AATA governance expansion options.

However, at the more recent meeting in Saline, which took place on April 25, 2013, Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo stated her expectation that the city of Ann Arbor would provide the necessary leadership for better transportation. The meetings of elected officials, which have been coordinated by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, include representatives from the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, the village of Dexter, as well as the townships of Pittsfield and Ypsilanti.

The effort to focus on improved transportation within a narrower geographic footprint near Ann Arbor – instead of the whole of Washtenaw County – has come after an attempt to establish a countywide transit authority unraveled in the fall of 2012. Of the communities in the more narrowly focused urban core, Ypsilanti has been the most assertive in pushing for action.

At the Ypsilanti city council’s April 23 meeting, councilmembers made a formal request to join the AATA under the transit authority’s existing enabling legislation – Act 55 of 1963. That request will now be considered by the AATA board. It also will require the cooperation of the Ann Arbor city council – to amend the AATA’s articles of incorporation.

For the city of Ypsilanti, joining the AATA represents a new way to generate more funding for transportation. Because the city already levies at the state constitutional limit of 20 mills, the city itself can’t add an additional tax burden. But the AATA could ask voters of all member jurisdictions to approve a levy of its own – something that it currently does not do. And that would not count against the 20-mill limit.

Ann Arbor city councilmembers who attended the April 25 urban core meeting expressed cautious support of the idea of adding Ypsilanti to the AATA. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) described himself as “tickled” to see the analysis and breakdown of governance and funding options in the meeting packet. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventured that if the effort required a “coalition of the willing,” then he was willing. But he expressed some caution about the amount of additional tax money Ann Arbor voters might be willing to approve.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje ventured that the Ann Arbor city council might be able to address the issue in June – after the fiscal year budget is approved in May. He suggested specifically an additional AATA board seat for Ypsilanti as well as one for Ann Arbor, which would bring the board to a total of nine. Hieftje indicated a possibility that the August deadline for placing a millage on the November ballot could be met. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) expressed her view that Ann Arbor voters would need a clearer idea of what the improvements would be, before they’d support an additional tax.

If a decision were not made until August to place a measure on the November ballot, that would result in a relatively aggressive timeline for a millage campaign. For the AATA’s part, board chair Charles Griffith reiterated at the April 25 meeting the same sentiments he’d expressed a week earlier at the board’s April 18, 2013 meeting – that the AATA would give Ypsilanti’s request full consideration. He also stressed that the AATA didn’t want to take an action that could preclude other approaches to governance.

Those other approaches to governance could include a range of possibilities, such as membership of additional jurisdictions in the AATA – like Pittsfield and Ypsilanti townships. But in terms of their readiness to see a millage put on the ballot, neither township seems as ready as the city of Ypsilanti.

Based on remarks made on April 25 by Stumbo and township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe, Ypsilanti Township’s first priority is to get a fire and police services millage approved by voters – likely in August. After that, they’d turn their attention to transportation. At the earlier urban core meeting – which took place at Pittsfield Township hall on March 28 – Lovejoy Roe had expressed some enthusiasm for moving ahead more quickly with transportation in November. But recent minutes of the township board indicate a desire to keep November as a possibility for a re-ask, in case the fire and police services millage doesn’t pass in August.

For Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal, it was the cost allocation in one of the proposed transit scenarios that appeared to give her some pause. On that scenario, the cost of services compared with the amount of revenue generated resulted in Pittsfield Township getting back $0.79 in services for every dollar that residents contributed – the least of any jurisdiction in the mix.

Saline mayor Brian Marl expressed solid support for some kind of expansion of services to include the city of Saline, but reserved comment on the details of any of the cost or governance proposals.

This report includes more details on the governance and cost proposals, as well as some of the commentary from elected officials at the April 25 urban core meeting. 

Opening Remarks

After introductory remarks by Saline mayor Brian Marl, AATA board chair Charles Griffith, and AATA CEO Michael Ford, attendees gave each other a status update on their thinking since the March 28 meeting at Pittsfield Township hall. Remarks are grouped by jurisdiction, which did not necessarily correspond to speaking order.

Opening Remarks: Ann Arbor

Ann Arbor city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski described himself as “fairly close to where I was at the last meeting.” That meant that he was fairly excited about moving forward. He felt that getting everyone to talk together was helping the process advance. He said he had two things on his mind.

First, Warpehoski had had some conversations over the last couple of days that reminded him of the need to think of the broader community. Obviously he had a responsibility to Ann Arbor, he continued, but he felt there was a danger of taking too narrow a view of that responsibility. He wanted to make sure that Ann Arbor gets value for the money it’s paying for transportation, but he did not want to have a bus that doesn’t go past US-23 – because that didn’t help a lot.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski.

Second, Warpehoski offered a point of clarification to remarks by Michael Ford, who had characterized the March 28 meeting of the urban core communities as yielding a “roundabout consensus” in favor of improving and expanding transportation service. Warpehoski said what he himself had heard at the previous meeting was more of a “split consensus.” He’d heard a very strong consensus about the idea of the need to improve transit services. He’d also heard a strong desire to expand services, but also some uncertainty about how far people would be willing to go in that direction. The distinction between improving, and improving and expanding, is something that he saw as one of the questions before the group that evening.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere said that over the last month, most of the people who talked to her about transit are concerned about whether transit is convenient and quick. She’s been reading a lot about the need to rethink the way we see our community, she reported. One person she’d spoken with suggested that if a developer were allowed to build an apartment building with 500 bedrooms, there should be a requirement that a 500-car parking structure be built to go along with it. That idea had taken her aback, she reported, because it would not be possible to make such a requirement within the current zoning of the city. That’s because the resulting structure would simply be too tall.

And the person Briere was talking with had replied: Right, so they couldn’t build it! But Briere’s response was that the city would, in that case, have to change the zoning, if that much parking were required. She used the anecdote to illustrate the tension between increased mobility provided through individual vehicles versus public transportation.

Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje said he continued to be influenced by two main factors. The first is that a new generation is growing up that is not necessarily wedded to the automobile, he said. It’s something that he’s wanted for the city of Ann Arbor and in the region – the ability to live without a car. In the case of a family, he wanted that family to be able to live with just one, but not two cars.

A second factor that influenced Hieftje is that jobs are growing in the region, and specifically in the city of Ann Arbor. If jobs continue to grow, he continued, some transit puzzles need to be solved. There are about 68,000 people who now commute into the city of Ann Arbor every day, Hieftje said. If Ann Arbor is going to continue to grow jobs, then parking structures would need to be built.

The city of Ann Arbor had just finished a large parking structure [Library Lane on South Fifth Avenue] and the University of Michigan would be starting construction on a big one in about a month, Hieftje said [on Wall Street]. Since the year 2000, he contended, 3,000 new parking spaces had been constructed. But he said he would rather not build new parking structures. Hieftje also pointed to increased congestion during rush hour, saying that if nothing were done, then we were looking at gridlock in the year 2020.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sally Petersen.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sally Petersen elaborated on Warpehoski’s thoughts about where the group of urban core communities stood consensus-wise. She felt it was perhaps somewhere between “improve” and “improve and expand.” She herself was leaning toward the “improve” side of things. She continued to hear from constituents the need to improve scheduling and logistics for the current service. She felt it was important to have the best model locally before talking about expanding it. It’s important first to take care of the needs of the current customer base, she said.

The current customer base, she continued, was anticipating additional needs. She pointed to Arbor Hills Crossing – a development located on the southeast corner of Platt and Washtenaw – which is expected to be completed in 6-9 months. It’s on the on edge of Ward 2 [which she represents] and Ward 3. The area is already congested, she said, and when Arbor Hills Crossing opens, a new traffic light is going in. She’s already getting calls, she reported: How will we take a left hand turn on Washtenaw Avenue? What does that mean for local service for the Arbor Hills neighborhood?

Petersen said she was happy that everyone was collaborating – because it’s better than the alternative, for sure. When it comes to expansion, the discussion had been about using purchase of service agreements (POSAs). Expanding beyond Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, she felt, could not happen without a realistic conversation about funding. Petersen said she was willing to have that conversation. But she wanted to proceed with caution.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman said he was pleased to be there: “In fact, I’m tickled to see the information in front of us that I have been talking about over the past year” – using a governance model with Act 55, and funding options that involve all the communities. Ultimately the responsibility falls on the Ann Arbor city council to amend the articles of incorporation.

Kunselman said he had always felt that because the city of Ann Arbor is the biggest stakeholder and contributes the most money to the AATA, Ann Arbor has greater responsibility. He appreciated what the other elected representatives had said. [Kunselman spoke last, having arrived a few minutes late.] He repeated something he’d also said at the March 28 meeting – that he’d been riding University of Michigan buses and AATA buses since he was six years old. He ventured it’ll still take some time to implement changes. A year had been taken up talking about a countywide authority and only now were communities talking about something that made a lot more sense, he said.

Kunselman appreciated the AATA’s staff work to compile information for this meeting. Ultimately it would be the voters who had to approve the funding, he noted – whether the city of Ann Arbor itself approves a Headlee override [restoring the transit millage from just over 2 mills to the original voter-authorized level of 2.5 mills] or the AATA asks for a millage. “We can talk about the need all we want, but the voters will have to be sold on the importance and the logistics and the sensibility of it.”

Opening Remarks: Saline

Mayor of Saline Brian Marl told the group that in the time since the previous meeting, he described his position as having only been strengthened. One of the main needs for the city of Saline is to connect to the Ann Arbor area with some kind of express service during key times of the day and the week, he said. The economic livelihood of many of his constituents depends on transportation to the city of Ann Arbor. And for better or for worse, a number of cultural amenities are located in Ann Arbor, which his constituents use, Marl said.

Saline mayor Brian Marl and Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere.

Marl had also had a number of conversations with residents in the Saline area over the last month, about expanding transit options for people in the community. He reported feeling that without more public transportation services, Saline risked losing constituents who would simply relocate somewhere else.

He supported having a robust discussion and dialogue, saying he felt there was a lot of merit to expanding service, but he allowed that “the devil is in the details.” Marl also noted that the representatives from Ypsilanti Township had been very articulate on this point – that there is also a need in the greater Saline community for some kind of dial-a-ride, or door-to-door service for the 65+ demographic.

Opening Remarks: Washtenaw County

Yousef Rabhi, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, began by acknowledging Felicia Brabec in the audience, who also sits on the county board. [Brabec's district covers Pittsfield Township. Rabhi is one of the county commissioners from Ann Arbor.] He also pointed out that the two Washtenaw County appointees to the southeast Michigan regional transit Authority (RTA) were in attendance – Liz Gerber and Richard “Murph” Murphy. About the two, Rabhi said: “They are wonderful – they are, it’s true. Ask them yourselves!”

Washtenaw County appointees to the board of the southeast Michigan regional transit authority: Liz Gerber and Richard Murphy.

Rabhi indicated he was there to play a supportive role, and he wanted to ensure that the process moves along in a way that is both fair and that respects equity. He explained that the two terms might sound similar, but they are, in fact, different. He meant “fair” in the sense that people are contributing to the overall system and ensuring that there is fairness and how the millages are levied and how people contribute.

But there should also be “equity,” Rabhi continued, in the sense of ensuring that we have social equity in our region – that people who can’t afford to buy a car can still get to where they need to go, in order to work. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed, he said. He felt that Washtenaw County does a pretty decent job of that already, but that work needs to continue.

So Rabhi wanted to “lean on” the local leaders at the table to provide insight and direction to their communities. He allowed that he represented Ann Arbor on the Washtenaw County board, but noted that he was chair of the board of Washtenaw County – so he felt that the interests of the entire community need to be taken into consideration, as well as the interests of each individual community.

Opening Remarks: Townships

Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal framed remarks in the context of the intrinsic link between transportation and land-use planning. She reported that the township board had recently adopted a new zoning ordinance. The new zoning ordinance is a comprehensive revision, and for the first time promotes dense development and calls for “centers” to be created in the township.

Grewal felt that the great regional plan that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had put together is something that needs to be kept in mind. That plan is focused on getting people from destination to destination and was not restricted to the geographic boundaries of jurisdictions, she noted. She felt that if the “nodes” in the county could be linked from one point to another, that would result in transit that is more usable and accessible to people. That would make for a more sustainable model of bus transit in Washtenaw County, she said. The land-use planning perspective, she reiterated, is a critical piece of creating a usable transportation system.

Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo indicated that Ypsilanti Township was very appreciative of the city of Ypsilanti’s request to join the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority under Act 55. She observed that it had been a suggestion of Stephen Kunselman’s at the previous month’s meeting. “Thank you for moving the ball down the court,” she said.

Stumbo reported that Ypsilanti Township currently has a millage proposal for the August ballot that would address police and fire services. The need for the millage increase was due to a 35% drop in property values throughout the township, she said. After the fire and police millage, the township would turn its attention toward the possibility of a transportation millage.

The issue of transportation was something that needed to move forward, Stumbo said, and she felt that the city of Ann Arbor should lead the effort. The city of Ann Arbor had been a leader in environmental issues, planning issues, economic development, biosciences, and education. In order to make transportation a priority in the county, she felt it needed to come with the support and leadership of the city of Ann Arbor. She said that Ypsilanti Township is proud to be a part of that.

Stumbo felt that the economy has caused “the walls to come down” and to allow people to work together and sit at the same table. Ypsilanti Township was proud to be there and wanted to be a part of better transportation. “Transportation is not just for poor people,” she said. There are people who just need public transportation to get to their jobs, she said.

Stumbo lamented the fact that the issue had been just talked about for two years – which seemed a very long time to her. She hoped that this would not result in AATA staff becoming discouraged and leaving. She told the AATA staff that she did not want them to leave, saying “you guys are great.” She observed that some kind of millage request might come from the southeast Michigan regional transportation authority (RTA). But she felt it was important to give residents a chance to vote on any millage.

Ypsilanti Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe.

Ypsilanti Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe recalled how two years ago the AATA had managed to put a mix of people at the same table during several of the meetings connected to the countywide transit initiative. At one of the meetings, she’d sat with a top executive of Thomson Reuters, who’d told her that the company made decisions on location for new operations based on public transportation. She called Ann Arbor an “economic engine,” but said it doesn’t work if you can’t get to the jobs.

Like Stumbo, Lovejoy Roe noted that the tax base in the township had lost 35% of its value. But she pointed to some signs of recovery, saying that building permits are way up and that trend is continuing. She noted that south of Ford Lake, a considerable amount of development had taken place, but there is no transportation service.

It has become “cool” and culturally acceptable for young people to live without a car, Lovejoy Roe pointed out. She wanted people who wanted to live without a car to be able to stay in Ypsilanti Township.

Opening Remarks: City of Ypsilanti

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock indicated he wouldn’t repeat all the reasons people had given for supporting public transportation, because he agreed with all the things people had said already. He observed that the city of Ypsilanti was in a somewhat unique position with respect to public transportation – having been in a partnership to provide public transportation since at least the 1970s. But like Ypsilanti Township, the city of Ypsilanti has had some hard times for the last 10 years at least.

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock.

Everyone would like to see improvements and expansion, Murdock said, but something needs to change even just to maintain service, he cautioned. The city of Ypsilanti doesn’t have the ability to raise more revenue through a general fund millage. So any additional millage would need to be enacted through some other kind of regional entity. Things would need to be planned a little better so there are not “Ypsi Routes” and “Saline Routes” and “Pittsfield Routes” and “Ann Arbor Routes” – because improvements in the city of Ann Arbor do benefit Ypsilanti residents. It’s the financial part of regional governance that’s most important to Ypsilanti at this point, Murdock concluded.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber echoed Murdock’s sentiment that the city of Ypsilanti has always been very supportive of public transit. A lot of people rely on public transit to get between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor for work, he said – pointing out as an example that half of the employees of Zingerman’s [in Ann Arbor] live in Ypsilanti. He has friends who sometimes drive to Ann Arbor and other times take the bus, depending on what they’re doing that day, he said.

Schreiber described Ypsilanti as really in a “funding box.” That meant that the city of Ypsilanti has reached the 20-mill state constitutional limit for a home rule city. The city of Ypsilanti can’t ask voters for more millage money for its general fund. Of the 20 mills, .9879 mills is dedicated for transit, Schreiber said. Voters had approved that millage in 2010 by a vote of 3:1, which he described as a “huge margin.” That’s huge support for transit, Schreiber said.

When the Act 196 countywide effort fell apart last year, Schreiber was glad that the Ann Arbor city council included in its resolution [that opted out of the new authority] the direction to the AATA to continue conversations with the urban core communities. Schreiber indicated he had been very encouraged by the March 28 meeting, saying “Ypsilanti has to do something to get more funding for transit.” The only option Ypsilanti has, he continued, is to join some type of authority. “There’s an authority around already, and it’s called the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.” He noted that under Act 55, which was the incorporating legislation, there is a way to add additional municipalities.

Adding Ypsilanti, Schreiber explained, involved the Ypsilanti city council passing a resolution asking the AATA board to approve a request for membership. The next step after the request would be for the entities involved to start amending the articles of incorporation. So on Tuesday [April 23] the Ypsilanti city council had passed a unanimous resolution requesting that the city of Ypsilanti be allowed to join the AATA.

If Ypsilanti’s membership goes through – and Schreiber hoped it does – it “puts a big stake” on the eastern side of the county – and immediately goes from being an Ann Arbor transportation authority to an Ann Arbor area transportation authority. He drew a parallel to the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. This step would open the doors to regional cooperation and to improving the service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but also opens the door to expansion.

However, communities need to expand “at their own pace,” Schreiber said, and they have to prioritize. For the city of Ypsilanti right now, the timing is good to request membership. He also agreed with Stumbo’s remarks that Ann Arbor really is an economic driver. Ypsilanti is lucky to be able to ask for membership in the AATA, he said. Schreiber felt that another thing that would help is to have longer purchase of service agreements (POSAs) – instead of relying on annual agreements. It was important to have, say, five-year agreements so that the AATA board could plan new routes without having to worry about how much revenue was coming in year to year.

Schreiber appreciated the continued effort to meet. He felt that the Ypsilanti city council might not have passed its resolution requesting membership in the AATA if the urban core meetings hadn’t taken place. He thanked the Ann Arbor city council for asking people to continue to meet.

Opening Remarks: Dexter

Village of Dexter trustee Jim Carson told the group that even though the village of Dexter is not included in any of the possible organizational themes, he appreciated being a part of the conversation. Dexter is in the Ann Arbor urban area, he observed, and supports public transportation. Dexter residents support public transportation, which was demonstrated during the district advisory meetings that took place as part of the 2012 countywide transit effort.

Carson said that whatever happens, at some point the village of Dexter will benefit. He pointed out that Dexter already had some public transportation in the form of the Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE). Carson noted that in addition to being a village trustee, he serves on the WAVE board. Dexter had helped that service grow. Dexter has some door-to-door service and some lifeline service through the WAVE, he noted, but would like more of it.

Additional Services

The materials provided to attendees of the March 28 meeting sketch out some of features of additional transportation services that the AATA could be in a position to offer, given additional funding. [.pdf of March 28, 2013 meeting packet]

For Ann Arbor, two broad categories of additional service are improvements to the west side of Ann Arbor, and improvements in the connection eastward to Ypsilanti, through Pittsfield and Ypsilanti townships. On the west side of town, changes to the service contemplated by the AATA include:

• Route 8 Pauline: More frequent peak, extended hours.
• Route 9 Jackson: Becomes two new routes (B, C), providing greater coverage, extended hours and improved evening frequency.
• Route 12 Miller/Liberty: Becomes three new routes (A, D, G) providing greater coverage and extended hours.
• Route 15 Scio Church/W. Stadium: Becomes two new routes (E, F) providing greater coverage, extended hours and improved midday frequency.
• Route 16 Ann Arbor-Saline and Route 17 Amtrak-Depot St: Extended hours.

Possible AATA service improvements in west Ann Arbor.

For connections on the east side of town, service improvements being considered by the AATA focused on extending hours and increasing frequency, with some service being made more direct (express):

• Routes 1 Pontiac-DhuVarren: Extended hours.
• Route 3 Plymouth: More direct, extended hours.
• Route 4 Washtenaw: More frequent all day long, extended hours.
• Route 5 Packard: More frequent evenings, extended hours.
• Route 6 Ellsworth: More frequent peak, extended hours.
• Route 22 North-South: Extended hours.

Possible increases in AATA service to the east.

For the Ypsilanti Township, expanded service could include:

• New and extended routes serving residential areas, commercial areas, the district library and Ypsilanti Civic Center.
• New ExpressRide service to downtown Ann Arbor and University of Michigan.
• New Park and Ride Lot in the vicinity of Huron St. and I-94.
• Township-wide dial-a-ride services for seniors, people with disabilities, and the general public, including connections to neighboring communities.

Possible AATA service expansion in Ypsilanti Township.

For Pittsfield Township and the city of Saline, expanded transportation services would be similar in nature to those that would be possible for Ypsilanti Township:

• New and extended routes serving residential areas, downtown Saline, Briarwood, Walmart, Meijer, Pittsfield Township offices and others.
• New ExpressRide service to downtown Ann Arbor and University of Michigan.
• New Park and Ride Lots at Meijer, Walmart and in the vicinity of Carpenter Road and I-94.
•  Township-wide dial-a-ride services for seniors, people with disabilities, and the general public, including connections to neighboring communities.

Possible AATA service expansion in Pittsfield Township and Saline.

Governance, Funding

At the April 25 urban core meeting, Jerry Lax – the AATA outside legal counsel –  reviewed some of the options available for new governance. He began by anchoring the conversation with the existing arrangement: The AATA is an authority incorporated under Act 55 of 1963, which does not itself levy any taxes. [.pdf of April 25, 2013 meeting packet]

The main local funding sources for AATA services is through a perpetual millage levied by the city of Ann Arbor – initially authorized at a level of 2.5 mills, but reduced through a Headlee rollback to just over 2 mills. Ypsilanti also levies a millage dedicated to transit, which was authorized in 2010 – for .9879 mills. Other local funding for AATA services comes from purchase of service agreements (POSAs) with other jurisdictions. The Ypsilanti millage, for example, is put toward the Ypsilanti POSA.

A summary of the various options:

1. Current governance: AATA with multiple POSAs. AATA could levy a new millage, which would apply just to Ann Arbor. Or the city of Ann Arbor could ask Ann Arbor voters to approve a Headlee override to the existing transit millage, restoring it to the original level of 2 mills. That would mean an increase of about 0.5 mills.
2. Ypsilanti joins AATA (possibly becoming Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Transportation Authority) and other jurisdictions contract for service through POSA. If the new AAYTA levied a millage, it would apply to both member jurisdictions, including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The existing charter millages levied by the two cities would remain in place and flow to the AAYTA.
3. AATA remains the same authority but provides additional services under contract with a new “collar authority” consisting of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and the city of Saline.  There are various ways to form a “collar authority”: Act 196, Act 55, or simply through Act 7. One downside to forming an agreement under Act 7 is that the arrangement would have no power to ask voters to approve a millage.
4. Expanded new transit authority consisting of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and the city of Saline. The options for governance would be similar to those under (3): Act 196, Act 55, or through Act 7.

By way of more background on Ypsilanti’s now pending request of the AATA to join – under option (2) – the request would be made under a provision of Act 55 of 1963, under which the AATA was originally incorporated. [.pdf of AATA articles of incorporation] [.pdf of Act 55 of 1963] Admission of Ypsilanti as a member would require a majority vote by the AATA board. It would also require that the articles of incorporation for the AATA be amended – which might require action by the Ann Arbor city council.

Act 55 states: “If a political subdivision joins the authority, the board shall amend the articles of incorporation accordingly.” In the past, however, it’s been through a resolution of the Ann Arbor city council that the articles of incorporation have been amended. In that case, the number of board members was increased to seven.

Cost Scenarios

The cost of the additional services that the AATA could be in a position to offer are roughly divided into three basic sets of services: maintain, improve, improve and expand. [.pdf of March 28, 2013 meeting packet]

The group’s discussion at the April 25 meeting was grounded on the cost for the “fully-loaded” scenario of “improve and expand.” That set of additional new services would cost a combined $5.483 million.

If a uniform millage were levied across all five jurisdictions (Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and the city of Saline), then it would need to be a tax of 0.706 mills to cover the $5.483 million [One mill is a dollar for every $1,000 of taxable value.] On governance models where the jurisdictions were a part of the same transit authority, the millage rate would need to be uniform across all member jurisdictions.

If a jurisdiction contracted with the AATA under a POSA – instead of joining the AATA – then the uniform millage rate would not be an issue. Under a POSA, the question is less about the millage rate, and more about the cost charged to the jurisdiction by the AATA to provide the service. If a jurisdiction wanted itself to levy a millage to cover its POSA cost, it could simply calibrate the millage rate to cover the exact cost.

If every jurisdiction contracted for service from the AATA under a POSA, then the cost analysis is important, because it determines the exact cost a jurisdiction pays. Under a uniform millage approach, the amount a jurisdiction pays is settled through the millage rate. But the cost analysis is still important, because it allows a resident of a jurisdiction to evaluate the equity of the arrangement: How much in transportation services am I getting in return for my transportation dollar?

Discussion at the April 25 meeting centered on this question of equity, based on different cost methodology.  [.pdf of equity analysis] Using the numbers provided by the AATA, The Chronicle has developed a visual representation of the four different ways of calculating cost, and the resulting equity for the jurisdictions on the assumption of a uniform millage.

Chart 1: Numbers from AATA. Chart by The Chronicle.

Blue shaded bars are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Pittsfield and Ypsilanti townships are red-shaded bars. And the black bar is the city of Saline. The 0 on the vertical scale means that the ratio of benefit to revenue is 1:1. A positive bar means that a jurisdiction gets more benefit (services with greater cost) than the jurisdiction would contribute under a uniform millage. A negative bar means a jurisdiction gets less benefit (services costing less) than the contribution of that jurisdiction in a uniform millage.

From left to right, the four ways of calculating cost are: (1) service hours; (2) population; (3) increase in access to transit; and (4) resident-benefit based approach. The fourth way of calculating the cost was unveiled for the first time at the April 25 meeting.

In the course of the discussion, AATA strategic planner Michael Benham briefly alluded to consideration of the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti as one “unit.” Extending that idea to considering the two townships as a single unit yields the following visual representation:

Chart 2: Numbers provided by AATA. Chart by The Chronicle.

Fairness, Equity

AATA strategic planner Michael Benham describes how he’d had a conversation with an AATA board member in which the board member had insisted on an answer from Benham to the question: Of these funding approaches, what do you recommend? Benham reported that he’d responded by saying it’s a political discussion, not a technical discussion. But the board member had pressed him: But what do you recommend? So Benham passed out a sheet, which he hesitated to call a recommendation – because there are issues of value, and there are political issues, which “planner-technician” types like him didn’t necessarily feel totally comfortable dealing with. The sheet was nevertheless, he said, as close to a “recommendation” as they could get. And that was what the sheet called the “equitable distribution of costs.”

Benham said AATA staff had sifted through the various options that had been presented to the urban core group and then did things a little differently in what they were calling a “resident-benefit based approach.” In some of the other approaches, costs for the express services that are serving primarily the two townships had been distributed across all five jurisdictions – “just because it’s clean,” and based on a service-hour approach, Benham explained.

They decided not to do that, Benham said, and to take a different approach that basically assigned the cost of those express services to the townships. The origins of the riders of the services would be from the townships – so the cost of the express services would be assigned to the townships. He allowed that those riders would be arriving in Ann Arbor and providing benefit in Ann Arbor – but under this resident-benefit based model, those costs would be assigned to the townships. The cost of new dial-a-ride services that are based in the townships were also assigned to the townships or the city of Saline, respectively. Benham explained that the various models of cost assignment shared the basic idea that the number of miles of regular, non-express fixed-route service inside a jurisdiction was a factor in assigning cost to that jurisdiction.

Benham then explained that staff then assumed a uniform millage would be applied across all jurisdictions, and used that for the different models to compute a ratio for each jurisdiction: [cost of service]/[revenue contributed]. If a jurisdiction got exactly $1 back in service for every $1 of funding contributed, then that would be 100%. A percentage less than 100 would mean that a jurisdiction gets back less in services than it contributes. Similarly, a percentage greater than 100 would mean that a jurisdiction gets back more in services than it contributes.

Under the resident-benefit approach, Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal asked if it would be fair to say that out of $1 the township would be contributing in millage funds, it would be getting back $0.79 in services. Benham allowed that was accurate, but also noted that none of the calculations he was presenting accounted for the state and federal funding that would be “attracted” by each dollar that is spent.

Benham said that AATA staff were pleased to see that variations in the differences were reduced greatly compared to the other approaches, saying that it had “leveled the playing field” in terms of equity. In the case of Ypsilanti, he allowed, the benefit is a bit higher. For Ann Arbor, he said, it’s a bit lower. But if you consider the two as a unit you start to approach parity, he said.

Grewal pointed out that Pittsfield Township, on the resident-benefit approach, has the least parity – at 79%.

Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal.

But Benham came back to his point that the resident-benefit based approach came closer to being an equitable model than anything else that had been considered. Benham said that rather than simply presenting the range of options, AATA staff had been asked to present something that could be a potential solution, and let that be the starting point for the conversation about the “difficult issue of equity.”

Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock drew out the fact that the costs considered for the analysis were the additional costs – for both the “improve” and “expand” service improvements – above and beyond any existing revenues.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere said it’s easy to focus on apparent disparities. She compared the transit that goes through Pittsfield to the transit that has Pittsfield as a destination. She asked what could be changed in the service plan to improve transit to the township. The potential benefits to Ann Arbor at 85% parity didn’t sound like it takes into account the existing benefit that Ann Arbor is already getting, she said.

Benham confirmed that the focus of discussion was new costs of service. Briere observed that a lot of the existing transit for Ann Arbor was already accessible within a 1/4-mile walk and there was little opportunity for improvement on that metric. But in Pittsfield Township, for example, that kind of improvement had more potential. So Briere wanted to know what service changes could be made to bring more parity for Pittsfield.

Benham told Briere that AATA staff was relatively pleased with the amount of parity that had been achieved – but it was up to elected officials now to talk about the relative benefits of connecting communities. Elected officials could talk about whether some of the remaining “lack of parity” might be justified. As a planner or a technical person, Benham said, he didn’t have much more to add to the conversation. He felt it needed to be a discussion among the elected officials for a community to pay a little more relative to what they are getting, because there’s some intangible benefit related to the benefit of being connected.

By way of additional background, at the March 28 meeting, Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman had talked about the fact that everyone knew that improvements in Ann Arbor service would have a spillover benefit to Ypsilanti, which he supported. He expressed less enthusiasm for that same kind of spillover extending to wealthier townships. Also at that meeting, Ann Arbor city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski had expressed a willingness to be somewhat  ”fuzzy” with respect to equity, saying he didn’t see it as necessarily desirable to try to insist on a reckoning down to the penny.

At the April 25 meeting, Grewal was keen to see a breakdown for a comprehensive figure that included all the existing services and revenues, not just the cost of new services.

Benham told Grewal that AATA staff could provide that additional, more refined analysis – because that was the staff’s job. As far as the equity issue, however, that was a discussion elected officials should have.

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber came back to Grewal’s point that the information being presented at that meeting covered the additional costs that would come from additional services – and did not include the existing services or revenues. He also suggested that benefit could be measured in terms of parking structures: How many more parking structures would you have to build if you did not increase transit? He pointed out that for Ypsilanti, for the resident-benefit based approach, the numbers didn’t look too much different from the population based approach.

Schreiber alluded to comments that representatives from Ann Arbor had made at both the March 28 and the April 25 meetings – that there would be increased congestion and parking structures or additional public transit. Briere ventured the latest average figure for parking structure construction was in the neighborhood of $42,000 per space.

Thoughts on Next Steps

Ann Arbor city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski appreciated the effort to create the estimates based on a resident-benefit approach. He characterized the challenge of pulling out specific services for different allocations as “tricky.” He followed up on Schreiber’s comments to the effect that not all of the value was necessarily captured, even with that approach.

Warpehoski floated the idea of a senior citizen in a township using dial-a-ride service to the Necto night club in downtown Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor gets some of the value from that. What was common to all the approaches, Warpehoski said, is that they are all approximations of understanding value. It looks very precise to say 79% or 85%, he said, but it’s actually not that precise.

When he looked at the costs, the $2.727 million – an allocation of cost based on population – would equate to about 0.6 mills for the city of Ann Arbor. For him personally, the improvements along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor are important and add value to Ann Arbor above and beyond the services that are offered specifically in Ann Arbor. So he was willing to “go north of” 0.6 mills in terms of the amount of value the city of Ann Arbor was getting. This opens up options, not just for governance and funding – but also for the service plan. He suggested that equity could also be adjusted through adjusting actual service.

Warpehoski indicated that participants at the March 28 meeting had expressed some apprehension about coming up with a number. For him, he felt that Ann Arbor would be “fairly served” at a millage-equivalent at around 0.65 – assuming other communities are buying in.

Asked what they thought their voters would support, other elected officials were mixed but overall somewhat supportive.

Saline mayor Brian Marl indicated he was being intentionally reticent. He said he had a hard-and-fast rule that when he was presented with data for the first time, he wanted to take some time and absorb it. He felt he wanted to check back with the Saline city council to determine what the preferred path would be for governance and funding.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sally Petersen said for Ann Arbor it’s important to define what improved service really means: Is it more buses? Buses later at night? What does improved service look like that you’re asking Ann Arbor residents to pay for?

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber reiterated that Ypsilanti would like to join the existing Act 55 AATA, and become a part of the urban transportation network. He allowed that Ypsilanti was already a part of the network, but would now like to be recognized as a part of it. Whatever Ann Arbor came up with, he pointed out, if you put the voters of Ann Arbor together with those of Ypsilanti, there’s a 6:1 ratio of population. So in a millage vote, he said, “obviously, Ann Arbor is going to be calling the shots here. But you’ll have a supportive partner in whatever you decide.”

Townships would need to pursue things at their own pace, Schreiber allowed. But he thought the fact that Route #4 on Washtenaw Avenue had increase ridership by 30% by increasing frequency of service showed that the urban core could be improved as a first step.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje picked up on Petersen’s remarks, saying that voters are very savvy and will break down any proposal and see what they’re getting for their money. Some benefits would require more explaining, he ventured. He sees a benefit from people riding buses into work instead of driving – which addresses the need to build parking structures. He hadn’t heard anybody stand up yet and say they don’t want job growth.

On governance, Hieftje said he would entertain a proposal of expanding the board from seven to nine members, with one of the two additional representatives from Ypsilanti – chosen by Ypsilanti. He also felt that having two additional representatives would help spread out the workload.

Petersen wondered if it might be appropriate to have two Ypsilanti appointees. Hieftje indicated he felt that would require mutual discussion on the part of both communities.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere observed that the current transportation model is geared toward commuters. That’s a benefit for Ann Arbor, she said, because she doesn’t want to build more parking structures. “There’s a significant benefit – if we can’t imprison people within city lines – to providing bus service from other communities into Ann Arbor so they can work in Ann Arbor.” But a lot of people who want to get rid of their only car or get rid of their second car, really want to have transit that works for them, she noted – not to go downtown, but to go to non-employment destinations.

As examples of those non-employment destinations, Briere gave Meijer on Carpenter Road or Lowes, or the doctor, or the Kroger on South Maple – saying that people want to get to non-employment destinations in an efficient way. And that means they really want a broader service than one that requires that they go downtown first. It would be really good when talking about service improvements within the city to talk about the idea that “You can get there from here,” she said.

Warpehoski noted that he’d heard his council colleague Stephen Kunselman talk about wanting to see an incremental approach to this. A pathway to that incremental approach, Warpehoski said, would be for Ypsilanti to join the AATA. That would give a way to start improving urban core collaboration funding and improving services. He’d heard Ypsilanti Township officials say that they’re interesting in participating, but not interested in putting a millage in front of their voters at this time. [Warpehoski had observed that the representatives from both the townships had needed to depart from the meeting by this point.]

Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi demonstrates the usefulness of  striving for equitable height with a conversational partner. Seated is former Washtenaw County commissioner Vivienne Armentrout.

So the next step he saw was for a “coalition of the willing” to act, adding quickly: “I’m willing!” He felt the next step should be an Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti coordinated effort, and then build step-by-step from there.

Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi felt that some of these discussions would be valuable to have on an individual basis, too. He appreciated the planner’s perspective of wanting to take a systemwide approach, but in each community different voters will have different tolerances for paying for different things. Different voters will have different willingness to share in the greater system or protect their money for their services, he noted.

It’s important to be informed by the leaders of the communities who want to participate in the process, Rabhi continued, because they’ll know what their constituents’ level of comfort is for participation in the process. It’d be good to know what a community is thinking before you give them a model of what you believe they should be thinking.

Hieftje felt there was some urgency to establish funding for keeping the robust routes between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. He did not know why Ann Arbor would not take Ypsilanti’s request to join the AATA to heart. Based on the Ann Arbor city council’s schedule of work in May, when it would be focused on the FY 2014 budget, by June Hieftje felt the council could turn its attention to the question of Ypsilanti joining the AATA. He said it might be important to be able to put a millage proposal before the voters as early as November 2013. He noted that if something were to be put on the ballot for November, he expected that decision would come in the third week of August or so.

Marl indicated that his approach for Saline would be to review the material thoroughly and then check back with the Saline city council. He felt it would be a good idea for the AATA staff to come to the Saline city council for a working session on the topic.

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, wrapped up by saying that the AATA wanted to keep the process moving – they didn’t want to let it die. There’s a need for transit services, he said, and it’s possible to talk about it. But people really need the services. It’d be a shame if a commitment couldn’t be made to make that happen, he said.

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 on board The Chronicle bus, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

AATA board members Ted Annis, left, and Charles Griffith. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board meeting (August 19, 2009): Looming on a six-week horizon for Ypsilanti is the renewal of its Purchase of Service Agreement with the AATA – at a price slated for 10% higher each year over the next three years to make the agreement match actual costs. That’s the context in which three out of seven Ypsilanti city councilmembers appeared at the AATA board meeting on Wednesday.

Their collective message: Recognize the fiscal constraints on Ypsilanti, focus on the 30 years of a positive AATA-Ypsilanti partnership, and find ways to cut costs of the service without cutting service levels. Their message resonated with AATA board members, who seemed more inclined to find creative ways to cut costs than to use federal stimulus dollars to simply make up the gap. Part of that creative approach could include closing the Ypsilanti Transit Station.

The longer-term solution of supporting the AATA bus service through a dedicated countywide funding source was a theme that ran through the comments made by Ypsilanti councilmembers, as well as others at the meeting.

In other business, the board approved the construction contract for the Plymouth Road and US-23 park-and-ride, and formally discontinued the LINK service – a decision that came as no surprise given that the other two funding partners – the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – had discontinued their funding for the downtown circulator bus.

Countywide Funding

The theme of a countywide funding source for the AATA was woven into several conversational threads. During public speaking time, the idea of establishing a countywide funding source for bus service – likely through a dedicated millage – came up multiple times. Three Ypsilanti city councilmembers addressed the board, in part to argue for a countywide system as a longer-term way to think about service they currently get through a Purchase of Service Agreement (POSA). They thus echoed the sentiments of Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber, who had appeared before the AATA board in May. Ypsilanti’s POSA comes up for renewal soon and AATA is asking Ypsilanti to increase the payment to match the actual cost of the service.

The theme of funding Ypsilanti bus service continued in the board’s consideration of a resolution that would use American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (federal stimulus) dollars to fund the gap in Ypsilanti’s POSA on a one-time basis.

Thomas Partridge: Board chair David Nacht read Partidge’s name off the sign-up sheet and looked up scanning the room, asking where Partridge was. Partridge then rose from the third row of seats and delivered a self-deprecating deadpan: “Perhaps you didn’t notice me because of my great height!” Moving quickly to the serious side, Partridge pointed out that in August 2008 the AATA board had been presented with three different avenues they could pursue that would transition the AATA to a countywide transportation authority for Washtenaw County. He also reminded Nacht that Nacht had appeared before the Washtenaw County board of commissioners and the Ann Arbor city council, and had presented the idea of a countywide authority to those bodies. Yet there had been no progress, Partridge said, towards getting a proposal put on the ballot that would establish a countywide funding source. Partridge also criticized the proposal in one of the agenda items that explored the possibility of using federal stimulus money for operating assistance for Ypsilanti. That proposal did not, he said, explore the possibility of expanding service westward.

Said Nacht in reply: “I happen to agree with Tom Partridge – it’s been a long time.”

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi reported that she’d just come back from Toronto, where the public transportation was, she said, “amazing.” There were trolleys, buses, ferries, para-transit – everywhere you looked there was public transportation. Addressing the elimination of the LINK service, she said that if the city keeps cutting service, she was concerned for the future development of the city, for the POSA agreements, and for the future of countywide service. She suggested looking at Genesee County and asking how they managed to fund countywide service.

S.A. Trudy Swanson: The Ypsilanti city councilmember said she was there to speak about the proposed 30% increase in the Purchase of Service Agreement (POSA) with the city of Ypsilanti that the AATA was seeking. She asked for a “decrease in the increase.” She stressed that Ypsilanti had riders who depended on the service.

In response, AATA board member Ted Annis said that the reason for the increase was to stop having Ann Arbor taxpayers subsidize Ypsilanti bus service. As an AATA board member, Annis said, he objected to Ann Arbor subsidizing its neighbors and said that Ann Arbor’s neighbors needed to pay the freight. He invited Swanson to the Aug. 31 meeting of the planning and development committee, where they’d be working on the size of the required increase to Ypsilanti’s POSA.

David Nacht, AATA board chair. (Photo by the writer.)

Michael Bodary: Bodary introduced himself as a Ward 2 Ypsilanti councilmember. He was there to speak to the issue of the increase in the POSA for Ypsilanti. The 10% increase per year, for a total of 30% over three years, had been explained by Dawn Gabay and Chris White of the AATA at an Ypsilanti city council meeting, he said, so he understood the issues behind the increase. For Ypsilanti, however, revenues were down due to decreases in taxable value as well as drops in state shared revenue. He pointed out that some of the costs incorporated into the POSA are infrastructure costs, for example for the Ypsilanti Transit Center, as opposed to operations. He reported that 1/4 of police calls in downtown Ypsilanti were to the YTC. The AATA itself, he said, paid for a security guard there. He reported that some Ypsilanti citizens had suggested closing the YTC – he was not necessarily advocating that himself. He emphasized that Ypsilanti and the AATA needed to work together on solving the problem, because the Number 4, 5 and 6 buses were lifelines between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. He pointed out that it’s only been the last three out of 30 years that Ypsilanti had been afforded a reduced rate for its POSA.

Nacht responded by saying, “We share almost all your views,” but noted that it was a matter of working out the details. Referring to the YTC security issues Bodary had raised, Nacht said the last thing the AATA wanted to do was cause a public safety problem.

Annis noted that the cost data on the YTC showed that $110,000 was spent on security, so he’d like to “explore” closing it down. Nacht interjected to say that the board was not at this meeting in any way taking a position on the issue of closing down the YTC. Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, also said that whenever he heard talk of something “getting closed down,” it gave him pause.

Pete Murdock: Murdock is also a member of the Ypsilanti city council. He began by saying that they understood the AATA’s situation. The problem, he said, was that they had “flat out no ability to raise taxes.” He said that their view was that the survival of the transit system depends on a regional system with a dedicated source of revenue. Someone other than them, he reminded the board, needed to put a measure on the ballot.

Nacht responded by saying that it was good to hear there’d be support for such a measure. “We’re a regional economy,” Nacht said, “and we need a regional transit system.” Nacht confirmed that the board shared that view philosophically.

At several points Annis invited Ypsilanti councilmembers to come to the planning and development committee meeting on Aug. 31 at 5:30 p.m.

The board considered a resolution involving the use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds – otherwise known as federal stimulus money – to bridge the gap in funding for the Ypsilanti Purchase of Service Agreement.

Board members expressed hesitation about using stimulus money in this way, when there might be other longer-term solutions available. Annis said he’d like to consider the matter in the planning and development committee. Board member Charles Griffith indicated that he didn’t want to see stimulus funds used if it meant that it was a way of not implementing other, longer-lasting solutions.

So board member Jesse Bernstein moved to table the resolution so that it could be available as a back-up plan.

The board voted to table it, which flummoxed the staff. “Now we can’t talk about it!” said Chris White. The resulting discussion revealed that the wording of the resolution didn’t authorize spending the money, but rather authorized AATA staff to talk to Ypsilanti about using ARRA funds to bridge the gap:

Now, Therefore, be it resolved that the AATA CEO is hereby authorized to discuss using a portion of the ARRA funds allocated to the AATA to bridge the gap between the beginning of the fiscal year and the implementation of service reductions.

It puzzled board member Rich Robben that a resolution had been brought seeking nothing more than an authorization to talk: “Why did you bring this to us at all??” Dawn Gabay, deputy CEO, explained that staff didn’t want to get out ahead of the board on a policy issue. Board chair Nacht traced the inclination of staff to proceed cautiously to an episode with former AATA director Greg Cook, who had arranged a deal to raise fares to cover the POSA gap, but didn’t have board approval to do so. Nacht recalled that he’d led the charge against those fare increases. The message that had been sent to staff at the time, said Nacht, was that staff needed board approval before going to POSA partners to talk about policy matters.

Robben, who’d voted for tabling the resolution, brought it back for reconsideration. It was not crystal clear to The Chronicle what happened from a parliamentary point of view, but the board did not seem to revote the tabling motion, instead opting to vote on another motion that expressly gave staff permission to talk to Ypsilanti about possible use of ARRA funds.

Outcome: Unclear from a parliamentary point of view. The board did, however, express its will that staff could talk to Ypsilanti about use of ARRA funds to bridge the POSA gap, among other solutions that might be longer lasting.

Report from Planning and Development Committee

In his update on the planning and development committee’s work, Ted Annis said that there were two main items they’d be focusing on: (i) the Ypsilanti Purchase of Service Agreement, and (ii) hammering out an AATA budget that met their goal of $96 per service hour in cost.

The LINK: Discontinued

The AATA board considered a resolution to discontinue the LINK service. The LINK is a downtown circulator service that does not charge a fare to ride. The LINK buses are painted purple.

The issue of the LINK was addressed by Tim Hull during public time in the context of public input on service changes.

Tim Hull: Hull identified himself as an AATA bus rider for the last six years, and suggested that the board reflect on the various avenues available for public input. It seemed to him, Hull said, that the public was often involved only at the last step. The Local Advisory Council, he said, was more of an advocacy group for seniors and disabled people, and met at a time inconvenient for people who worked a regular daytime schedule. He suggested that the public be engaged on matters such as schedule and service changes before they are set in stone. The discontinuation of the LINK, he said, felt like it was already a done deal at the time of a public meeting held over the summer.

In response, Nacht said that the last time that schedule changes had been contemplated, it had been a multi-month process and that originally, the Number 13 route to Newport Road had been targeted: “We were going to kill it!” But people spoke out, Nacht said, and the route was retained. So, Nacht said, he took Hull’s concerns very seriously and suggested that particular concerns could be conveyed to the director of community relations for the AATA, Mary Stasiak.

In his communications at the beginning of the meeting, board chair Nacht had already alluded to the item on the agenda that would discontinue the LINK. He described it as a “painful, difficult” decision, but that the AATA could not take on the funding of the service without the help of the two partners who’d bowed out – the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

AATA CEO Michael Ford, who’s been on the job for a month, said that in the future, when the AATA embarked on a project involving partners, he hoped the authority could plan for a way to continue that project, even if the partners bowed out.

Board member Ted Annis quipped that his wife was going to be disappointed, because she takes the grandkids to ride the purple buses, which they enjoy.

Nacht said that philosophically he thought that a free downtown circulator was something that was important, and he was sorry the board was discontinuing the LINK.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to discontinue the LINK service.

Goals and Objectives

A document called “Goals and Objectives” generated some animated discussion between Ted Annis and David Nacht. Nacht was concerned that the document would constrain the new CEO, Michael Ford, from putting his own stamp on the organization, if the goals and objectives were provided to him with no room for flexibility.

Annis wanted to make explicit how Ford would provide his input on the goals and objectives: “Let’s nail it down!” To which Nacht responded: “I think it’s too early to nail it down – the man has been on the job for a month.”

One concern cited by Nacht in the exchange was that among the goals and objectives there was nothing about expanding the AATA to include countywide service.

For his part, Annis was somewhat frustrated that Nacht was not attaching adequate significance to the document – which had come out of the planning and development committee, chaired by Annis: “What do you want to do with this – ignore it?”

In the end, a consensus seemed to be reached that would have Ford delivering his input on the goals and objectives, with the planning and development committee, as well as the performance monitoring and external relations committee, “getting a shot at dealing with the goals as proposed by Michael Ford,” Annis said.

Questions for Michael Ford, CEO

Board member Charles Griffith thanked Michael Ford for his weekly updates. Annis said that he’d been having fun with Ford, and that he’d been putting pressure on Ford to control costs. Nacht followed Annis’ comment with, “Michael is still here!”

Plymouth Road Park-and-Ride Lot

Before the AATA board was a resolution authorizing the CEO to execute a contract with D&R Earthmoving for $1.144 million to construct the park-and-ride lot at Plymouth Road and US-23. The Ann Arbor city council had approved the site plan for the 245-space park-and-ride lot at its July 20 meeting. Board chair Nacht wanted to know what exactly D&R’s work would entail, besides digging a hole in the ground. “What are they doing?”

In response, Chris White, manager of service development for the AATA, joked, “Stimulating the economy!” He went on to elaborate with Phil Webb, AATA controller, chiming in: earthmoving, paving, drainage construction, traffic signals, lighting, trees, signage. There will be a sign acknowledging the work was supported with federal stimulus funds.

White confirmed for Nacht that D&R was the low bidder, with the highest bidder coming in at around $300,000 more.

Annis confirmed with White that the “funny little” Green Road park-and-ride would remain open.

Outcome: The resolution authorizing the execution of the park-and-ride lot construction was unanimously approved.

Public Time: FITS and WALLY

LuAnne Bullington: Nacht greeted Bullington by congratulating her on the race she ran in the recent Ward 3 city council elections, though she did not prevail. Bullington stressed that if WALLY (the Washtenaw-Livingston Rail Line, a north-south commuter rail) was going to be built, it was important to identify sources of funding for operations, not just construction. She expressed concern that the Ann Arbor city council’s recent approval of design work on the Fuller Intermodal Transit Station (FITS) meant that city council was moving ahead as if the AATA board had made a decision to close the Blake Transit Center downtown.

Board member Jesse Bernstein responded to Bullington by clarifying that the approval for FITS was a study and siting phase on a parcel of land owned by the city and currently leased to UM. As far as Blake Transit Center was concerned, Bernstein said that there’d been no discussion of moving it, and that the board was instead discussing funding improvements and repairs to it. [Renovating BTC is a part of the goals and objectives document that provoked much discussion later in the meeting.] Regarding FITS and BTC, Bernstein said, “It’s not one or the other, it’s both.”

Communications: More on WALLY

Board chair David Nacht described a meeting he’d had with representatives of the University of Michigan along with Chris White, who’s manager of service development for the AATA, as a way to “open doors with that relationship.” Nacht also described “a lot of activity” to try to find capital funds for construction of the north-south commuter rail line known as WALLY. That included a multi-agency application for a TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant. Nacht said the AATA continues to remain open to the concept of WALLY, but expressed concern that there’d been a lack of interest thus far from Livingston County for the funding of operations. “We’d like to see more support,” he said. However, Nacht concluded, “We’re doing our best to push the project forward.”

Nominations

In his communications at the beginning of the meeting, board chair Nacht had said that he was impressed with the committee work that was getting done and how the board’s committees were able to process a tremendous amount of information.

Board member Jesse Bernstein was appointed the sole member and chair of the nominating committee for board officer elections, which will take place at the board’s September meeting.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Rich Robben, Ted Annis, Jesse Bernstein.

Absent: Sue McCormick, Paul Ajegba

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. [note the unusual time] at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave. [confirm date]

First, a significant chunk of time was invested in discussing the relative lack of success of the A2Chelsea Express, a commuter express bus service between Chelsea and Ann Arbor, plus the intent to begin offering a similar service for Canton. Nacht concluded the discussion on the Ann Arbor-to-Chelsea express bus by saying that he continued to be a “faith-based believer in commuter bus service, but I hope at some point to have some data to support my theology.”

Secondly, Nacht gave his assurance a couple of different times during the meeting that it was not the intent of the AATA board to discontinue service to Ypsilanti. And finally, Dawn Gabay, interim director of the AATA, indicated that efforts were being made “behind the scenes” in conversations with the management of Arborland to preserve the AATA bus stops on that shopping center’s property – Arborland management has indicated a preference to have the bus stops removed.

Gabay might not have to serve in the capacity of interim director much longer, as the board got an update that negotiations were proceeding apace with Michael Ford, the one final candidate for the CEO position.

Ann Arbor to Chelsea Commuter Express Bus

Board chair Nacht focused attention on the Ann Arbor-to-Chelsea express bus in an extended exchange with Chris White, who is AATA’s manager of service development. The  one-year milestone report on that operation was included in the board’s packet. The service has now been offered for a year on a “demonstration basis” funded by a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant, according to the report. It provides two trips each morning and evening (four trips) targeting Ann Arbor workers who live in Chelsea. There’s also one trip in the morning from Ann Arbor to Chelsea and one in the evening returning from Chelsea to Ann Arbor. [A2Chelsea Express schedule as a .pdf]

White explained to Nacht that the report reflected monthly totals and not daily numbers. The peak ridership in any given month was 1,364 rides in October 2008. It was currently averaging a little less than 1,200 rides per month, White said. In doing the rough math on the fly, Nacht noted that this sounded like it was around 55-60 passengers a day. [Dividing that across the six possible trips per day puts the average number of passengers on a bus at around 10, or about 20% of the Indian Trails motor coach capacity.]

White characterized the ridership as “quite low.” White reported that they are selling more tickets than are actually used – something that had not been expected on the scale that they were seeing it. White said the major hurdle to the service was the limited number of commuters who fit the two trips per day made by the service – it was thus operating within a severely constrained market. The service to Canton that is currently being planned, White said, would involve a much bigger market.

White reported that there had been some “consumer pushback” about the price –  people who didn’t want to use the service for all the days that they were required to purchase tickets. [Pricing for the service is as follows: $125 for a calendar month; $62.50 for a half calendar month; $40 for a ten-ride ticket; $5 exact cash for a one-way ride without a ticket or subscription.]

Nacht asked White if he had ever ridden the express service. White’s answer: Yes. White said that he and AATA staffer Tom Cornillie had talked to the regular passengers. Nacht suggested that there were two categories of people they needed to talk to: (i) those who could be riding with the service but who won’t try it, and (ii) those who ride it but who don’t love it. White contended that the people who do ride the service are, in fact, very satisfied with it.

In terms of what current riders of the A2Chelsea express enjoy, White said they don’t put value on the WiFi service or other amenities associated with the motorcoach – overhead luggage bins, reading lights, full reclining seats. [The AATA website indicates that WiFi is not provided, but White told The Chronicle at the board meeting that this amenity was available.]

Nacht asked where the data came from on the idea that people wanted the fancier coaches. He said that he recalled that former director of the AATA, Greg Cook, had always talked about the fact that people wanted the fancier coaches. White said this preference simply wasn’t true of the people who were actually riding the express bus – seat comfort was important, he allowed, but not the other amenities.

And White said that this lack of value placed on extra amenities factored into the AATA’s thinking about how to provide the service more cheaply. He said that the AATA could do the service at two-thirds the cost in-house (instead of contracting with Indian Trails) by using cheaper buses that were outfitted with highway seats.

Nacht briefly contemplated the idea of coming up with a different category to put drivers in for the commuter service – perhaps using minivans. Nacht wondered if there could be cost savings not just for the vehicles, but also for the drivers, if commuter service drivers were not paid according to the regular driver contract. White cautioned that there would be certain economies of scale sacrificed if they went with smaller vehicles. He noted that van pools are the primary forms of competition to the service. Board member Charles Griffith confirmed with White that the expansion of service to Canton was going to be provided under the same Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that was funding the Chelsea service. Canton had been identified as a good area to target, White said, because of its high density of University of Michigan employees.

Nacht asked if there was money for a survey of riders who live within the Chelsea “catchment area” who could ride it in order to check for awareness of the service. White said that announcements had been sent out to all Chelsea area residents with their water bills. Board member Jesse Bernstein wanted to know to what extent the service was subsidized. Charles Griffith explained it was a 1:3 ratio – one third of the cost is covered by riders.

Nacht asked if anyone had been hired to consult, someone who’s done successful commuter buses elsewhere. White replied that the people with such expertise have usually dealt with situations where it’s a 40-50 mile commute to major urban areas [Chelsea is about 16 miles to the west of Ann Arbor]. Nacht wanted to know if the AATA was really ready to offer service to Canton. “Have we learned enough?” he asked. White responded by saying that the grant was getting old [it's now starting the second of two years]. Board member Charles Griffith suggested that Canton represented an opportunity to try lower cost alternatives, allowing that it would not permit a direct comparison between the Chelsea situation.

Nacht expressed the sentiments behind his questioning: “I have concerns that we are experimenting without sufficient analysis or expertise, using too much guesswork … I’m a huge commuter service supporter, but I have no sense we have a direction about how to improve.” Nacht said that after three months and at the six-month mark he had heard, “It’s early,” but after a year, he felt like he was not comfortable that the AATA was ready to actually “go into this business.”

Bernstein, for his part, was somewhat more sanguine. “We’ve got data,” he said, “and the biggest problem is people’s schedules, which we can’t change.” Charles Griffith said that the AATA could not go into business with the service as it was offered to Chelsea, because it won’t pay for itself. On that basis, he argued for the idea that lower-cost options for providing the service need to be explored.

Nacht suggested that White and Cornillie conduct a very informal focus group study by heading out to Chelsea on a Saturday afternoon and talking to people. White said that they have data on 30-40 people who have considered the service and have tried it, but who don’t use the service. This data comes from the two-week free trial. The idea was discussed of adding one later trip in the evening to provide the psychological assurance that there would be a bus coming later in case someone needed to stay longer at work, so they wouldn’t feel stranded.

Speaking to the idea of an additional evening trip, board member Sue McCormick said that based on her own experience, leaving home for work is fairly predictable, but that leaving work is always unpredictable. There would be the same challenge, she said, when commuter rail was implemented with relatively few options.

Rich Robben said he felt that the price of gasoline had a lot to do with it. Although the price per gallon right now stands around $2.50 a gallon, it was projected to be around $3.50 this time next year, he said.

Nacht wanted to know what the marketing efforts had been like for the Chelsea service. White said that the most successful approaches had been employer contacts [University of Michigan] and word-of-mouth – referrals can earn riders a discount.

Why the long discussion on the topic of the Ann Arbor-to-Chelsea express bus service? Nacht said that commuter bus service was crucially important, because it had been pointed to as one of the key components of expanded countywide service for the AATA.

Arborland

The AATA operates buses on three routes (numbers 4, 7, 22) using stops inside Arborland shopping center. Over the course of at least the last year, conversations have taken place between the management of the shopping center and the AATA, concerning the use of property inside the shopping center for bus stops. Although the AATA’s website does not list Arborland among its “park and ride” locations, some riders apparently use the lot for that purpose. Previously, an officially designated Park and Ride lot at Maple Village on the west side of Ann Arbor was “evicted” when no agreement could be reached between that shopping center’s management and the AATA.

The recent trajectory of Arborland-AATA communications is reflected in minutes from the the AATA’s performance monitoring and external relations committee.

From the draft minutes of the Feb. 13, 2009 performance monitoring and external relations committee:

Develop plans for park and ride lot near Washtenaw and US-23 to replace Arborland. Timing/Target completion date: April 1, 2009.

From the draft minutes of the March 11, 2009 performance monitoring and external relations committee meeting:

Mr. White reported that AATA has reached an agreement with Arborland Management on parking at Arborland. In the past two weeks, AATA staff has been working with riders to make sure they park in the designated area. This effort is intended to permit continuing AATA operations in Arborland. For the long term, staff will be looking for an alternate site.

From the draft minutes of the May 13, 2009 performance monitoring and external relations committee meeting:

Mr. White said that the owner of Arborland informed AATA a year ago the owner wanted us to leave shopping center last year, with no reason given. AATA contacted the management company and worked with them to designate a parking area away from the stores. The management company acknowledged that our efforts were successful, but we recently received a notice to vacate Arborland by July 1. Discussion of the situation resulted in a plan under which Ms. McCormick would evaluate the city’s leverage with Arborland and notify Mr. Bernstein, Mr. White and Ms Stasiak. Mr. Bernstein would follow up with Border’s and Arborland management to see if something could be worked out. Mr. White noted that vacating the center in mid schedule would cause additional problems and AATA would like to stay at the least through August, when the new schedule would go into effect. He added that some reconstruction could be done in 2010 at the shopping strip across Washtenaw Avenue from Arborland to allow for buses to pull in and wait.

At the May 20, 2009 board meeting, board member Charles Griffith asked about the situation with Arborland. Dawn Gabay, interim director of the AATA, said there had been behind the scenes work with the city and board memberJesse Bernstein, who are trying to resolve the situation, but they could not yet make an announcement on that.

Ypsilanti Bus Service

Part of the news from last month’s April 2009 AATA board meeting was that the board voted to adopt fully-allocated costs for  its “purchase of service” agreements (POSAs) with municipalities outside of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor funds its bus service through a dedicated millage. That means that the AATA would specify the full cost of providing the service – not some fraction of it – in its POSAs. The increase to full allocation is scheduled to be put into place incrementally, with the fully-allocated costs not achieved until 2012. The $223,316 cost of Ypsilanti’s contract for fixed route service in 2009 would be increased by around $22,000 in 2010 to $245,888 and would increase further to $291,034 by 2012.

That prompted questions during public commentary both at the start and the end of the meeting from people concerned that service to Ypsilanti would be cut off. That concern came in light of recent reports from Ypsilanti, according to AATA interim director Dawn Gabay, that Ypsilanti was looking at around a $100,000 shortfall against the POSA put forward by the AATA.

One resident asked about Ypsilanti this way, “Does service just stop in October?” That’s when the AATA’s next fiscal year (2010) starts. The AATA has a schedule for arriving at its FY 2010 budget – which runs from Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010 – that calls for approval by the board at a mid-September 2009 board meeting.

On both occasions when the issue was brought up, board chair Nacht was emphatic that it was not the intent of the board to discontinue service to Ypsilanti. Terminating the bus service to Ypsilanti, Nacht said, was not a direction the AATA wanted to go.

Speaking to The Chronicle by phone a few days after the meeting as well as writing in an email, Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber clarified that it would not be a question of all service to Ypsilanti disappearing in October. The dialogue from now until October between Ypsilanti’s city manager, Edward Koryzno, Jr., and the AATA would center on how much service could be maintained for a given purchase of service contract, Schreiber said. Koryzno requested a budget of $158,967 in FY 2010 to fund AATA service and had gotten support from Ypsilanti city council for that amount. The  difference between that request and the AATA-proposed POSA for fixed route service of $245,888 is the financial gap, if service routes were to remain unchanged.

In his budget message to council, Koryzno said about the proposed level of funding: “Adopting the proposed budget at this amount, allows the City time to negotiate price and service levels with AATA  before the current contract expires in October 2009.”

Schreiber said he was disappointed that he was now in a 2-5 minority on Ypsilanti’s city council on the issue of funding bus service:

… funding the buses is a top priority. Ypsilanti residents depend on the buses to get to work and shop. Partially funding the POSA sends a message that Ypsilanti does not value bus service and mass transportation – regardless of a Depot Town rail stop. The city of Ypsilanti needs to prove to the rest of Washtenaw County that mass transportation is important by funding bus service.

Useful documents for understanding that presentation include an analysis of Ypsilanti route productivity and an analysis of fixed and demand route costs.

Other Public Commentary

Larry Krieg: Krieg spoke for the organization Wake up, Washtenaw. He said that it was distressing to hear that Arborland management continues to want the AATA to get out of the parking lot. In connection with the refurbishment of the Blake Transit Center, Krieg suggested the exploration of joint development strategies with businesses offering services within the center. Nacht responded by saying, “We’ve tried that before, you know.” [This was an allusion to the attempted development of the Fifth and William location by the AATA as a mixed-use facility before it was purchased by the city of Ann Arbor.] In connection with the Blake refurbishment, Krieg also suggested that consideration be given to a long-term strategy of unifying the transportation centers for the north/south rail, the east/west rail and the bus station. Krieg said that he was encouraged that board member Jesse Bernstein had contacted the board’s Toledo, Ohio counterparts in connection with the proposed north/south commuter rail.

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi gave an update from the Center for Independent Living perspective. She announced that there would be a picnic on June 6 at 3941 Research Park, to which everyone was invited. She also announced that the IRide would be taking place from Aug. 6-9, 2009 – it’s a bicycle tour from Holland, Mich. to Ann Arbor. Grawi said that she expected Nacht participate. [While her remark could fairly be described as lighthearted, it was prompted by the fact that Nacht had ridden his bike to the board meeting.]

Thomas Partridge: When Partridge began his public commentary at the conclusion of the board meeting, board chair Nacht took the opportunity to ask Partridge about the quality of the bus service he was getting. “How’s your bus service these days out in Scio?” Nacht asked, continuing with, “What’s it like? What do you have to do to get the service?” Partridge described how he made reservations using the paratransit ride service. As far as access to the regular service, he said there are problems on a daily basis. The People’s Express circulator, Partridge said, runs only in a limited area, and only from 7 a.m.to 6:30 p.m. He said he thought that the one-year grant being used to fund the service ended this summer. Asked what one thing the AATA could do to make his life better, Partridge spoke on a range of themes, including the need to subsidize transit outside the city of Ann Arbor. He also said that the AATA needs a legal appeal system, which he said was not clearly delineated anywhere. Nacht directed staff to mail Partridge a copy of the appeal system.

Rebecca Burke: In reporting from the local advisory council, which she chairs, Burke said that their agenda had consisted of numerous attempts to develop a code of conduct for LAC member behavior and how to address complaints.

Other Announcements: Bonds, CEO, Surveys

Nacht announced that he had had a conversation with a bond lawyer. The purpose of the conversation was to explore the question of whether it was possible for the AATA to raise money by issuing bonds. The answer, said Nacht, was “maybe.” A portion of the costs, he continued, would need to be backed by an income stream, possibly constituted by grants. Nacht stressed that it was the vaguest of conversations.

Board member Sue McCormick reported on the status of negotiations with Michael Ford regarding his hire as the CEO of the AATA. She said that two negotiation sessions had taken place but as yet no consensus agreement had been reached. There would be one more before an offer would be made. She said that Ford was out of the country this week and next so there would be no progress for the next 10 days. Nacht commented that it was good for Ford to get his foreign travel out of the way now. [This was an allusion to the friction that had developed between the board and the previous director of the AATA, Greg Cook, over travel expenses.]

Board member Rich Robben reported out on the planning and development committees activities, in the absence of Ted Annis, who usually delivers that report as the committee’s chair. Robben highlighted the 10%, 20%, and 40% revenue reduction scenarios that the organization was trying to plan for as contingencies. He said that they continued to explore how to reduce service hour costs. The committee was working on a timeline for budget preparations [see above]. They were looking at route structure analysis especially in the light of the north/south and east/west commuter rail plans.

Reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, McCormick said that at their Wednesday, May 13 meeting there had been no major variances from expected performance. The committee had focused on market research for expanded services – it received 10 proposals, all of them very high quality. The timing of launching that research would depend on grant approval. She said that Jesse Bernstein was helping to assist in the design of that survey. She also reported that the onboard rider survey proposals they had received were under evaluation.

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

Absent: Ted Annis, Paul Ajegba.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave. [confirm date]