the performance metrics. There’d been a change in the reporting method for the way the local property tax portion of funding is allocated across different line items of the service that AATA provides. It was an important move to show how local millage dollars are being used, he said.  [.pdf of financial and performance data]

Griffith highlighted the fact that the service standards for safety goals had been exceeded: only two preventable accidents were recorded in the last period. There’d been an increase in complaints and compliments, because there has been a change in the way that data is collected. When you do a better job at collecting the data, you get more input, Griffith said.

The committee had spent time discussing real-time bus information provided to riders and had emphasized how to provide data to third-party vendors so they can come up with applications to give riders the most benefit.

Board: Comm/Comm – Public Comment

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for seniors and disabled people. Demographics as well as commercial considerations need to be included in the discussion of transportation planning, he said. Improvements have been made in the AATA’s service, he said, but they have not attacked the heart of problem, which is to get a comprehensive system to connect vital locations through the county to connect AATA to other bus and mass transit systems.

Jim Mogensen gave the board a bit of an extended wink by reading aloud text that it turns out he was paraphrasing in parts. A rough paraphrase of his paraphrase:

The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority provides a combination of line haul express and demand-response services. Demand response service is currently available during the weekday in some sections of Ann Arbor. Line haul routes have been retained and will be added where passenger volume warrants. A new express route with a number of stops has recently been added to our bundle of services in order to provide rapid connectivity between major trip generators. On weekends and during evening hours, the demand-response service operates citywide.

In addition to the above services, AATA provides weekday line haul service within the city of Ypsilanti and adjoining townships.

During the next fiscal year, the AATA will conduct two experimental services funded entirely by demonstration grants from the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation. The first project, known as the Liberty Street Shuttle, will provide a connecting shuttle between the downtown area of Ann Arbor and a shopping center located near the central campus of the university of Michigan …

The parts he paraphrased contained references to specific years and the specific terminology used to describe the demand response service – “dial-a-ride” – back in … 1976. The text he’d taken was from a 1976 AATA application for federal operation assistance.

Mogensen concluded that the AATA had always had a vision, but in the end it comes down to having money to pay for it.

Board: Resolution – Capital and Categorical Grant Program

Before the board was a resolution to approve AATA’s capital and categorical grant program. [.pdf of capital and categorical grant program summary] The program, which includes plans for bus replacement, preventive maintenance, and onboard equipment, is used in connection with upcoming state and federal grant applications. In his report from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben had noted that the strategy used to match federal dollars would change, because the state of Michigan has exhausted its “toll credits.” That means the match will now come from the local transportation authorities. From a staff memo:

MDOT has provided the required 20% match for federal grants since the beginning of the federal program in 1974. Since 2005, MDOT has provided the non-federal share in actual money only for the purchase of buses and the construction of facilities. For all other items, the match was provided with something called “toll credits.” Essentially, this allowed MDOT to provide the match without actually putting up any money.

For AATA, the items were funded with 100% federal funds. MDOT has informed us and other transit agencies in the state that they have used up the last of their toll credits. The FY 2012 application instructions from MDOT instruct us to include the 20% match from MDOT for all items. This has the effect of reducing the amount of federal funds required to carry out the program. As a result, the projection of federal funds through 2015 shows a substantial positive balance each year, including 2015.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the capital and categorical grants program.

Board: Video Who’s Who

Appearing in the new AATA video are:

• Michael Ford: CEO of the AATA
• John Hieftje: mayor of Ann Arbor
• Susan Martin: president of Eastern Michigan University
• Rebecca Lopez Kriss: student of UM’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy; member of Ann Arbor Fourth-Fifth Avenue historic district study committee
• Jennifer Holmes: director of operations for UM Hospitals emergency department
• Donna Moldovan: respiratory therapist at UM Hospitals
• Albert Berriz: CEO of McKinley Inc.
• Paul Schreiber: mayor of Ypsilanti
• Mary Jo Callan: director of Ann Arbor-Washtenaw County office of community development
• Ronnie Peterson: Washtenaw County commissioner, representing District 6 (Ypsilanti)
• Ted Annis: former AATA board member
• Ann Feeney: former mayor and current city councilmember in Chelsea
• Robert Allen: interim superintendent of Ann Arbor Public Schools
• Carolyn Grawi: director of advocacy and education at the Center for Independent Living

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

Absent: Anya Dale

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Board members Jesse Bernstein and Sue McCormick confer before the start of the Nov. 18 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The steps outlined for developing the TMP include a chronology for identifying the following: a shared community vision; a transit needs assessment; transit options; a set of scenarios. The consulting team is in the midst of a phase that identifies a range of various options. The creation of various scenarios – combinations of different transit options – will constitute the final phase of work before production of the TMP in mid-April 2011.

That projected completion date reflects an extension of the original timeframe, which was originally set to conclude in late February. The extra time will allow for an additional step in the process – a step that will allow the consultant to present a set of scenarios without specifying any one of them as the recommended scenario.

To allow for the extra time, later in the evening the board approved a resolution increasing the $399,805 contract with Steer Davies Gleeve – the consultant AATA hired to help with the work – by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

In other business, the board discussed, but did not approve, a new janitorial contract for Blake Transit Center, which specified a different vendor from the current one. The new vendor’s bid came in at a cost a bit more than half of what had been budgeted for the year: $72,000 compared to the budgeted $126,069. Concerns by board members about how the cost savings were being achieved were serious enough that they chose, on a split vote, to table the issue.

In a move that did not authorize any current expenditure, the board adopted a compensation philosophy over which there was some brief but firm debate. Board member David Nacht weighed in against the idea of a public entity creating such a document – they’re only used to justify increases in payment but never decreases, he said. Expressing the view of the majority, however, was board member Sue McCormick, who stressed the importance of a public entity making a clear and transparent statement of how salaries are set.

The board entertained its usual range of committee reports and remarks from the public.

Extension of Time and Money for TMP

Before the board was a resolution to extend the timeframe for engaging the consulting services of Steer Davies Gleeve, which had been hired back in April 2010 to assist the AATA in developing a transportation master plan (TMP) for the countywide area. It included an increase in the $399,805 contract with Steer Davies Gleeve by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

TMP Consulting Extension: Update on the Plan – “This is where it’s going to get exciting.”

The board received an extensive briefing at the start of the summer on the process that would be used to develop the TMP. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Moves Engagement Process into Gear"] Since then they’ve received periodic updates – including the one on Thursday evening, which was given by Juliet Edmonson of Steer Davies Gleeve and the AATA’s Michael Benham.

The extended timeline presented by the pair now foresees the production of the TMP document by April 8, 2011. In a process that includes development of a shared community vision, followed by a transit needs assessment, exploration of transit options, and the building of scenarios, the AATA is currently in the midst of completing its analysis of various transit options for the countywide area. Scenarios will be built out of different transit options. One focus of the presentation was to try to help establish a common vocabulary. The notions of “transit options” and “scenarios” are a part of that vocabulary.

Transit game mid-play with a scenario that includes options like urban bus service improvements (improved frequency, extended hours, better amenities at stops), high-traffic corridor improvements (better service between Ypsi and Ann Arbor, downtown improvements (a circulator) and better local connectivity (improvement in on-demand service). The image links to a higher resolution file.

As a part of its separate Moving You Forward website dedicated to the public engagement effort for the TMP, an online transit “game” is offered that allows residents to select various transit options and see the relative cost of those options, as well as the projected impact.

What are “options”? Options include improvements in: local and countywide connectivity, regional connectivity, downtown environments, urban bus service and high-demand transit corridors. An example of a specific option in the category of local connectivity is an improvement in on-demand para-transit services. Or, an example of a specific option in the category of an urban bus service improvement would be an improvement in the frequency of existing bus service.

The online game allows the player to put different options together and view them overlaid on a map as a “scenario.” The impact of a scenario – on the region’s economy, livability, accessibility, environment, safety and security and community health – is reflected in a bar chart that is updated as each option is added or subtracted from the scenario. Game players can submit their scenario to the AATA by saving it.

The construction of the scenarios, said Benham, is where “it’s going to get exciting.” The increased timeline is due in part to the desire to have an opportunity to review various scenarios, without the overlay of one scenario being already recommended as the preferred one. From the performance and evaluation committee minutes of Nov. 9, 2010, included in the board’s meeting packet:

Michael Ford reported on a proposal to extend the Transit Master Plan contract with Steer Davies Gleave to mid‐April and include a review of the scenarios before recommending one scenario for consideration. Mr. Ford indicated that there was a need for additional work with the Technical and Leadership Committees and for the expansion of the comment period for the TMP deliverables.

TMP Consulting Extension: Board Comment on Update

Board members could generally be characterized as enthusiastic about what they heard in the update.

Rich Robben focused in on a slide that displayed the relationship between transit and density: “Transit needs density; transit creates density.” He wanted to know if they started, for example, with an option that promotes density – like bus rapid transit, for example – could the achievement of greater density generate the need for an even more enhanced transportation mode? Edmonson told Robben that events could unfold in that way, or that they might also choose to “pitch high” in a way that would stimulate greater density and also already have the additional capacity built into the option.

In  response to a question from Roger Kerson about where Ann Arbor fits into the picture for adequate density to support various transit options, from light rail (30 housing units per acre or 50 employees per acre) down to frequent regular bus service (5 housing units per acre or 15 employees per acre), Edmonson said that it’s overall somewhat less than what’s considered necessary to support frequent bus service.

But following up on Edmonson’s remark was Jesse Bernstein, who pointed out that one result of the connector study – a still-in-progress collaboration of the University of Michigan, the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the AATA to look at the Plymouth-State corridor – showed that there’s sufficient frequency of trips between UM’s north campus and central campus to support light rail.

Bernstein said that from what he was hearing, the community appeared to have some control over how the county is going to look over the next 30 years.

Sue McCormick said she’d like to see called out in more detail the “nice set of dominoes that fall” when congestion is relieved along high-capacity corridors leading to local areas, causing local congestion to be relieved, thus allowing for rejuvenation of the local area.

Anya Dale, who by profession is a Washtenaw County planner, stressed that it’s important not to just “pay tribute in language” to the principles of transit-oriented development (TOD), but rather to include in the scenarios the idea of TOD as it relates to key, high-capacity corridors. She observed that if current trends do continue, that would mean the population would tend to increase in areas outside urban centers. On the question of whether that means AATA should increase service outside urban areas, she suggested that it’s important not to be reactive.

Nacht suggested it would be good to have, with the various scenarios, an indication of what the impact would be on population distribution.

Charles Griffith remarked on the value of multimodal facilities. He’d just been in the Twin Cities, he reported, and had taken note of the bicyclists taking their bikes aboard the transit system.

Kerson suggested that the impact on travel times be presented in actual units of time rather than in percentages. For example, one forecast presented is that travel time on M-14 from the eastern county border to US-23 will increase by 115%. He wanted to know how many minutes that would be.

Nacht expressed the desire to see examples from other communities. He said he’d like to be able to say: Look at that community with that vision, and here’s why it worked there and could work here. Alternatively, he said, they might look at options that didn’t work in other communities and try those here – assuming they had a clear understanding of why the options didn’t work elsewhere, and had some reason to think that this community is different in a way that would allow the option to work here.

Nacht described Ann Arbor as “a college town with some other stuff going on.” He observed that some of the fastest-growing areas of the country had poor transit. In terms of possible population growth, he said he thought that transit could factor into some – but “not astronomical” – growth. He said if he were to be sold on some scenario, he’d need to believe that it was viable from example – not “wishful thinking or, if we build it they will come.” Noting that he’d previously lived in Washington D.C., he said that they’re obviously not going to build a subway, but he wanted an example he could relate to.

Robben identified affordability as a key issue. He pointed out that transit options that might seem desirable could also have costs that are prohibitive. He also noted the importance of gas prices on the issue. Higher gas prices meant that mass transit could become a more competitive option for potential riders.

TMP Consulting Extension: Board Deliberations

On the issue of extending the contract, there was little in the way of deliberations.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the increase in the dollar amount and the timeframe for the work that Steer Davies Gleeve is going to do.

Janitorial Services Contract

Before the board was consideration of a three-year contract at $72,000 per year with JNS Commercial Cleaning to provide janitorial services for the Blake Transit Center. The contract with the current vendor expired on Oct. 31 and was extended through Nov. 30, 2010. The AATA received 14 proposals in response to their RFP (request for proposals).

The proposals were reviewed by operations staff with respect to their technical merit and scored separately from the financial merit, which was assessed by the controller. Based on that analysis, the field of vendors was winnowed down to three. After an interview with the top choice, a reference check caused that vendor to be disqualified. The second of the three finalists, JNS Commercial Cleaning, was then interviewed. References checked out, and JNS was recommended for selection.

Janitorial: Board Deliberations

Board member Rich Robben wondered what allowed for the dramatic drop in cost – was the vendor paying a living wage? Controller Phil Webb indicated that he was not sure about compensation details. Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, indicated that he could get back to the board about that issue. Roger Kerson indicated that he’d raised the question of compensation at the performance monitoring and external relations committee meeting, and had been told there was a $2 difference in the hourly rate – $19 versus $17.

Board member David Nacht asked Robben if he had concerns that would cause him to want to delay a decision. Robben indicated that he’d like more information on employee compensation, before voting. The board then voted to table the motion.

Outcome: The board voted to table the decision to award a three-year contract to JNS for janitorial services at the Blake Transit Center. Dissenting were Sue McCormick and Charles Griffith.

Compensation Philosophy

Before the board was a resolution to adopt a compensation philsophy. The compensation philosophy considered by the board reads in part:

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority believes in a Merit System that rewards higher than expected performance. To determine merit increases, AATA takes into account, rather than specific changes in the cost of living:

1. Individual performance
2. Financial condition of the authority
3. Competitive job market
4. General economic conditions

AATA is committed to pay competitive market rates with organizations that are within the following parameters:

1. Transit providers with similar numbers of employees
2. Organizations with 100 to 249 employees and similar revenue streams to those of AATA
3. Government units located in the South Eastern Michigan area

Compensation Philosophy: Board Deliberations

David Nacht led off discussion by noting that the compensation philosophy was a re-draft of something that had been found lying around on the books somewhere. He indicated that at the planning and development committee meeting on the subject, he’d voted no on it.

Nacht said it’s not clear to him if the document refers to the compensation of the CEO, the senior staff, or all staff. As long as the AATA has a CEO, he said, that person is hired to pay everybody else. If the CEO is a good steward of taxpayer money, then that person is rewarded. “I don’t like pieces of paper like this,” said Nacht. He said he anticipated that someone might advance a case for a raise based on the piece of paper. But he said that nobody would come forward to say: This paper says I deserve less. He said he did not want the board to be bound by the piece of paper, and that he just didn’t feel the AATA needs it. He said he didn’t want another piece of paper that could wind up costing money.

Sue McCormick, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, responded with a different view. She stated that the document reflected a reasonable and transparent way for a public body to express to the public how it compensates people. It’s reasonable to have such a philosophy, he said.

Rich Robben said he sees his role, as a steward of the AATA, to make sure it has as much or more value after his stewardship than before. The compensation philosophy, he said, reflects good sustainable criteria to maintain the equity value of the organization.

Nacht picked up on the theme of public organizations that McCormick had introduced. In the private sector, he stated, many people have concerns about the public sector. The public sector, he continued, is in the opinion of many Americans “a mess.” Many of the recent elections were won by candidates saying that and nothing more, he said. He suggested that the AATA does not need pieces of paper to do what is common sense.

Boards need to create pieces of paper, Nacht concluded, but people with common sense can get things done.

Outcome: The board voted to adopt the compensation philosophy, with dissent from Nacht.

Communications from Committees, CEO

The board entertained its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from the CEO, Michael Ford. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

As a part of the CEO’s report came the item that the AATA is in discussions with the city of Ann Arbor to acquire a six-foot parcel at the southwest corner of the lot where the BTC is located. The AATA is planning a reconstruction of the downtown transit center, located north of William, between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor.

From the planning and development committee meeting minutes:

DLZ [the firm that's designing the new center] is working with Devon Title Company to secure the required parcel information for the City of Ann Arbor and should have this for the City by mid-November. This information will give AATA the ability to work with the City to move forward with the acquisition of the additional six feet of land to the southwest corner of the property. The additional land would allow AATA to construct the new building in a way that addresses some of the concerns AATA has heard (expanding the customer lobby area, improved security, and more public restroom space) during the public meetings held. Once this is completed, AATA will move forward swiftly with the final design so that it can be brought in front of City Planning for review and approval. We anticipate having a design of the new floor plan of the facility to present at the December committee meeting.

Comm/Comm: Performance Metric Charts

Image links to higher resolution file.

Charles Griffith, in reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, noted the new visual format for some of the reporting metrics. During board discussion, it was the operating expense per service hour that drew the most discussion.

That expense was budgeted for the year at $107.50/hour, but for the first part of the year, the organization has been coming in below budget. Nacht pointed out that in his tenure on the AATA board, Ted Annis had focused on the dollars/hour figure as a key metric and that it appeared that the year was off to a promising beginning.

Rich Robben wanted some clarification on the lack of a more apparent relationship between the number of passengers per service hour compared to the cost per passenger and CEO Michael Ford said he’d look into that.

Comm/Comm: On-Time Performance

Responding to the report of ongoing efforts to improve on-time performance, David Nacht suggested that in discussion with riders, a key problem is when a bus is extremely late – 10 minutes versus 20 minutes. Nacht suggested that it was important to eliminate the absolute worst offenses for lateness – the kind of lateness that cause people to lose jobs and miss doctor’s appointments.

Comm/Comm: Rider Forums – “We will not, however, be deterred.”

The first rider forum hosted by the AATA resulted in no one attending. It’s noted in the CEO report as follows:

As you know, there were no attendees at the October 21 Public Forum. We will not, however, be deterred. Plans are underway for the next session that will be held prior to the January 20, 2011 Board meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Ann Arbor District Library on Fifth Avenue. This event is a priority for us.

Public Commentary

Two people addressed the board during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting.

Tim Hull introduced himself by saying that he’d attended previous meetings. He thanked the board for being proactive about seeking input on proposed service changes. The board is already seeking input on changes scheduled for January 2011, he said. He described it as unfortunate that no one showed up to the first rider forum – he’d been sick, he said.

Thomas Partridge said he was gratified that Washtenaw County has a public transit system. He’s a long-time user of the system, he said. He recommended that board members ride the system, including the A-Ride para-transit system, to set an example to others. He said he appreciated the board’s efforts to reach out to the public in connection with the countywide planning effort, but said that it duplicates prior efforts.

Closed Session: Not Held

With all agenda items completed except for adjournment, Nacht inquired about a possible closed session to discuss an employee contract. Board chair Jesse Bernstein told Nacht that they could enter into closed session only if the employee requests it. When the conditions are met, Bernstein said, he would be happy to move the board into a closed session. The meeting concluded without the closed session.

Michigan’s Open Meetings Act reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.

Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:

(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. …

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

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Dec. 16, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

One of those community forums was held on Thursday, an hour prior to the AATA’s monthly board meeting. But no one from the public showed up to that particular event – several other meetings are scheduled. The board meeting that followed was over within an hour. In addition to the master plan, the board discussed the most recent quarter’s on-time trip performance, which board member David Nacht described as “abysmal.”

Countywide Transportation Master Plan

AATA’s countywide master plan, due to be completed next year, aims to see what the public transit system could become in the decades ahead. AATA staff has scheduled a number of meetings around the county to get input and feedback on the plan. Details about the effort – called Moving You Forward – are available online.

The project came up during Thursday’s board meeting.

“We want to look at the draft of comments from meetings that [AATA CEO Michael Ford] has been holding,” said board member David Nacht in his report on the planning and development committee. “We’re curious as to how staff and consultants will combine that with the scenarios.”

Jack Eaton raises his hand to speak at the public forum held on Oct. 6 at the downtown public library. Eaton wanted more detail about how the SEMCOG population and jobs projections had been calculated for Ann Arbor over the next 30 years. Eaton, an attorney who ran unsuccessfully in the August 2010 Ward 4 city council Democratic primary, was a bus driver earlier in his career. (Photo by Dave Askins.)

The “scenarios” to which Nacht referred are those being developed by staff and consultants based on information gathered from the community. Hypothetical examples of the kind of scenarios that could be produced are a paratransit-intensive scenario, a rail-intensive scenario, a low-funding scenario or a high-funding scenario. Eventually, a preferred scenario will be identified and form the basis of the master plan.

The board will continue to set aside time before upcoming board meetings to see if the public takes advantage of the chance to discuss transportation issues, said board chair Jesse Bernstein. The community forums include staff presentations on the process for service changes and potential service changes for next year, along with discussions on topics brought up by the public.

Several forums were held earlier this month, and several more are scheduled in the next two weeks:

• Monday, Oct. 25: Saline City Hall, 6‐8 p.m.
• Tuesday, Oct. 26: Ann Arbor District Library, Pittsfield Branch, 11 a.m.-1 p.m.
• Tuesday, Oct. 26: Ann Arbor District Library, Malletts Creek Branch, 6‐8 p.m.
• Wednesday, Oct. 27: EMU Student Center, 11 a.m.-1 p.m.
• Wednesday, Oct. 27: Dexter Township, 6‐8 p.m.
• Thursday, Oct. 28: Manchester Village offices, 6‐8 p.m.
• Wed, Nov. 3: Milan Senior Center, 6‐8 p.m.

MDOT Contract Approval Process, On-Time Performance

During Thursday’s meeting, board members unanimously passed the only resolution on the agenda, allowing AATA CEO Michael Ford to approve contracts up to $1 million with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation without waiting for board approval. Board member Sue McCormick said state programs often have to be approved within 30 days, and since the AATA meets monthly, that could prove to be a problem. Now Ford can approve those contracts himself, though he agreed to inform the board whenever that was done.

In discussing other issues during the meeting, Nacht mentioned that the on-time performance for buses this past summer was “abysmal.” For the three-month period from July-September 2010, 83.3% of trips were on-time. AATA’s goal for this service metric is 95%. Over the previous four quarters, on-time performance ranged from 82.8% at its lowest, to a high of 89.5%.

“On behalf of our riders, this is a big deal,” said Nacht. “If we are going to be a service provider, this is important.”

Bernstein agreed that the numbers were important, but said the numbers were understandable this past construction season when traffic was blocked on many streets. That includes the closing of South Fifth Avenue for construction of the underground parking garage next to the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building, where the AATA board meetings are held.

The extensive repaving of Plymouth Road was also a serious problem. “I don’t even know how we got the buses moving on Plymouth,” Bernstein said.

A note in the board packet indicated that the July-September period consistently shows the lowest on-time performance, due to road construction as well as University of Michigan student move-in during September.

Also during Thursday’s meeting. Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, told the board that a study on the feasibility of a route connecting the corridor from Plymouth Road down to South State Street should be ready in January. [See Chronicle coverage: "Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis"]

AATA staff also reported that work is continuing on efforts to design and reconstruct the Blake Transit Center, the downtown terminal for all bus routes. The AATA announced earlier this month that it would receive a $1 million federal grant for the work. The center is located north of William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

At the news conference held on Oct. 11 to announce the grant – which featured remarks from Congressman John Dingell – AATA’s manager of maintenance Terry Black told The Chronicle that the newly reconstructed facility will be nestled in the southeast corner of the same parcel of land where the current facility and drive are located. The direction of bus traffic on the driveway, which splits the block between Fourth and Fifth avenues, will reverse its current configuration, which takes buses from Fifth to Fourth. The driveway for the newly reconstructed center will send buses out onto Fifth Avenue. Black also indicated that a board room, which had been previously mentioned as a possible feature of the new center, would not be included in the new design.

The grant opportunity itself, part of the State of Good Repair Bus and Bus Facilities Initiative, was identified by Chris White, AATA manger of service development, who told The Chronicle in a followup phone interview that he’d seen it on a Federal Transit Authority email list to which he subscribes. He reported that he’d vetted the allocation of resources to make the grant application with other staff, including CEO Michael Ford.

Their decision to invest the time in applying, White said, was based on the good fit between the grant criteria and the Blake replacement project. Because the AATA was well along in developing plans for replacement of Blake, White said, the challenge of the relatively short application window back in the spring – about six weeks – was somewhat easier to meet. White responded to a Chronicle request for a copy of the grant application by emailing a .pdf file, which includes, among other information, a detailed list of the current structural issues identified with the 23-year-old facility. [.pdf of grant application]

Public Commentary

Two people spoke during public commentary at Thursday’s meeting.

Jim Morgensen told the board he is concerned that the board will concentrate so much on attracting new riders that it forgets about the people who depend on the service to get around. Later in the meeting during another opportunity for public comment, he also noted how difficult it is to determine the source of about $2.4 million paid to AATA by the University of Michigan, which picks up the cost for its affiliates to ride AATA buses.

Alex Holden, representing the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, also spoke during public commentary, telling the board that many of the people who use the center live outside of town and have a problem with the bus routes ending at 6:45 p.m. on weekends.

Board members present: Jesse Bernstein, Charles Griffith, Roger Kerson, Sue McCormick, David Nacht

Absent: Rich Robben, Anya Dale

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. The board meeting will be preceeded by a community forum on AATA’s countywide master plan. The forum will start at 5:30 p.m. [confirm date]

Chronicle editor Dave Askins contributed to this report.