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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision Statement

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

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

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

Here’s what Ford proposed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form an Act 196 Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The System: The Ride Goes Countywide?

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

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

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

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

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

Integration

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

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

Sketch of the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission, Vision, Values

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

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

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

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

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

Mission Statement (adopted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vision statement (postponed to March meeting)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Values Statement: Nacht read forth the values statement.

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

Values Statement (adopted)

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

SAFETY from harm, injury, or loss.

RELIABILITY based on consistent performance over time.

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

RESPECT resulting from attentiveness, consideration, and courtesy.

INCLUSIVENESS without discrimination.

COOPERATION toward the common good.

RESPONSIBILITY by being accountable for both actions and conduct.

INNOVATION aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness.

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

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

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

Executive Director Search

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

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

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

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

Remarks from the Mayor of Ypsilanti: Paul Schreiber

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

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

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

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

Committee Updates and Communications: Crisis Contingencies and WALLY Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolutions: Procurement Manual and Project List

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

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

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

Public Time: Reflections on Buses that Don’t Stop

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

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

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

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