Planning and work for north-south commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell in Livingston County has been going on for several years in a project that has been called WALLY (Washtenaw and Livingston Railway). The AAATA appears to be transitioning to a project label that incorporates “N-S Rail” as part of the description.

About two years ago, at its  Aug. 16, 2012 meeting, the AAATA board approved the award of a $105,200 contract to SmithGroupJJR for “station location and design services” in connection with the WALLY project. The board’s authorization included an option to increase the contract scope at a later date. That’s what the board’s July 24, 2014 action did – increasing the total amount of the contract from $105,200 to $800,000.

Of that $800,000, a significant portion will be covered with a federal grant received by the AAATA in 2012 under the federal Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) program. The federal grant award of $640,000 requires a $160,000 local match, which will be made by the Howell Downtown Development Authority, the Ann Arbor DDA and Washtenaw County – equaling a total of $143,000, with the remaining $17,000 to come from the AAATA.

The initial $105,200 contract with SmithGroupJJR was focused on a station location study and is now largely complete. The conclusion of that station location study was to identify a segment of the Ann Arbor Railroad right-of-way, between Liberty and Washington streets, as a preferred location for a downtown station.

The scope of the additional work under the contract approved by the AAATA board on July 24, 2014 will:

• Thoroughly examine alternatives/supplements to N-S Rail service such as express bus, bus-on-shoulder and HOV options
• Complete the evaluation of boarding areas (stations) in terms of locations, costs and required features.
• Estimate operating and capital costs at a much finer level of detail, taking into account new service concepts, rail right-of-way work, ownership changes, and railcar acquisition that has taken place since 2008.
• Undertake a more rigorous approach to demands estimates in full compliance with FTA New Starts / Small Starts requirements.
• Incorporate “green” concepts and operating principles.
• Be accompanied by a robust public involvement effort aimed at informing stakeholders and testing public support for the service, governance and funding elements of the plan as they evolve.

The timeframe for the second phase of the study is about 18 months.

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AAATA board holds its meetings.

Karen Lovejoy Roe, Ypsilanti Township clerk, attended the AATA board’s Aug. 16 meeting as representative of the Southeast District on an as-yet unincorporated board of a countywide transportation authority. During the meeting she expressed enthusiastic support for expanded transit. (Photos by the writer.)

As part of that goal of establishing the new authority, the AATA board gave final approval to a four-party agreement – between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. The agreement would establish a framework for the transition of the AATA to a transit authority incorporated under Act 196 of 1986 – to be called The Washtenaw Ride. That authority would have a 15-member board.

An unincorporated version of the Washtenaw Ride’s board (the U196) has been meeting since late 2011. The three guests at the table for the Aug. 16 AATA board meeting are representatives of three districts in the possible new authority: Karen Lovejoy Roe (Southeast District), Bob Mester (West District) and David Phillips (Northeast District).

Those three were not there to vote, and did not participate in deliberations, though they could have. However, Lovejoy Roe – who serves as Ypsilanti Township clerk, an elected position – gave one of the most enthusiastic statements of support for the countywide initiative that’s been heard at the AATA board table over the last two years. “I’m just really excited about where we’re headed as a community, as a county at large. I know that there’s been a lot of hiccups, but I think that that’s normal … I’m committed, and I think that those who’ve asked me to be here working willingly and openly to do what’s best for all county residents [are, too] …”

One element of the 30-year vision that the AATA has developed for countywide transportation is a north-south commuter rail connection between Ann Arbor and Howell, in Livingston County. And the planning effort was given continued support at the Aug. 16 meeting when the board awarded a $105,200 contract to SmithGroupJJR for station location and design services in connection with the WALLY (Washtenaw and Livingston Railway) project.

That overall planning effort was given a boost by a somewhat unexpected $640,000 federal grant to the AATA and Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The grant was awarded on Aug. 6, 2012 under the Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) program. AATA had applied for the grant last November, but did not have high expectations, given the competitive nature of the grants.

In other business, the board decided to accept a non-applicable penalty – which has no actual impact – and not comply with Michigan’s Public Act 192 for its unionized employees. The act mandates limits on how much public employers can contribute to their employee health care costs. The decision was essentially based on deference to a federal law that applies to agencies receiving federal funding – like the AATA. That federal law requires benefits like health care to be collectively bargained, not stipulated. Under the state law, failure by the AATA to comply would just mean that it would be denied state funds to which it is not even entitled.

In the meeting’s other business item, the AATA approved a three-year contract with CBS Outdoor Advertising of Lexington, New York, to handle placement of ads on its buses and bus stops. That’s a change from the previous contract, which was held by Transit Advertising Group (TAG) of Farmington Hills, Mich.

Four-Party Agreement, Countywide

In front of the board again for its approval was the four-party agreement outlining a framework for a possible countywide transportation authority, and its articles of incorporation. The other three parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and Washtenaw County.

The most recent iteration of approvals came as a result of an amendment to the articles of incorporation made by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting. The county board’s amendment changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board, in order for the board to change the authority’s articles of incorporation. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes).

Washtenaw County’s role will now be to file the articles of incorporation for a new transit authority – The Washtenaw Ride. The articles would be filed with the state of Michigan under Act 196 of 1986. But that filing would come only after a request from the AATA and only after the AATA publishes details of the service and funding plan for the authority in newspapers of general circulation in Washtenaw County. At that point, jurisdictions throughout Washtenaw County would have the ability to opt out of the new transit authority.

Even after the funding plan is published and the new authority is incorporated, the four-party agreement stipulates that any transfer of assets from the AATA to The Washtenaw Ride would take place only after a voter-approved funding mechanism is established. And only after a voter-approved funding mechanism is established would proceeds from the transportation millages currently levied by the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti be pledged to The Washtenaw Ride.

A financial task force recruited by the AATA – to assess the amount of funding that would be necessary to offer the kind of service that AATA is proposing – concluded that it would require roughly the equivalent of 0.5 mills countywide. [.pdf of final version of transit documents] It will not be on the ballot for Nov. 6, as the deadline will expire by the end of August and not nearly enough time exists to complete remaining steps before then.

Four-Party Agreement, Countywide: Comment from Lovejoy Roe

Karen Lovejoy Roe, Ypsilanti Township clerk, will represent the Southeast District in the proposed new transit authority. That district consists of Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township. Of the three members of the as-yet unincorporated (U196) transit board who attended the Aug. 16 meeting, she was the only one who spoke at the table.

Her remarks prompted Thomas Partridge, a frequent critic of the AATA, to rise from his seat and applaud.

She opened by saying, “I’m just really excited about where we’re headed as a community, as a county at large. I know that there’s been a lot of hiccups, but I think that that’s normal … A lot of questions have been raised about trust and I just want everybody to know I’m committed, and I think that those who’ve asked me to be here working willingly and openly to do what’s best for all county residents [are, too] …”

She stressed three key points related to the importance of better transportation in the county: jobs, seniors and young people.

What drew her attention, she said, is the impact that countywide transportation could have on economic development. Even though the national climate is difficult, she allowed, “we can control our destiny here, so we focus on that.” She said was sitting at a dinner table with a top executive of one of the largest private employers in the county, Thompson Reuters, who told her that they make their decisions about where to locate their businesses based on where public transportation is located. A huge lightbulb went off in her head, she said. That had led her to conclude: “I don’t even know why this is up to debate. The debate should be about the details of what we’re going to do, but not about whether we’re going to do it.”

As the process has gone along, she told the board, one of the things that she’d pushed for was data. She always knew that Ypsilanti Township had a huge population and travels to Ann Arbor to work – but how many? And she’d been given those numbers, she said – about 5,000-6,000. When you add in the city of Ypsilanti and Superior Township, it’s even more, she said. “Our folks need jobs,” she said, and Ann Arbor is where the jobs are. She expressed support for that idea, saying what’s good for Ann Arbor is good for the rest of the county. Ypsilanti Township and Augusta Township residents need jobs, she said, and they don’t care where those jobs are located.

Turning her attention to senior issues, Lovejoy Roe told the board that during the primary election campaign, she and Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo had, between the two of them, knocked on every door in the township. As a result of that, she said, they know now that their intuition was exactly right: “Our seniors need transportation.” There are so many people that she knew four years ago who used to drive, and are not driving now, she said. They would ask, “Karen, Brenda, what can we do?” It’s true not just for Ypsilanti Township, she said, but for all of Washtenaw County – the population is aging. Seniors deserve to be able to stay in their homes, Lovejoy Roe said – especially facing an inability to sell their homes without taking a huge loss. There is not enough assisted living housing that they can move into, she said. By helping seniors stay in their homes by providing on-demand door-to-door services, it’s providing “assisted living” by helping them stay in their homes, she said.

Lovejoy Roe rounded out her remarks by talking about the importance of public transportation for young people. Washtenaw County has to be a place where young people want to live and stay, she said. She wants her five children to stay here and she’s looking forward to having grandchildren. And they need public transportation, she said. She’s learned so much through her own children and talking to other young residents, she said. For them, it’s a cultural positive. When she grew up, whoever had the fastest, hottest car was the coolest around. But now your status gets measured by whether you’re able to live and work without an automobile. That’s who young people are today, she said.

She’s really excited about the future, she said, and she knows there’s still a long way to go to get to where we need to be. But for her, the arguments for doing it are: jobs, our seniors, and our young people.

Lovejoy Roe allowed there are a lot of questions, and watching the Washtenaw County board of commissioner meetings, she knows that people are concerned that they’re going to get sucked in and “screwed over” – saying she’s probably not as politically tactful as they are. She believes in her heart that it’s going to work. She pointed out that if the millage is requested and voters approve it, then it will eventually need to be renewed – so every single community will need to benefit. They’re not going to be voting for a millage in perpetuity. So there’s a real incentive to everybody working together to move the process forward, she said.

Four-Party Agreement, Countywide: Public Comment

All of the public commentary could be connected in some way to the four-party agreement and the possibility it provides for broader governance and service area.

Carolyn Grawi from the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. She congratulated the board as well as the community, saying that we will now move forward with a chance to have countywide transportation. The disability community can’t wait for this opportunity to exist, she said. She echoed the comments of Karen Lovejoy Roe. It really will help add value to the community, Grawi said.

Larry Krieg introduced himself as an Ypsilanti Township resident, and began by thanking his township clerk [Karen Lovejoy Roe] for such rousing support. He said he wanted to bring three things together that are significant.

The first was an article in online Bridge Magazine about the number of millages that were passed in Michigan at the Aug. 7, 2012 primary. Out of 805 millages on the ballot, a total of 90% passed, he reported. Of the road millages that were on the ballot, 89% had passed. In spite of the rhetoric against taxes, people are passing millages at a remarkable rate, he observed. Second, he said the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor last week released the estimate that in the next 20 years, cars will average $50,000 apiece. The third point is that as he is researching fuel costs and where the money goes, almost all the money leaves Michigan, he said, and over half of it leaves the United States. And up to 8% goes to governments that are hostile to the United States. So when people object to increasing taxes, they don’t realize that just by filling up their gas tank they are paying money to governments that are hostile to the United States. So he encouraged the board to be a bit more aggressive.

At the first opportunity for public comment, at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of the city of Ann Arbor, and advocate for everyone in Ann Arbor and all of the cities and villages and townships of Washtenaw County and the state of Michigan. He called on the board to mount an assertive, stepped-up campaign to bring about a quality countywide transportation system. It had been his proposal, he contended, made to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners more than six years ago at a board meeting, to bring about the foundation of a Washtenaw County department of transportation under the Washtenaw County government. Instead, the board has bided its time and avoided tackling this very important and vital issue, he contended.

Partridge also called on the AATA board to be more assertive about getting the proposal on the ballot as soon as possible. [It will not be on the Nov. 6 ballot.] He called on the representatives of the new transit authority board to become more vocal and more assertive to bring about this much-needed countywide transportation system.

At the second opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge expressed appreciation for those who’d voted for him in the Democratic primary election – as he’d run for state representative of the 53rd District. [He received 11.5% of the vote, compared to 88% for incumbent Jeff Irwin.] He ventured that they’d voted for him based on his leadership on the issue of bringing about a badly-needed countywide transportation system. He called on everyone to unite the county in order to achieve progress.

Four-Party Agreement, Countywide: Board Deliberations

Board chair Jesse Bernstein briefly described the Washtenaw County board’s amendment, made on Aug. 1, 2012. The amendment changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board, if the board wants to change the authority’s articles of incorporation. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes).

Outcome: The board voted without further discussion. That means that the all four parties to the agreement have given final approval. After the Washtenaw County board had given its approval on Aug. 1, the Ann Arbor city council re-approved the agreement on Aug. 9, 2012, and the Ypsilanti city council gave its re-approval on Aug. 14.

Four-Party Agreement, Countywide: Next Steps

In his verbal report to the board, CEO Michael Ford outlined the next steps. They include making sure that all the stakeholders know all service benefits that each district will receive. When the AATA board believes it has done all it can to inform the public of the benefits of the five-year transit program, the board can then request that the county initiate the incorporation process – filing articles of incorporation for the new authority with the state. And at that point, he continued, the local governments of the county will have 30 days to opt out, if they choose to do so.

Left to right: AATA CEO Michael Ford welcomes David Phillips to the meeting. Philips, Superior Township clerk, represents the Northeast District on the U196 board.

But several steps will precede the decision to request incorporation. The week of Aug. 20, the AATA will be mailing out a letter to all local clerks to explain the incorporation process, Ford explained. AATA will be planning and following up with all those communities. The AATA will also be sending out a newsletter to all community leaders and the public. And on Aug. 23, Ford said, the AATA will meet with the unincorporated board members to prepare for the public release of the five-year transit program.

Throughout the month of September, the AATA will be meeting with the district advisory committees (DACs) to seek local recommendations on the proposed program. They’ll also meet with local leaders and government boards to explain the program and answer all questions to build support. The AATA board and the district representatives will play an important role in ensuring that the local leadership and the public understand what the plan provides, he said. When the AATA believes it has a consensus on the scope of the service plan, the current board will then request that the county start the incorporation process. Ford said: “We believe the plan, guided by the 30-year master plan and vision, clearly benefits all local government units and citizens in the county.”

Ford stated that the AATA will continue its relationship with each local government, whether or not they decide to participate in the new transit authority.

Four-Party Agreement, Countywide: Five-Year Service Plan

A condition for a request to incorporate the new transit authority is to publish a five-year service plan. A draft of the plan was released in April.

At the board’s Aug. 16 meeting, Michael Benham – strategic planner with the AATA – gave an update on the five-year service plan. The plan is in the process of being introduced to the public, he said. There have been a number of new suggestions for additional services, he said.

Since the previous draft, which was released in April, he said, a Milan connector has been included. That will run on Carpenter Road from Milan to a Meier store at Ellsworth and Carpenter. Also, a Milan circulator has been added. That’s contingent on involvement with the southern part of Milan, which extends into Monroe County. The Milan connector is actually a rerouting of something that was previously in the plan that went from Milan through Saline to Ann Arbor. He explained that “connector services” are “semi-express services” that connect communities in rural areas.

Other changes include an extension of the previously included Northfield Express to Brighton. The urban bus network [Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti] has been expanded. Previously, it was based on a 16-hour day and now it’s based on an 18-hour day for some routes. That will involve a number of select routes operating until midnight. Some routes will also operate a little bit earlier in the morning, starting at 6 a.m. instead of 6:30 a.m. There were also a number of miscellaneous routing and scheduling changes to the urban bus network – too numerous to get into, he said.

They are also thinking about extending service to Lincoln Consolidated Schools in August Township, using a combination of flex service and limited extensions of the already-proposed Route #46. They’re also looking at the park-and-ride proposed in Pittsfield Township – and they’re thinking about either adding an additional park-and-ride, which would be further east, or perhaps just taking the existing one and moving it.

The schedule for the next round of District Advisory Committee meetings is available on the AATA’s Moving You Forward website.

North-South Rail (WALLY)

A somewhat unexpected $640,000 federal grant to the AATA and Michigan Dept. of Transportation was part of the background for a resolution the board was asked to consider – which continues planning and study for the WALLY (Washtenaw and Livingston Railway) project. The grant was announced on Aug. 6, 2012 and was awarded under the federal Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) program. AATA had applied for the grant last November, but did not have high expectations, given the competitive nature of the grants.

The AATA had also allocated other funds for continued planning on WALLY at its June 21, 2012 meeting.

On Aug. 16, the AATA board was asked to award a $105,200 contract to SmithGroupJJR for “station location and design services” in connection with the WALLY project. The board’s authorization includes an option to increase the contract scope at a later date.

A possible downtown location for an Ann Arbor rail station, between Washington and Liberty streets. The railway is highlighted in yellow. The city-owned First and William lot has been designated by the city council as part of a future greenway. The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is the focus of possible development as a greenway and arts center.

Based on a staff memo included in the AATA’s performance monitoring and external relations committee minutes, the initial phase of the project will focus on station location studies for five communities: Ann Arbor, Whitmore Lake, Hamburg Township, Genoa Township and Howell. In Ann Arbor, attention will be focused on the Barton Road location and how a station can be designed that overcomes the constraints imposed by a large drainage culvert.

Future phases would also include detailed designs of each site selected in the initial phase, with additional station sites in Ann Arbor – a downtown location (probably between Liberty and Washington streets, according to the memo) and one near the University of Michigan football stadium at Main and Stadium Boulevard.

The track from the Barton Road location southward is owned by the Ann Arbor Railroad, which has historically been uninterested in passenger rail use on it tracks. But in the fall of 2011, AARR indicated at least a willingness to entertain a “business proposition” on such use. Some kind of arrangement would be necessary in order to contemplate stations south of Barton Road – like downtown or the football stadium.

North-South Rail (WALLY): Board Deliberations

Charles Griffith said he was excited that the AATA can continue to evaluate the potential of this commuter rail line. It’s nice to propose something like this, Griffith said, but then you have to really figure out the details – where exactly would you put the stations and what would they look like, and how would they connect up to other services. So the AATA is very fortunate to have support from the federal government to help figure that out.

Eli Cooper stated that this step is really important – because it is work that the AATA is doing on behalf of many others. He spoke of the local contributions that come from other communities in Washtenaw and Livingston counties that had enabled the AATA to think about a smaller station design process.

By way of background, the financial support outside the AATA for WALLY includes: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ($50,000); Washtenaw County ($50,000); and the city of Howell DDA ($37,000).

“Lo and behold, as we were bringing this forward, comes to us support from above!” Cooper said. It’s very interesting to see that not only has the Federal Transit Administration provided AATA the grant – but the FTA has done it through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. In the early stages of the WALLY rail service planning, Cooper said, it was all about the local involvement. And what can be seen in this agenda item, he said, is the importance to all levels of government and to all the communities to do a proper job of planning for future rail service. A new rail system, even on an existing railroad, requires a lot of effort, Cooper cautioned.

MDOT has invested in the rail infrastructure to make sure the existing rails can sustain passenger service, Cooper said, but we don’t have rail stations yet. So this begins the process of putting ideas and plans together to allow those stations to emerge – as the system becomes ready for carrying employees and families back and forth, up and down this corridor.

Cooper reported on a session sponsored by the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce with Joseph C. Szabo, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. [The press was barred from the event.] Cooper relayed some numbers provided by Szabo. For the generation age 16-35, the amount of vehicle miles traveled is down 23%. Their reliance on transit and rail is up 40%. That’s a generational shift, Cooper concluded.

These investments are really allowing this generation to prepare for the next one, Cooper said.

Bernstein noted that he and AATA strategic planner Michael Benham had also attended the meeting at the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti chamber. Bernstein said he was glad to see the commitment that the FRA has to commuter rail and also to long-distance rail. He was especially glad that the AATA had received the extra $640,000.

Bernstein is deeply concerned about the terminus of the north-south line, and he believes it needs to come into downtown Ann Arbor. He hopes this study will give more time and wherewithal to make that happen.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the WALLY station design and location study.

Health Care Contribution Policy

The board was asked to authorize a resolution that sets a policy that the AATA will not meet the conditions of Michigan’s Act 152 – which limits the amount that public employers can contribute to their employee health care. The resolution stipulates that the AATA will accept the penalty specified in Section 9 of Act 152, which actually has no practical effect on the AATA. But the resolution also allows the AATA to comply with its obligations under federal law with respect to collective bargaining rights.

Act 152 limits the amount that a public employer like the AATA can make to its employees’ medical benefits plans – $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for two-person coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. And the law provides another option, where the employer limits its contribution to 80% of the medical benefit.

The penalty specified in Section 9 of the law involves funds to which the AATA is not entitled in any case:

15.569 Noncompliance by public employer; penalty.
Sec. 9.
If a public employer fails to comply with this act, the public employer shall permit the state treasurer to reduce by 10% each economic vitality incentive program payment received under 2011 PA 63 and the department of education shall assess the public employer a penalty equal to 10% of each payment of any funds for which the public employer qualifies under the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772, during the period that the public employer fails to comply with this act. … [.pdf of full text of Act 152]

The rationale for the resolution was this: In order for the AATA to comply with Title 49 of United States Code 5333, as an agency that receives federal assistance, unionized health care benefits must be subject to collective bargaining – not the state’s mandated fixed-dollar or percentage caps. AATA bus drivers are members of the Transport Workers Union Local 171.

The AATA had already begun to grapple with this issue, when it voted at its June 21, 2012 meeting to comply with Michigan’s Act 152 for its non-union management staff. That was followed with a discussion of possibly rescinding that vote at the board’s July 16, 2012 meeting. Although the possibility of scheduling a special meeting was discussed – to deal with non-union employee health care – no meeting was scheduled.

Health Care Contribution Policy: Board Deliberations

The board deliberations were significant, because they highlighted differing views on the appropriate language to describe the action the board was taking. The resolution itself stated [emphasis added]:

IT IS RESOLVED, that the AATA Board of Directors invokes Section 9 of Act 152 so as to protect the collective bargaining rights of its union employees under its Section 13(c) agreement with the TWU, and …

When he described the resolution in his report from the board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith reminded his colleagues that they’d already addressed the issue for non-union management staff. What the board is being asked to do now, he said, and what is being recommended, is that the resolution be passed, giving an assurance that the AATA will address the impacts to union health care benefits only through the collective bargaining process. This is triggering what he called “a waiver” in Section 9 of Act 152.

When the board came to the item on the agenda, board chair Jesse Bernstein ventured that there are conflicting requirements in state and federal law regarding health care costs and collective bargaining. The bottom line, he contended, is that the AATA can claim an “exemption” under Section 9, and the consequences don’t impact the AATA, because the AATA does not receive the money that would be impacted if it did not comply with Act 152. So Bernstein indicated that the AATA is invoking the section that says the AATA is not going to participate in the state law – and that covers the AATA for the federal law.

AATA board member Eli Cooper, who also serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

Eli Cooper took a different view of the appropriate description of the board’s action. Having read the opinion of the AATA’s legal counsel, he said, and having read the statute, he felt that words like “waiver” and “exemption” don’t fully describe what is at play. He indicated that he felt a better description would be “not applicable.” The penalties that are referenced in Section 9 of the statute do not apply to an authority such as the AATA – and as such, the AATA is not being granted a waiver or an exemption, he pointed out. It’s just that the statute, as fashioned, doesn’t have a penalty clause that applies to the AATA.

Cooper felt that it’s the right thing to do – to stay in step with the federal authorities and to continue to work constructively and positively with the union representation. He called it a point of clarification that there’s not a waiver or an exemption. The penalty is simply not applicable to the authority.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution that defers to federal requirements over state law with respect to health care contributions.

Bus Advertising

The board was asked to authorize a three-year contract with CBS Outdoor Advertising of Lexington, New York, to handle placement of ads on its buses and bus stops. That’s a change from the AATA’s previous contract with Transit Advertising Group (TAG) of Farmington Hills, Mich.

The contract had been held by TAG for the last seven years, but expired. The AATA selected CBS Outdoor Advertising from seven respondents to an RFP (request for proposals). The contract required board approval because the amount of revenue generated from the deal is expected to exceed $100,000 for the three-year period of the contract.

In the most recent court action connected to a lawsuit filed against the AATA over an advertisement rejected for its buses – which included the text “Boycott ‘Israel’” – TAG and its president Randy Oram were dropped as defendants in the case by mutual agreement of the parties. The court has not ruled since an evidentiary hearing was held on July 23.

During board deliberations, Eli Cooper talked about the way the authority is operated. He felt it was important to note that bus advertising is a revenue source. The authority and the staff use all means to generate revenue to help provide the high level of service that it does to the community. It might be seen as a simple award of a contract, he said, but it’s part of a manner of doing business that is entrepreneurial and is in partnership with the private sector. So he fully supported the resolution. Board chair Jesse Bernstein noted that every bus presents a different configuration – it’s not just slapping something up on the side of a bus. It requires a great deal of skill on the part of the vendor, he said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to award the advertising contract to CBS Outdoor Advertising.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

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

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

In his verbal report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the new downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center would go before the Ann Arbor city council on Monday, Aug. 20.

By way of background, the new BTC will be built on the opposite site of the lot from the current center. So it will front on Fifth Avenue instead of Fourth Avenue. Buses will enter from Fourth and exit onto Fifth, which is the opposite traffic flow from the current configuration. The plans were reviewed by the city planning commission on July 17, 2012. As a public entity, the AATA is not required to get planning commission or city council approval. But the planning commission voted to affirm that the site plan conformed to city code with two exceptions. The city council had the BTC on its Aug. 20 agenda only as a written communication from the city administrator, and did not discuss the BTC at all. But AATA staff were in the audience until the meeting ended – after midnight – in case they were called upon to answer questions.

At the AATA board meeting on Aug. 16, Ford indicated that the BTC would be before the AATA board in October and e hoped to start breaking ground at that time.

Comm/Comm: New Website

CEO Michael Ford told the board that new AATA website will be brought online in mid- to late September. He felt that people would be very impressed with the outcome of that.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

Also as part of his verbal report, CEO Michael Ford said that ridership on Route #4 since January, compared to this time last year, is up over 28% as a result of the more frequent service being offered. NightRide service is up over 55%. ExpressRide – which included commuter service to Canton and Chelsea – is up 54%. Reverse commutes [leaving Ann Arbor in the morning for those two cities] are also now available, Ford said. The first week of AirRide service [between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport] had around 400 passengers. Now the service is averaging consistently between 800 and 1,000 passengers per week. Ford also reported that AATA now has 20 vanpools on the road.

AATA board member Charles Griffith, reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, said that Routes #3 and #5, because of the increased ridership, have struggled a bit with staying on time and with overcrowding. So AATA is continuing to look at ways to address that. It’s not in the budget to increase the frequency of the service as the AATA had done for Route #4, he said – at least not at this time. Route #3 runs between Ann Arbor and Washtenaw Community College. Route #5 runs along Packard between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Comm/Comm: Financial Update

Reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith noted that both expenses and revenues are under budget.

Expenses are lower due to the later start for the AirRide service and filling some positions later than had been projected in the budget.

An issue of concern, Griffith said, is the possibility of state operating assistance decreasing for fiscal year 2013, due to a change in the formula the state has been using to distribute money to transit agencies around the state. It could result in a loss of $800,000 in next year’s budget. Griffith said that “we have folks working on that,” and the AATA is working with some of the other transit agencies in the state, and will be attempting to address that going forward.

Present: Charles Griffith, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Anya Dale.

Absent: David Nacht, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public affairs. 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!

Taking advantage of the grant award, as well as other funds that the AATA had allocated at its June 21, 2012 for such work, the AATA board voted at its Aug. 16, 2012 meeting to award a $105,200 contract to SmithGroup JJR for “station location and design services” in connection with the WALLY project. The board’s authorization includes an option to increase the contract scope at a later date.

Based on the staff memo included in the AATA’s performance monitoring and external relations committee minutes, the initial phase of the project will focus on station location studies for five communities: Ann Arbor, Whitmore Lake, Hamburg Township, Genoa Township and Howell. In Ann Arbor, attention will be focused on the Barton Road location and how a station can be designed that overcomes the constraints imposed by a large drainage culvert. Future phases would also include detailed designs of each site selected in the initial phase, with additional station sites in Ann Arbor – a downtown location (probably between Liberty and Washington streets, according to the memo) and one near the University of Michigan football stadium.

The track from the Barton Road location southward is owned by the Ann Arbor Railroad, which has historically been uninterested in passenger rail use on it tracks. But in the fall of 2011, AARR indicated at least a willingness to entertain a “business proposition” on such use. Some kind of arrangement would be necessary in order to contemplate stations south of Barton Road – like downtown or the football stadium.

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

AATA board member Roger Kerson argues against immediate action on Act 152, which limits the amount that public employers can contribute to employee health care. (Photos by the writer.)

That action meets the requirements of last year’s state Act 152, signed into law in September 2011, which limits employer contributions to a fixed dollar amount. But Act 152 also allows for the governing body of a public entity – in this case, the AATA board – to vote to cap the employer contribution at 80%, leaving 20% to be covered by employees. And that’s what the AATA board did at its June 21 meeting. Dissenting on the vote were Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson, who felt that the timing was perhaps too early – because the contract for AATA’s unionized workforce goes through the end of the year.

Based on the way that some other transit agencies in Michigan had handled their Act 152 compliance, Griffith and Kerson felt it might be possible to delay action for its non-union staff until AATA was required to act on its union workers’ health care costs. That approach is based on the idea that all employees participate in the same health care plan. However, the advice of the AATA’s own legal counsel was that Act 152 doesn’t explicitly provide for that uniform treatment of employees, just because they participate in the same health care plan.

Kerson urged that the board consider taking the AATA’s “windfall” from its compliance with the state law and reinvesting in non-health care compensation. Just because the state had given public entities a hammer, Kerson said, did not mean that they had to use it against their employees.

In other board action, the expenditure of funds for planning a north-south commuter rail project – from Howell to Ann Arbor, known as WALLY – was authorized. The money had previously been included in the AATA’s approved budget for fiscal year 2012, which ends Sept. 30, 2012. But the board had passed a resolution that requires explicit board approval before the money in the budget could be expended. AATA’s portion of the $230,000 in planning costs is $45,000, with the remainder contributed by a range of other public entities – the federal government, the city of Howell, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Washtenaw County.

Another planning effort that’s moving forward did not appear as a voting item on the agenda, but was included in CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the board: continued study of a possible Ann Arbor transit connector for a corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and further south to I-94.

The AATA received a $1.2 million federal grant for an alternatives analysis phase of the study – which will result in a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. That federal grant comes with the requirement of a $300,000 local match, which now appears to have been secured in the form of $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA itself. A feasibility study for the connector has already been completed.

In other action, the board authorized the purchase of five new lift-equipped vehicles for its paratransit service. The five vehicles will replace existing vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life.

Another non-voting item on the meeting agenda, but one that was included in the CEO’s written report, was news of a collaboration between AATA and the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Starting this fall, the AATA will provide transportation for three existing school bus routes – one for each of Ann Arbor’s comprehensive high schools – by extending existing AATA routes. AAPS will pay AATA $0.50 for each student who boards, which will be counted with a pass that can be swiped through the fare box.

80/20 Health Care

The board considered a resolution in order to comply with the Michigan legislature’s Act 152 for non-union employees, which was signed into law on Sept. 27, 2011.

The law limits the amount that a public employer like the AATA can make to its employee’s medical benefits plans – $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for two-person coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. However, the act provides another option – under which a public employer can choose through a vote of its governing body (in this case, the AATA board) – to not apply the hard dollar cap. Instead, the employer can limit its contribution to 80% of the medical benefit, leaving the employee to cover the remaining 20%. It’s this 80/20 option that the AATA board exercised in its June 21 vote.

As part of its compliance with the 80/20 provision, AATA put together health plan options for non-union employees that would essentially make their health care costs roughly the same as current costs – if they choose to opt for higher co-pays.

The options outlined for the board by its legal counsel were as follows:

1. Ignore the statute, stand in violation of the law, and continue providing benefits to management employees on a status quo basis (AATA pays 90% of premium, employee pays 10% of premium). (This option is not recommended to the Board).

2. Take the “CATA” (Lansing) approach to the law which is to adopt an exemption for one year for both union and non-union employees based upon the fact that both groups utilize the same health insurance benefit. CATA’s health insurance plan is selfinsured. This benefit is mutually negotiated with the Union, and therefore is temporarily exempt from the effects of Act 152 until January 1, 2013 (this option effectively “kicks the can down the road”). (This option has not been tested, and is not recommended to the Board.)

3. Take “The Rapid” (Grand Rapids) approach to the law which is to go on record that AATA’s 13-C agreement with the Union and the US Department of Labor prevents it from unilaterally making any changes to its health benefits, and since both the union and non-union employees are covered by the same plan, changes cannot be made in it until a new contract is negotiated January 1, 2013. (This option “kicks the can down the road”). (This option has not been tested, and is not recommended to the Board). [Note: Subsequently, it was learned that Grand Rapids has costs that are low enough to meet the fixed-dollar amount cap in Act 152.]

4. Take “The Metro” (Kalamazoo) approach and comply with the law by allowing the “cap” to become effective. This would limit AATA’s annual contributions to employee benefits to $5,500 for single, $11,000 for two persons, and $15,000 for family. (This option would do great economic harm to employees and is not recommended to the Board)

5. Comply with the law, elect the percentage alternative by a majority vote of the Board, and provide the 80% contribution to the employees’ health benefit plan offered by the Authority. Under Act 152, the employee will be responsible for the balance. (This option is recommended to the Board).

Before the board reached the item on its meeting agenda, Charles Griffith had reported from the performance monitoring and external relations committee that the committee had had a long discussion about revisions to health benefits offered to salaried staff. He noted that as a result of Act 152, there’s a cap on the amount that public employers can contribute to employee health care. But there’s an option in Act 152, Griffith explained, to waive the fixed-dollar amount cap and make a 20% contribution to employee health plan coverage.

AATA board member Charles Griffith.

The committee had looked to some of its “sister agencies” for guidance. Because – like AATA – both union and non-union employees are part of the same plan, some “sister” agencies had delayed implementation, Griffith said. Based on that idea, it was felt they could delay until the unionized workforce adopted a new contract. For AATA, that would translate to Jan. 1, 2013 instead of Aug. 1, 2012.

Griffith also reported that the committee had looked at other public bodies in the Ann Arbor area. They’d concluded that the AATA board, as an appointed board, did not have the ability to waive Act 152 altogether under the statute – which could be done on a 2/3 majority vote. [There was some confusion on the board as to how the city of Ann Arbor had handled Act 152 compliance, but city CFO Tom Crawford confirmed via an email to The Chronicle sent subsequent to the meeting that the city's benefits plan met the hard-dollar cap requirements of Act 152. The city council did not act to waive the requirements of Act 152.]

Griffith indicated that he uncomfortable jumping to the conclusion that the AATA needed to implement the requirements of Act 152 – which reduced non-union employee health benefits by half – as early as Aug. 1.

When the board reached the item on its agenda, Ed Robertson, AATA’s human resources manager, was asked to read the entire resolution into the record, which essentially followed option (5) – the 80/20 option. An alternative resolution, which was not considered by the board, would have delayed compliance with Act 152 until Jan. 1, 2013.

Griffith thanked Robertson and the rest of the staff for helping to find a solution to a problem that the state legislature had imposed on the AATA. The solution put a limit on the disruption of benefits that AATA employees receive. “It’s going to be a hit,” Griffith said. If you took the same health plan they have today, it would mean a doubling of the premiums, he said. Right now, employees pay about 10% of coverage – and this action would raise it to 20%. So what Robertson had worked out was a health care plan that increases co-pays and provides a plan option that’s similar to what they pay today, Griffith explained [Essentially, it's a way for employees to continue to pay the same amount for their health care coverage plan, with the caveat that the coverage plan isn't as good – due in part to the increased co-pays.]

Griffith explained that if the automatic fixed-dollar cap were implemented, that would reflect a four-fold increase in the amount that AATA employees would have to pay. So it’s incumbent upon the board to prevent the automatic fixed, hard-dollar cap from applying, Griffith said. That could be done by implementing the 80/20 option.

The only question, Griffith said was whether to delay the implementation of the Act 152 requirement, until all employees are affected – including the union employees. He based that approach on the way that some “sister transit agencies” have handled the issue. The legal opinion of the AATA’s counsel, Griffith said, is that there’s nothing in Act 152 that would explicitly allow that approach. However, Griffith indicated they’d also heard there’s little evidence that there would be any compliance action taken in the near term. By not taking action that night, it would buy employees another several months of coverage under their current plan, before the board had to take action at the end of the year.

“We’re reluctant to force this on the employees any sooner than we have to,” Griffith concluded.

Roger Kerson noted that the resolution had come from the AATA’s governance committee. The alternative resolution, Kerson said, would have followed the example of the transit agencies in Grand Rapids and Lansing by waiting to implement action until all employees were affected. The thinking was, said Kerson, “If it’s good enough for those guys, why not good enough for us?” In the Grand Rapids case, Kerson allowed, it turned out that the hard cap on dollar amounts was already met. He wasn’t sure why Lansing had taken the action it did.

Basically, Kerson said, the state legislature has imposed a cut in compensation for every public employee in the state of Michigan. What the AATA was doing is offering employees at least a choice of continuing to receive the same health benefit and to pay more for it, or pay the same for the plan, but pay higher deductibles. That’s an approach that is based on the idea that public entities are in trouble because public employees get paid too much, Kerson said, which he characterized as a “blissfully fact-free analysis that’s especially absurd in the context of [the AATA] …”

Kerson noted that AATA had addressed pension liabilities by creating a situation where employees contribute, if the pension fund performs under market. Retiree health care has also been addressed, he said. He said he’s asked the AATA’s auditor if there is some kind of unfunded liability that is being overlooked and the answer has been no, Kerson said. So the state’s “cookie-cutter” imposition of cutting costs is, for the AATA, a solution in search of a problem, Kerson concluded.

What’s on the table, Kerson stated, is whether the “solution” is imposed in August or in January. In any case, Kerson wanted to put on the record that AATA will have a “windfall” as a result of implementing Act 152. There’s no law about what the AATA does with the money, he said. The AATA could put more bells and whistles on the website or more benches in the Blake Transit Center – or the AATA could put that extra money back into compensation for employees. If the AATA did not put the extra money back into compensation, he’d want to know why, said Kerson. He’s more conformable with implementing in January, Kerson said, because that’s more consistent with treating all AATA employees as a team in a fair manner.

Ed Robertson, AATA's head of human resources.

CEO Michael Ford and Robertson confirmed that Grand Rapids was initially planning to exempt the non-union contract from Act 152 until the union contract came up for renewal. But after further analysis, Robertson said, it turned out that Grand Rapids was under the dollar amount cap in Act 152.

Sue Gott wanted clarification about the advice of the AATA’s legal counsel. Is there a clear preference between the resolution on the table and the alternative?

Robertson indicated that the AATA’s legal counsel has not seen the alternative resolution, and has given advice based only on the interpretation of Act 152 itself. The AATA’s labor attorney, David Kempner, was out of town that week, but the AATA’s counsel for general issues, Jerry Lax, had gone through Act 152. Robertson reported that Lax felt there’s no legal interpretation that allows the non-union employees to be grouped together so that Act 152 applies to non-union health care benefits only at the point when it applies to union health care benefits.

Kerson returned to his earlier point – that while the AATA’s legal counsel had reached one conclusion, it was not clear why the transit agency in Lansing had reached a different conclusion.

Robertson noted that more information had been obtained from Lansing – that CATA (the Capital Area Transportation Authority) has a self-insured health plan. That meant it’d be difficult to determine if the state’s mandate had been exceeded until the end of the year – because the agency would have to wait until the year’s end, and then charge back to the employees.

Griffith indicated that he was uncomfortable “rushing” to action. He did not have as much information as he’d like about what other public employees in the community are doing.

The other piece of information that the committee had picked up in its discussion, Griffith said, is that there’s no enforcement action that the state has been taking on Act 152. So even though there’s not a special provision that allows AATA to lump all employees together, there’s not clear evidence that any action will be taken. It’d be a matter of accepting some risk to take the step.

Griffith contemplated a friendly amendment to the resolution: If there’s a determination that the AATA cannot consider a change to all employees at the same time, then this change will be imposed when and if that determination is made. Griffith wanted to be on record as supporting the 80/20 approach – when it’s required to do so.

Eli Cooper, an AATA board member and the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, asked for clarification about whose opinion it was that had been given to the board – not on letterhead, but entitled, “Compliance with Act 152.” [It included the five points presented above.] He felt that it speaks to options that are not recommended to the board. Robertson indicated to Cooper that he had actually authored the memo, but that he’d written it after consultation with legal counsel. Cooper concluded that he could interpret the memo as AATA staff’s “best understanding of what the authority’s attorney has recommended” – which Robertson said he could.

Gott picked up on Kerson’s idea that the board could take the approach of returning the “windfall” to employees in other compensation, if the board wanted to pursue that. Board chair Jesse Bernstein liked the idea of Griffith’s amendment because it eliminated the risk of being out of compliance resulting in some kind of punishment. He also liked the notion of making employees whole. He suggested that an amendment to the AATA’s resolution be made to use the 80/20 option but also to state that if an employee’s net compensation decreases due to that decreased heath care payment, the AATA would make that up to them.

Bernstein asked Robertson if that made sense from an operational point of view. Robertson called it an “unusual proposition” to be put forth. Robertson also called it possibly a slippery slope. He wondered when the provision about making employees whole would end – because benefits are renewed every year. Robertson ventured that Act 152 is not going away. How you calculate making an employee whole would depend on the level of coverage that an employee chose, he continued. If someone chose the “buy down” option, Robertson said, he wondered if the employee would be reimbursed for the co-pays.

Bernstein called those good questions that Robertson had raised. He suggested that the board should either have an amendment to ask staff to figure out a plan, or have that money set aside. Either way, the AATA needs to protect itself from the liability. He suggested an amendment with the direction to staff to come up with a plan to return the extra money to the employees. Gott called that “a reasonable amendment to put forward.”

Cooper said he found himself falling on the other side of issue. Legal counsel has said the law takes effect upon expiration of a plan, he noted. The law is effective and the legislature has acted, he said. Speaking to the commentary of the city of Ann Arbor’s health care program, he said the city’s program includes a “low” and a “high” benefit that’s similar to the new approach that the AATA is now taking.

As a public employee for over 30 years, Cooper said, the cost of his health care that he pays out of pocket and the amount of coverage he receives has changed annually. At this point, he said, he wanted to separate what the board had to do to be in compliance with the law, and what it chooses to do if there is a “windfall.” Cooper stated, “I want to first and foremost comply with the law.”

He said he’d be voting to support the recommendations that were written in consultation with the AATA’s attorney. The financial implication of the decision should be subject to staff doing the thinking they need to do to bring a bona fide recommendation back. He did not want to do both things at the same time. He’d oppose any amendment to the resolution that contemplates the work of the staff [in coming up with a way to distribute the extra money] in advance of that work having been done.

Bernstein got clarification that Act 152 is already in effect. It affects the AATA on Aug. 1, because that’s when the non-union employees’ health plan gets renewed. For union workers, the contract runs through the end of the year.

Bernstein asked Cooper if he’d be opposed to including an amendment that asks the staff to present the board with a plan to make some kind of compensation to employees with the excess.

Cooper said that the action taken by the board needs to be “clear and crisp” about compliance with the law. The decision that’s made on a budget issue is a separate issue and needs to be treated separately. So yes, he would oppose such an amendment, Cooper said.

Bernstein asked Cooper if he’d be willing to sponsor a separate resolution that directed staff to find a way to compensate staff between now and the end of the year. Cooper responded with a question of his own: Is that the normal process for making amendments to the budget? Cooper felt it’s not the purview of a board member at the table. Bernstein felt that it was within a board member’s purview. Funding has been adjusted periodically by the board, when asked to do so by staff, Bernstein said. Instructing staff to bring the board a plan doesn’t mean the board has to act on it. It just means that it’s a direction the board would like to take.

Kerson ameliorated the disagreement between Bernstein and Cooper by saying that the discussion he’d heard by the board had addressed some of the long-range concerns he had about the issue. He heard clearly amongst board members that “just because the state gave us a hammer to use against our employees, we don’t have to use it.” Kerson said he also appreciated Cooper’s point of view – that compensation is a complex issue and has budget implications. Just as the board should not rush a resolution about compliance, he said, the board should not rush a resolution about compensation – because it could be misunderstood. The sense of the board, Kerson felt, was that if there’s a “windfall” then the AATA ought to think creatively about how to treat employees fairly as a team.

Kerson said he was still not comfortable with the attorney’s recommendation. However, he said he did not mind delaying the direction to staff about how to restore the compensation. He said he appreciated Bernstein’s efforts to tie the two issues together. Kerson felt it was okay if the two things were on separate tracks. He felt it’s clear that, “We don’t want to hammer our employees unless we have to.” Kerson felt like that issue could be put into the committee process and that would be okay. When Kerson indicated he’d vote against the resolution, even with the kind of amendment that Bernstein had described, Bernstein moved the issue to a vote.

Outcome: The board voted 4-2 to pass the resolution adopting the 80/20 approach to Act 152 compliance. Dissenting were Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson. David Nacht was absent.

WALLY: North-South Rail

The board considered authorization of the funds for north-south commuter rail planning that were already part of its approved fiscal year 2012 budget, which runs through Sept. 30, 2012. The total in the line item for the WALLY (Washtenaw and Livingston Railway) is $230,000, of which $45,000 are AATA funds.

Other entities that have contributed money to the WALLY project include: the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ($50,000); Washtenaw County ($50,000); city of Howell DDA ($37,000); and a federal grant ($48,000). The planned expenditures are for station design work and for other consulting work on railroad operations and liability issues.

Ordinarily, the expenditure of funds from the budget would not necessarily need an explicit board authorization. However, in the case of the WALLY project, the board stipulated in a Sept. 15, 2011 resolution that the money designated for WALLY in the FY 2012 budget would not be expended without the explicit consent of the board. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA on WALLY Rail: Forward with Caution"]

At its April 19, 2012 meeting, the AATA board had already received a written report in its board packet with an eight-page update on the status of WALLY, which is envisioned to provide north-south commuter rail service between Howell and Ann Arbor.

The conclusion of the report was a staff recommendation to expend funds already included in the FY 2012 budget that are designated for the WALLY project.

One of the challenges for WALLY is the cooperation of the Ann Arbor Railroad in the use of the tracks south of roughly Barton and Plymouth roads on the north side of Ann Arbor. Ideally, the commuter service would extend farther south into Ann Arbor. The report contains a description of an Oct. 12, 2011 meeting between Ann Arbor Railroad president Jim Erickson and AATA CEO Michael Ford, when Ann Arbor Railroad expressed continued general opposition to passenger service on its property. However, the meeting offered some possibility that Ann Arbor Railroad would at least work with the AATA on the issue of railcar storage immediately south of a WALLY station. And the report describes Ann Arbor Railroad as willing to entertain a “business proposition.” [.pdf of April 2012 WALLY update]

The resolution considered by the AATA board at its June 21 meeting indicates that the expenditure of the funds for station design should not be analyzed as a commitment to future capital expenses or funding for operations:

AATA makes no commitment to providing either capital or operating funding at this time, and AATA currently takes no position regarding the start date of service due to the uncertainty with respect to funding. AATA will continue to work with MDOT and the local communities to seek and apply for federal funding of the project. Once funding issues are fully resolved, AATA will commit to a service start‐up date.

At the June 21 meeting, board chair Jesse Bernstein asked AATA strategic planner Michael Benham to provide an overview of the board’s previous position on WALLY funds and why the board was voting – so that if people see the vote on the Community Television Network, they’ll know what’s going on.

Benham reviewed the background of the resolution. He said as a result of the Sept. 15, 2011 resolution on the expenditure of WALLY funds, AATA staff had checked with other communities and other organizations to confirm the project’s viability. Benham reported that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is 100% behind the project. Ann Arbor Railroad, he allowed, is opposed to passenger service on their track, but left the door open to a business proposition that would respond to concerns about liability and passenger safety. Benham said that the AATA considered that positive compared to what they’d been hearing previously. [AARR owns the track from around Barton Road southward into Ann Arbor, so AARR's opposition is significant.]

Of the other communities along the route, Benham told the board, Howell is the most supportive – and has contributed money to the project. Others are less supportive, he allowed – like Genoa Township, which has not taken a position for or against. The AATA is working with Howell to get a presentation before the Livingston County board of commissioners. The funding for the WALLY planning effort is current a mixture of funds granted to the AATA by different bodies: the city of Howell, the Ann Arbor DDA and Washtenaw County. There’s also $48,000 from a federal grant that’s coming through the state of Michigan for station design work. What’s being proposed to expend from the FY 2012 budget, Benham said, is station design work and miscellaneous consulting. [.pdf of June 2012 WALLY update]

Bernstein asked for confirmation that the funds contributed from other organizations were “in hand.” Yes, answered Benham. Roger Kerson got confirmation that the funds “in hand” are not fungible, that is, could not be used for some other purpose by the AATA – a purpose besides WALLY.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the expenditure of the previously budgeted WALLY funds.

AATA Connector Study

Pending the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, the AATA will be moving ahead with an alternatives analysis of a connector study – for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of technology for the corridor (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

That study will move forward, based on a total of $300,000 of local funding that has been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support is: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

A feasibility study costing $640,000 has already been completed. That study was also funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, UM and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

A total of $1.5 million for the connector alternatives analysis study – of which $1.2 million is a federal grant – is included in the AATA’s capital and categorical grant program, on which the AATA held a public hearing at its June 21 meeting. In November 2011, AATA CEO Michael Ford had updated the board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis, saying that phase would take around 16 months.

Outcome: The information was provided in the written report to the board from Michael Ford, which was included in the board’s June 21 meeting information packet. However, it was not an agenda voting item and received no board discussion.

New Lift-Equipped Buses

The board considered the purchase of five new wheelchair lift‐equipped paratransit vehicles for $390,000 from Mobility Transportation Services. These vehicles are to be purchased using federal formula funds with matching funds from the state of Michigan. The vehicles are to be used for the AATA’s paratransit service, which is marketed under the name A-Ride.

After the meeting, AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black told The Chronicle that these are the same vehicles mentioned in the AATA’s capital and categorical grant program. The program, on which a public hearing was held at the June 21 meeting, includes “5 Small Replacement Buses for Paratransit Service” with a federal share of $600,000.

The reduced cost, compared to what had been specified in the grant program, was attributed to the ability of the AATA to purchase the vehicles through the state of Michigan’s MiDEAL program.

At the meeting, Black clarified that the vehicles are replacement vehicles – and those vehicles to be replaced will be sold at auction. They were purchased in 2005, which is consistent with a seven-year useful life. The AATA has looked at options for replacement over the course of the last year, Black said. Those that they’d selected for purchase have a Chevrolet chassis with a 2010 “clean diesel” engine. The body is made by Champion, which is produced in Imlay City, Mich., he said. They will be “lift style” vehicles instead of “low-floor ramp” style, which is what the AATA has currently in service. There’s not a suitable manufacturer that builds a good low-floor model in that smaller-size vehicle. Black reported that the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC) is comfortable with the selection.

Among the options the AATA had explored was alternative fuel vehicles. One manufacturer produced a vehicle that is a hybrid, but that manufacturer went out of business. A natural-gas fueled vehicle was also considered, but that could become a fueling challenge for Select Ride, which is the AATA’s current contractor for its paratransit service.

Sue Gott expressed her thanks to staff for the effort to explore clean-fuel vehicles.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the purchase of the five lift-equipped buses for paratransit service.

Capital and Categorical Grant Program

On the agenda was a public hearing on the AATA’s capital and categorical grant program – the set of projects and expenditures for which the AATA is applying for federal funding.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, introduced the hearing, describing it as a required public hearing on a series of applications. He also described it as a culmination of a public involvement process by the AATA that includes the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), which conducts a hearing in connection with its transportation improvement program for Washtenaw County. AATA participates in that process, White said. White suggested that WATS is really the place where you can have an effect on transportation, because that’s when planning is being done on projects.

For AATA, the five-year program of capital and categorical projects is developed over several months, from November to January, by the board’s planning and development committee, and all of those meetings are open to the public, he said. [The staff memo accompanying the board packet also notes that the PDC meeting summaries are transmitted to the board as part of the written material provided to the entire AATA board for its monthly meetings, and that material is available on the AATA website.]

That night’s hearing, White said, is the current fiscal year’s component of the five-year program for capital and categorical grants. He characterized it as a very complex program this year – much larger than usual. One of the elements of the program that is published, White noted, is the amount of available funds. White noted that the Section 5307 funds are an estimate, because Congress hasn’t finished the appropriations yet. But he felt it would be pretty close to $6 million. In addition, he said about $4.6 million in funding is carried forward from the previous year.

Saving money from previous years is something AATA does regularly, White explained, so that it can, for example, take care of major bus replacement needs. The categorical funds include about $2 million in clean fuel funds and $2.6 million of a “livability fund” – which covers the five new buses to be used for additional service on Washtenaw Avenue. The “flex funds” from the Federal Highway Administration – about $1 million – will be used for the Blake Transit Center reconstruction. The $1.2 million for “alternatives analysis” is for the connector study, White said. [The area of study runs from US-23 and Plymouth, down Plymouth to State and further southward along State to I-94.]

Designated Recipient: AATA FY 2012
$ 6,000,000  (estimate) Section 5307 Apportionment
$ 4,638,981  Section 5307 Carryover Funds
$ 2,079,000  Section 5309 Clean Fuels Funds
$ 2,625,000  Section 5309 Livability Funds
$ 1,200,000  Section 5316 Alternatives Analysis
$   993,500  Section 330 Flex Funds from FHWA
$17,536,481  (estimate) Total Funds Available

-

The total program of AATA projects comes to $15.7 million, White said. That program includes: 11 large replacement buses; 5 additional buses for expansion of service; 25 vans for the vanpool program; 5 small replacement buses for paratransit service; computer hardware and software. There are some funds for the bus storage facility and bus hoist project, which the AATA is completing, he said. Money also is included for the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center.

There’s a small amount of money for constructing and improving pedestrian walkways, White said. It’s a new category for the AAATA, he explained, because the eligibility has been expanded for these types of projects by the Federal Transit Administration. If there’s money left over after buying buses, the amount for pedestrian improvements could be increased, he said. [.pdf of the FY 2012 capital and categorical grant program]

No one spoke at the public hearing.

AATA/AAPS Bus Service

Starting in the fall of 2012, the AATA will provide bus service for three public school routes – one for each of the comprehensive high schools in the Ann Arbor Public Schools system. The AATA service will be provided in lieu of services currently provided for those three school bus routes, for which the AAPS contracts with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

The information packet for the AATA board’s monthly meeting on June 21 includes as part of CEO Michael Ford’s written report to the AATA board: “… we have agreed to replace three school bus routes – one from each comprehensive high school – with AATA service. These high school students will use regular AATA service with their fare paid by AAPS.”

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis confirmed in a telephone interview with The Chronicle that three school bus routes will be replaced with AATA service by extending existing AATA routes: #18 to serve Skyline High School students; #16 to serve Pioneer High School; and #22 to serve Huron High School. The fare, said Margolis, will be paid by AAPS at a rate of $0.50 per ride. The rides will be counted and regulated by issuing swipeable cards to those students who are entitled to use the bus service. The cards can be swiped through the bus fare box when students board.

The regular fare for students on an AATA bus is $0.75. After the June 21 board meeting, AATA manager of service development Chris White explained the lower cost charged to AAPS, compared with the standard fare. For AAPS, a transfer will count as two rides – because of the card swipes that will determine the amount of the payments.

The pending agreement between the AATA and AAPS was noted in The Chronicle’s April 19, 2012 AATA board meeting report. Context for the agreement includes this year’s AAPS budget discussions, which included the possibility of eliminating all busing service provided by AAPS. In the budget finally approved by the AAPS board on June 13, 2012, most of the basic school bus service was preserved. However, some specific transportation services were eliminated, including the midday shuttles for Community High School and some bus stops for Ann Arbor Open.

The AAPS board decided to preserve most transportation services for the coming 2012-13 school year – in part by tapping the district’s fund reserves. The reasoning for that decision was based in part on the concern that the timing of a decision, in May, to eliminate school bus service for the fall would not leave sufficient time for families to plan for contingencies. At its May 23, 2012 meeting, the AAPS board directed the district’s staff to form an ad hoc transportation committee that is supposed to bring forward a recommendation on school transportation in early 2013. AATA’s Ford and other community members will be part of that committee.

Outcome: This was an item of information only, and there was no board discussion of the issue.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

The board entertained various communications at its June 21 meeting, 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: Special Meeting – July 16

CEO Michael Ford reported that he was requesting a special board meeting on July 16, 2012 to cover a few items: the five-year service program associated with the possible transition to a countywide authority; bus advertising; the relocation of a fire hydrant; and the 2013 work plan. [The board does not typically schedule a monthly meeting in July, hence the need to call a special meeting. The July 16 special meeting is tentatively scheduled for 4 p.m. at the AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Hwy. ]

Comm/Comm: Countywide Transit – Four-Party Agreement

As part of his verbal report to the board at the June 21 meeting, Ford gave an update on the status of the legal framework under which the AATA could transition into a broader transit authority based on Act 196 of 1986.

By way of background, the most recent session of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – a June 14 working session at which they did not vote – resulted in a long discussion of the documents that would be used to establish a new transit authority. [For recent Chronicle coverage of that working session, see: "Differences on Countywide Transit Debated"]

County commissioners weighed possible amendments to the four-party agreement and articles of incorporation that are associated with a possible expansion of governance and service area of the AATA. The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

The city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as well as the AATA board, have approved the documents.

A committee with representation from each of the parties met the afternoon of June 18. [Members of the committee are: Sabra Briere and Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council); Paul Schreiber and Pete Murdock (Ypsilanti mayor/city council); Conan Smith and Alicia Ping (Washtenaw County board); Jesse Bernstein and Charles Griffith (AATA board); David Read and David Phillips (U196 board).]

At the Ann Arbor city council’s meeting on the evening of June 18, Briere reported on the consensus of the committee. They felt that the possible amendments discussed by the Washtenaw County board would not be brought before the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti or the board of the AATA at this time, and that the original language would be allowed to stand.

At the AATA’s June 21 board meeting, Ford confirmed what Briere had reported at the city council’s meeting earlier in the week. Ford also reported that the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation are scheduled to appear on the Washtenaw County board’s July 11 ways & means committee meeting.

That session, according to one Washtenaw County commissioner, is expected to be a “brawl.”

Comm/Comm: Countywide Transit – U196, Five-Year Service Plan

Board chair Jesse Bernstein reported that progress continues to be made on the possible governance of a new transit authority. The unincorporated board (the U196 board) will not have a July meeting, he said, and that time will be used instead to meet with municipalities throughout the county. A third round of district advisory committee (DAC) meetings is scheduled for August and September. [More information about the U196 board and DAC are on the AATA's Moving You Forward website.]

Part of the possible transition of the AATA to a countywide area of governance and service is the creation of a five-year program of expanded service.

Bernstein asked for an update on efforts to test new routes in the five-year service plan to make sure they’re viable and doable. AATA manager of service development Chris White explained that it’s not just the routes that are tested – it’s all the service components. The scheduled headways and frequencies have to be tested to make sure the various routes can work together as a whole. That testing starts the following week, White said. That same kind of testing will be done with commuter services and with the proposed circulators, White said.

Comm/Comm: LAC

Cheryl Webber gave the report from the AATA’s local advisory council – a body that advises the AATA on issues related to the disability community as well as seniors.

Doug Strong, CEO of the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers, at the UM board of regents June 21, 2012 meeting.

Webber reported that they’d received no response from the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers about the need for sheltered walkways from bus stops to medical center facilities.

Although Sue Gott – who is UM’s university planner, and sits on the AATA board – had indicated she’d facilitate a response, Webber reported the LAC had received no response.

The issue also had been raised at the AATA board’s April 19, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, Clark Charnetski reported that the LAC had sent Doug Strong a letter. Strong is CEO of the UM Hospitals and Health Centers. The LAC had inquired about UM’s plans to provide sheltered walkways for riders of public transportation so they can get from bus stops into the medical center. The LAC had not yet received a reply to the letter, Charnetski reported at that meeting, so they’d be sending out a follow-up letter.

In response to Webber on June 21, Gott said she thought that LAC was going to send her the information that had already been conveyed to UM Hospitals. With that information in hand, she said she could facilitate some kind of response.

Comm/Comm: Vanpools

As part of his verbal report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the AATA has now launched its vanpool program, with five vanpools – two originating out of Adrian and three from Jackson.

By way of background, in the vanpool program, the vehicles are owned and maintained by AATA. The vehicle is stored by the driver, who is a member of the vanpool and who does not need to pay for the service. For vanpools that start and end in Washtenaw County, the minimum number of riders in a pool of four plus the driver is charged $99 per rider per month. For 5-6 riders plus a driver, that per-rider cost drops to $79 per rider. Outside of Washtenaw County, the respective rates for different numbers in the vanpool are $139 and $119.

All five vanpools are affiliated with the University of Michigan. Ford reported that the AATA also is working with Zingerman’s to provide vanpool service to its employees. He noted that 20-25 Zingerman’s employees are interested in a vanpool.

Comm/Comm: Internal AATA Organization

In her report from the planning and development committee, Anya Dale noted that the committee had received a presentation from the Generator Group, which is analyzing AATA’s readiness to change as an organization [in the context of a possible transition to a countywide authority].

Board member Anya Dale reports out from the planning and development committee.

A survey of employees had been completed, Dale said, and there’d been a great response rate. One of the areas of study is employees’ levels of engagement and connection to AATA’s mission. A key finding was that the level of engagement is higher at AATA than other organizations. Board chair Jesse Bernstein asked Dale later in the meeting what was meant by a “high level of engagement.” Dale described that as meaning employees are connected to the overall mission. Bernstein ventured that meant that there’s an alignment of what the board wants to do and what employees believe they should do.

Comm/Comm: Performance Update

Charles Griffith gave an update from the performance monitoring and external relations committee. The AATA is continuing to show increased ridership on the fixed-route service, but he said it’s still a bit down for the demand-response service. The operating expenses per passenger are up, Griffith said, because the AATA has added service [along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor]. It’ll take a while for operational expenses to catch up, he said. Overall, the committee is feeling good about performance levels, Griffith concluded. [.pdf of June 2012 performance report]

Present: Charles Griffith, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Absent: David Nacht.

Next meeting: A special meeting has been requested for Thursday, July 16, 2012. The tentative location and time are: 4 p.m. at the AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway. [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!

Other entities that have contributed money to the WALLY project include: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ($50,000); Washtenaw County ($50,000); city of Howell DDA ($37,000); and a federal grant ($48,000). The planned expenditures are for station design work and for other consulting work on railroad operations and liability issues.

Ordinarily, the expenditure of funds from the budget would not necessarily need an explicit board authorization. However, in the case of the WALLY project, the board stipulated in a Sept. 15, 2011 resolution that the money designated for WALLY in the FY 2012 budget would not be expended without the explicit consent of the board. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA on WALLY Rail: Forward with Caution"]

At its April 19, 2012 meeting, the AATA board had already received a written report in its board packet with an eight-page update on the status of WALLY, which is envisioned to provide north-south commuter rail service between Howell and Ann Arbor.

The conclusion of the report is a staff recommendation to expend funds already included in the FY 2012 budget that are designated for the WALLY project.

One of the challenges for WALLY is the cooperation of the Ann Arbor Railroad in the use of the tracks south of roughly Barton and Plymouth roads on the north side of Ann Arbor. Ideally, the commuter service would extend farther south into Ann Arbor. The report contains a description of an Oct. 12, 2011 meeting between Ann Arbor Railroad president Jim Erickson and AATA CEO Michael Ford, when Ann Arbor Railroad expressed continued general opposition to passenger service on its property. However, the meeting offered some possibility that Ann Arbor Railroad would at least work with the AATA on the issue of railcar storage immediately south of a WALLY station. And the report describes Ann Arbor Railroad as willing to entertain a “business proposition.” [.pdf of April 2012 WALLY update]

The resolution passed by the AATA board on June 21, 2012 indicates that the expenditure of the funds for station design should not be analyzed as a commitment to future capital expenses or funding for operations: “AATA makes no commitment to providing either capital or operating funding at this time, and AATA currently takes no position regarding the start date of service due to the uncertainty with respect to funding. AATA will continue to work with MDOT and the local communities to seek and apply for federal funding of the project. Once funding issues are fully resolved, AATA will commit to a service start‐up date.”

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

Sue Gott takes her seat for the first time at the board table of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (Photos by the writer.)

First was the election of a new board treasurer, David Nacht, in the wake of two relatively recent resignations from the board – former board treasurer Sue McCormick and Rich Robben. Nacht was elected treasurer though he was absent from the meeting; however, based on remarks from board chair Jesse Bernstein, Nacht had agreed in advance to serve in that capacity.

The board also formally received the report from a financial task force on funding for an expanded, countywide governance and service area. The task force is currently “on hold” following its Feb. 29, 2012 meeting, when it made its recommendations to the AATA. A few days after that task force meeting, the Ann Arbor city council ratified its part of a four-party agreement – between the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – that provides a framework for possible transition to a new governance structure for the AATA.

Both the resolution to receive the report, as well as  remarks at the board table during the meeting, made clear that the AATA board isn’t committing to an unconditional acceptance of every recommendation made by the task force. Rather, the task force’s recommendations will inform the board’s decision-making.

Also related to possible countywide expansion, at the April 16 meeting, the announcement was made of a special board meeting set for Thursday, April 26 at AATA headquarters, 2700 South Industrial Highway. The purpose of the meeting will be for the board to vote on adoption of a five-year service plan. The plan would be part of a proposal that is eventually put before the general electorate, who must ratify whatever funding plan is used for an expanded transportation authority.

AATA CEO Michael Ford indicated that the working name for the new transportation authority, if one is formed through the four-party agreement, is “Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority.”

The board also made a decision on an unarmed security guard contract that was impacted by the AATA’s adoption of a living wage standard. The hourly wages in the contract now meet the city of Ann Arbor living wage standard, adopted by the AATA board at its June 16, 2011 meeting. The need to bring the wages up to the living wage standard resulted in an increase that met the threshold requiring the board to approve it.

The board also received its usual range of updates and reports from its CEO and committees. Those included recent ridership numbers, an update on the lawsuit that was filed last year against the AATA over advertising issues, the proposed north-south commuter rail known as WALLY, and the AATA’s response to the auditor’s report.

During the meeting, Ford reported on discussions between AATA and the Ann Arbor Public Schools that have led to a preliminary agreement to replace three high school bus routes with existing AATA service – one route each for Huron, Pioneer and Skyline high schools. According to Ford, the change would allow AAPS and the Washtenaw Intermediate School District – which currently handles bus services for AAPS – to eliminate three buses and reduce costs.

Board Treasurer Election

As one of the first items handled by the board at its April 16 meeting, chair Jesse Bernstein asked for a motion to elect David Nacht as treasurer. The position had remained unfilled since the resignation of Sue McCormick from the board. She served through the Dec. 15, 2011 meeting. Shortly after that, Rich Robben also resigned from the board.

McCormick was replaced by Eli Cooper, city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager. And Robben was replaced by Sue Gott, university planner at the University of Michigan. Gott was unable to be present at the board’s March meeting, so the April 19 meeting marked the first meeting she attended. At the meeting, she received welcoming remarks from Bernstein and others.

Offering his support for Nacht’s nomination as treasurer, Charles Griffith took an initial humorous tack, based on the fact that Nacht was not present at the meeting. However, saying that he didn’t think his remarks were getting any funnier, Griffith quickly wrapped them up. Bernstein expressed his appreciation to Nacht for being willing to serve in the capacity of treasurer.

Outcome: The board unanimously elected David Nacht as treasurer.

With the election of Nacht as treasurer, the board is again settled into a complete committee and officer structure. Officers are now: Jesse Bernstein (chair); Charles Griffith (secretary); and David Nacht (treasurer). The planning and development committee consists of: Anya Dale (committee chair); Sue Gott; and Eli Cooper. The performance monitoring and external relations committee consists of: Charles Griffith (committee chair); David Nacht and Roger Kerson. The governance committee consists of the board chair and the two committee chairs. [See also previous Chronicle coverage: "AATA Resets Committee Membership."]

Financial Task Force Report

The board was asked to vote on a resolution that accepted for further consideration the recommendations of a financial task force on funding for an expanded, countywide governance and service area.

The task force is currently “on hold” following its Feb. 29, 2012 meeting, when it made its recommendations to the AATA. A few days after that task force meeting, the Ann Arbor city council ratified its part of a four-party agreement – between the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – that provides a framework for possible transition to a new governance structure for the AATA.

The April 19 board resolution addresses part of the reason that the task force was reluctant to make a specific funding recommendation: Pending currently is state legislation on (1) transportation funding through vehicle registration fees, and (2) the establishment of a regional transit authority for a four-county area in southeast Michigan (including Washtenaw County). From the board’s April 19 resolution: “… the AATA will monitor proposed legislation and other conditions affecting transit funding, and reconvene the FTF as needed to consider amendments to their recommendations…”

The financial task force had calculated that there’s a roughly $32.9 million gap between existing funding and what would be needed to fund the first five years of expanded services. To cover that gap, the task force calculated that a countywide millage of 0.5 mill would be needed – if the mechanism of funding were to be a countywide transit tax. But the task force declined to identify a millage as the solution to that funding gap, in light of pending legislation at the state level that might make other mechanisms available. [.pdf of Feb. 29 report draft approved by the financial task force]

The categories of service recommended as part of the first five years of the program include ongoing bus replacements, urban bus network enhancements (including enhancements to the WAVE, a western Washtenaw express), countywide door-to-door and flex services, express bus services, local community circulators, park-and-ride lots, vanpool services, and “superstops” in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

The subcommittee also recommended an average increase for fixed-route fares of 50 cents, with the possibility of fare increases for paratransit services as well. Higher fares should be charged for express bus services, with the possibility of distance-based zone fares.

Also significant in the financial task force report was a recommendation that certain projects – like the north-south high-capacity connector, high-capacity service along Washtenaw Avenue, as well as the east-west and north-south commuter rail service – be considered separately. Those projects are not recommended for inclusion for local expenditures in the first five years. It’s also recommended that the Ann Arbor downtown circulator service (previously called The LINK) should be discretionary and should rely on private investment.

The language of the resolution passed by the AATA board on April 19 does not accept the task force recommendations unconditionally. The resolved clause reads [emphasis added] “… accepts the recommendations of the Financial Task Force for consideration by the AATA and the community.”

And the minutes from the April 10 meeting of the planning and development committee indicate that there may not be universal agreement on the AATA board with at least one of the task force recommendations – to exclude rail projects from expenditures of local funds in the first five years of the plan, and to spend local money only on local projects.

From the minutes: “Eli Cooper was assured by Michael Benham [AATA strategic planner] that the FTF is an advisory task force, with the board having ultimate authority to accept, decline, or modify their recommendations. Eli expressed concern with only using local money for local projects for the first 5 years. If this was to occur, then the Board may not be in alignment with their overall priorities (for expansion of services). Other than that, Eli was interested to hear more about the FTF and staff opinions as to how they see the first 5 years playing out.”

In reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee at the April 19 board meeting, Charles Griffith noted that the committee had received the report on the financial task force recommendation.

Eli Cooper summarized the work of the task force and the subcommittee that had formed within the task force, by saying the group went above and beyond expectations, by providing models that AATA staff could continue to use to evaluate the implications of different strategies. He said it was with great pleasure that he was putting forward the motion to accept the report and allowing it to inform the board’s deliberations. He appreciated the work that the task force had done.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein added his thanks to the task force, saying that they were very busy people who volunteered – two of whom lead billion-dollar companies. [He was referring to Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc. and J. Patrick Doyle, CEO of Domino's Pizza.] It was a joy to see those people get together and roll up their sleeves and get the work done, he said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution accepting the task force recommendations for further consideration.

Unarmed Security Contract

The board considered a one-year, $205,000 contract with Advance Security to provide unarmed security guard services. It will be for the fourth year of a contract first authorized by the board on March 19, 2009 for one year.

From left: AATA board members Charles Griffith and Roger Kerson. They paused for The Chronicle in their conversation after the meeting.

The contract came before the board because it increased the amount of the contract from the previous year by more than 10% – from $150,000 to $205,000, or 36.7%. The AATA procurement policy requires board approval for increases of contracts over 10%. The new contract is based on hourly wages between $14.33 and $19.67 per hour for a regular shift, and between $21.50 and $29.51 for extra hours and holidays.

The hourly wages in the contract now meet the city of Ann Arbor living wage standard, recently adopted by the AATA board at its June 16, 2011 meeting. The need to bring the wages up to the living wage standard was the reason for the revision to the contract. The living wage standard for the city of Ann Arbor is set to increase slightly starting May 1, 2012 – to  $12.17/hour for those employers paying health insurance and $13.57/hour for those employers not paying health insurance.

The original contract, authorized by the board in 2009, was met with one vote of dissent at the time – from David Nacht, who wanted his no vote to express his desire in the future that clearer information be provided about low bids. The staff memo accompanying the April 19 resolution indicated that the original contract was sent to 29 firms for bid and that 11 responses were received.

In reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, which had reviewed the contract, Charles Griffith described the revisions as based on getting the contract in compliance with the new living wage policy.

When the board came to the item on its agenda for a vote, board chair Jesse Bernstein asked for a verbal overview, which AATA controller Phil Webb gave. From a back-and-forth between Griffith and Webb, it emerged that the board would almost certainly not need to approve the contract again next year, because the need to increase it was already being addressed this year.

AATA CEO Michael Ford alerted the board to the fact that other contracts impacted by the living wage policy would likely be coming to the board for approval, when they were renewed.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the new contract with Advance Security for unarmed security guard services.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

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

Comm/Comm: WALLY Update

As part of its meeting information packet, the board was provided with an eight-page update on the status of WALLY (Washtenaw and Livingston Railway), which is envisioned to provide north-south commuter rail service between Howell and Ann Arbor.

The conclusion of the report is a staff recommendation to expend funds ($50,000) already included in the FY 2012 budget that are designated for the WALLY project. The report includes a draft resolution that the board could use to authorize the funds.

Ordinarily, the expenditure of funds from the budget would not necessarily need an explicit board authorization. However, in the case of the WALLY project, the board stipulated in a Sept. 15, 2011 resolution that the $50,000 designated for WALLY in the FY 2012 budget would not be expended without the explicit consent of the board. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA on WALLY Rail: Forward with Caution."]

One of the challenges for WALLY is the cooperation of the Ann Arbor Railroad in the use of the tracks south of roughly Barton and Plymouth roads on the north side of Ann Arbor. Ideally, the commuter service would extend farther south into Ann Arbor. The report contains a description of an Oct. 12, 2011 meeting between Ann Arbor Railroad president Jim Erickson and AATA CEO Michael Ford, when Ann Arbor Railroad representatives expressed continued general opposition to passenger service on its property. However, the meeting offered some possibility that Ann Arbor Railroad would at least work with AATA on the issue of railcar storage immediately south of a WALLY station. And the report describes Ann Arbor Railroad as willing to entertain a “business proposition.” [.pdf of April 2012 WALLY update]

Ford indicated at the April 19 meeting that more work would be needed before the issue of WALLY could be brought before the whole board.

Comm/Comm: Loose Ends from Audit

Reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith said the committee had reviewed the audit from last month. [The audit findings were discussed at the board’s March 15, 2012 meeting and included in The Chronicle’s report of that meeting.]

The auditor had made some recommendations, he said, and the AATA had responded to them. The committee was pretty happy with where things stand, Griffith reported. One outstanding issue the committee is still reviewing is the AATA’s practice of buying fuel futures. Griffith said the committee does not think the practice is actually allowed, based on some further legal review, because it stands out as an unconventional practice. But the committee has encouraged staff to explore other options. The practice has saved the AATA money, he said, but it’s just not very standard.

Among the other items in the auditor’s report is an item of information: If Michigan’s personal property tax were to be eliminated, as proposed in Senate Bill 34, the amount of the annual transit tax that’s used to help fund the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority would decrease by $420,000 annually.

AATA controller Phil Webb included the item in his reaction to other findings in the audit – which he conveyed in a memo to AATA CEO Michael Ford. The memo was part of the AATA board’s information packet for its April 19 meeting.

Currently, the AATA receives around $9 million a year from a roughly 2 mill tax. The $9 million is about 31% of the AATA’s $29.4 million FY 2012 budgeted revenues. The elimination of the personal property tax would decrease the AATA’s total budget revenues by around 1.4%.

Comm/Comm: Ridership Stats

As a part of its regular information packet, the board received the performance data on ridership, costs per mile and the like. For regular fixed-route service on weekdays, ridership in March 2012 showed a gain of 8% compared to March 2011 – an average of 24,501 passengers for each weekday, compared to 22,639 per weekday in March of 2012.

AATA ridership, year-over-year. Red bars are this year's figures. The blue line reflects last year's figures. (Image links to .pdf of detail performance data.)

That continues a trend since October 2011, the start of the current fiscal year for the AATA. Each month the average number of weekday passengers per month has been greater than the corresponding month in the previous year.

For the AATA’s paratransit service (A-Ride), the data from March show a slight decrease in the average number of passengers for each weekday – 505 compared to 518 a year ago. But in four of the last six months, ridership on A-Ride has been slightly greater than in the corresponding month a year earlier.

Increased ridership had led to decreased costs per rider, per service hour and per service mile, and a corresponding increase in the percentage of the cost that is paid by rider fares. [.pdf of AATA ridership and performance data]

Also at the meeting, CEO Michael Ford provided the most recent numbers for the new Detroit Metro Airport service  (AirRide) for the period from April 8-14. For that period, the service had 678 total passengers – 336 eastbound to the airport and 342 westbound from the airport to Ann Arbor.

The AirRide service began on April 2. It offers 12 buses each way daily. The AATA authorized the contract with Indian Trails’ Michigan Flyer to provide the airport service at its Feb. 16, 2012 meeting.

Comm/Comm: AAPS Collaboration

In his oral report to the board, CEO Michael Ford highlighted an item from his written report, which relates to the current fiscal challenges of the Ann Arbor Public Schools system. AATA and AAPS have been discussing ways the two entities could collaborate. From the written report:

Chris White [AATA manager of service development] and Ron Copeland [AATA operations manager] have been meeting with staff from the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) and Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD). WISD operates school bus service for AAPS. Discussions have yielded a preliminary agreement to replace three high school bus routes with the use of existing AATA service, with minor modifications; one route each for Huron, Pioneer and Skyline High Schools. This would permit AAPS/WISD to completely eliminate three buses and reduce costs.  AATA would provide passes which AAPS would distribute to eligible students. Each time a student boards a bus AATA would charge AAPS. It is hoped that agreement can be reached in April for implementation in the fall of 2012.

Comm/Comm: AATA Lawsuit Update

On April 19, U.S District judge Mark Goldsmith heard motions at the federal building and courthouse in Flint on a lawsuit filed last year against the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. At the AATA board meeting later that day, board chair Jesse Bernstein reported that after hearing oral arguments, Goldsmith did not rule on anything from the bench. His written ruling is expected at some unspecified future time.

The initial lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on Nov. 28, 2011 on behalf of activist Blaine Coleman, who had sought to purchase an advertisement for the sides of AATA buses. The AATA refused to run the ad. The proposed ad includes the text, “Boycott ‘Israel’ Boycott Apartheid,” and an image depicting a scorpion-like creature with a skull for a head. [.pdf of image and text of proposed ad]

The two motions heard by Goldsmith on April 19 included one by the plaintiff – for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, to compel the AATA to accept the advertisement for its buses that it had previously rejected. [.pdf of Nov. 29, 2011 ACLU motion for preliminary injunction]

The other motion heard on April 19 was AATA’s motion to dismiss the case. [.pdf of AATA motion to dismiss] [.pdf of AATA brief on preliminary injunction/restraining order] [.pdf of ACLU reply to AATA's response]

At its April 19 meeting, AATA board members had scheduled a closed session on the litigation, as permitted by the Michigan Open Meetings Act, but did not hold the session because Goldsmith did not rule on the two motions.

Comm/Comm: Special Meeting – April 26

During his oral report to the board, AATA CEO Michael Ford said he was asking that a special meeting of the board be convened for Thursday, April 26 at 4:30 p.m. The special meeting will be held at AATA headquarters, 2700 South Industrial Highway.

The purpose of the meeting is to receive formally a detailed five-year service plan that has been developed by the AATA as part of its plan to expand its governance and transportation service to a countywide area. The service plan is part of a key step specified in a four-party agreement – between the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Washtenaw County – that would establish a framework for a possible transition to a new governance structure. From the agreement: “… AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the Washtenaw County.”

Of the four parties to the agreement, the city of Ann Arbor is the only entity so far to ratify it. The Ann Arbor city council voted to approve the four-party agreement at its March 5, 2012 meeting.

It’s hoped that the board will have a copy of the service plan by April 23, before voting on it on April 26.

Also at April’s monthly board meeting, Ford indicated that the working name for the new transportation authority, if one is formed through the four-party agreement, is “Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority.”

Related to the countywide plan, during public commentary at end of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board she appreciated being invited to participate in an organizational district advisory committee meeting for the Ann Arbor district.

Vivienne Armentrout before the AATA board's April 19 meeting. Out of the frame to the right is Sue Gott, with whom Armentrout was talking.

She had some concerns and questions, though. She said that most invitees were members of stakeholder groups, and attendance had been sparse – she attributed that to the somewhat last-minute scheduling of the meeting. She said her understanding of Ann Arbor’s district advisory committee is that it’s supposed to be citizens of Ann Arbor interacting with those people who are representing Ann Arbor on the countywide board. She said she’d like to see broader participation from regular folks.

Board chair Jesse Bernstein thanked Armentrout for attending the meeting and told her she was right – it was an organizational meeting. All such meetings are open to the public and it’s an ongoing process the AATA is beginning. The district advisory committees will meet at least four times a year, he said, not just in Ann Arbor, but in the other districts throughout the county.

Also during public commentary at the end of the meeting, Thomas Partridge called for the as-yet-unincorporated Act 196 countywide board and the financial task force, as well as all similar organizations, to meet in a venue that can be videotaped by Community Television Network.

Comm/Comm: Retreat – May 16

As part of his oral report to the board, CEO Michael Ford announced details of the board’s retreat. It will be held on May 16 starting at noon at the Holiday Inn Express on Briarwood Circle. The hotel is near one of the stops on AATA’s AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro airport. The retreat will include the board’s regular May meeting.

Comm/Comm: IT Plan

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith said the committee had had a fairly lengthy discussion on the IT plan – a benchmarking effort as well as short-, medium- long-term recommendations. There are implications for possible additional staffing, he said, to prepare for expansion of service. He alerted the board that there could be something that comes before the board at a later time.

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council

The local advisory council is a group that provides input and feedback to AATA on disability and senior issues. Reporting to the board on the LAC’s activities, Clark Charnetski welcomed Sue Gott to the board. He told the board the LAC had received a presentation from Jewish Family Services on their accessibility plan. The LAC had also continued its discussion on its driver appreciation program, to recognize great drivers in the paratransit program. The idea is for AATA call-takers to work with the LAC to evaluate the drivers for special recognition.

Charnetski also reported that the LAC had sent Doug Strong a letter. Strong is CEO of University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers. The LAC had inquired about UM’s plans to provide sheltered walkways for riders of public transportation so they can get from bus stops into the medical center. The LAC had not yet received a reply to the letter, so they’d be sending out a follow-up letter.

The LAC had also discussed the A-Ride vehicle replacement program – because the vehicles are reaching the end of their useful life.

Comm/Comm: More Service

During public commentary, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for those needing affordable transportation services and called for additional services, beyond what’s currently offered by AATA. He called on the board to place an update on expanded, countywide transportation on every monthly agenda. He also called for a monthly review of the SelectRide contract through which the AATA provides A-Ride service. He contended that within the last three weeks, he’d asked for rides through A-Ride and had been picked up by two vehicles reeking of gasoline and apparent exhaust system leaks.

Comm/Comm: Disability Community

During public commentary, Carolyn Grawi, with the Center for Independent Living, said she was very pleased that members of the disability community are being involved in the countywide planning effort. She offered some feedback on AirRide service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro airport, saying that some people were not sure where the service would drop them off. She also noted that construction on South State Street was affecting Route #6 on-time performance. It affects the ability of riders to make their connections to other routes, she said, and it’s a general concern, not just one that affects the disability community.

Present: Charles Griffith, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Sue Gott.

Absent: David Nacht.

Next regular meeting and board retreat: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at noon, Holiday Inn Express, 600 Briarwood Circle [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!

The conclusion of the report is a staff recommendation to expend funds ($50,000) already included in the FY 2012 budget that are designated for the WALLY project. The report includes a draft resolution that the board could use to authorize the funds.

Ordinarily, the expenditure of funds from the budget would not necessarily need an explicit board authorization. However, in the case of the WALLY project, the board stipulated in a Sept. 15, 2011 resolution that the $50,000 designated for WALLY in the FY 2012 budget would not be expended without the explicit consent of the board. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA on WALLY Rail: Forward with Caution"]

One of the challenges for WALLY is the cooperation of the Ann Arbor Railroad in the use of the tracks south of roughly Barton and Plymouth Roads on the north side of Ann Arbor. Ideally, the commuter service would extend farther south into Ann Arbor. The report contains a description of an Oct. 12, 2011 meeting between Ann Arbor Railroad president Jim Erickson and AATA CEO Michael Ford, when Ann Arbor Railroad’s expressed continued general opposition to passenger service on its property. However, the meeting offered some possibility that Ann Arbor Railroad would at least work with AATA on the issue of railcar storage immediately south of a WALLY station. And the report describes Ann Arbor Railroad as willing to entertain a “business proposition.”  [.pdf of April 2012 WALLY update]

CEO Michael Ford indicated at the April 19 meeting that more work would be needed before the issue of WALLY could be brought before the whole board.

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

However, the one “resolved” clause requires that funds allocated for WALLY in the 2012 budget ($50,000) cannot be spent, except with the explicit consent of the AATA board.

At the meeting, the board received a status report on the WALLY project from Michael Benham, a special assistant for strategic planning at AATA. Benham was hired in 2009 to handle the WALLY project. Since then, he’s become responsible for directing the development of the countywide transit master plan, which the AATA has developed over the course of the last year.

Highlights from Benham’s report included the fact that starting in 2008, AATA has spent a total of $102,853 on the WALLY project, while other partners have spent a total of $225,000. That money has been spent primarily on a study and public education efforts. As a part of the AATA FY 2012 budget, the AATA has included another $50,000 for the project, which requires the explicit approval of the board before it is spent. That money would be put towards station design.

Benham’s report identifies $16 million already invested by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation in track improvements, with $19 million worth of work still needed. Another $6 million in optional capital improvements is also identified.

Benham’s report projects that after the necessary capital improvements are completed to operate the commuter service, annual operating costs would amount to $5.4 million. Fares would be expected to cover $2.1 million of that, with another $1.4 million coming from the state’s Comprehensive Transportation Fund. That would leave another $1.9 million of local funding still to be identified.

[.pdf of WALLY status report (to reduce file size, does not include scans of letters of support)]

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