Archive for the ‘Transportation’ category

« Local in Ann Arbor home page
« Older Entries

The Long Saga of the Fuller Road Station

August 24, 2021

Over 11 years after it was first envisioned, it appears that the dream of a parking structure and train station in Fuller Park is dead. A pointed letter from the Federal Railroad Administration indicates that the project as proposed is irretrievably flawed and no further action on Ann Arbor’s efforts to apply for funding is likely.

Neumann-Smith rendering of proposal; parking structure on left, station to right (gable)

The letter from the Federal Railroad Administration, dated August 11, 2021, must have arrived at City Hall with the force of an earthquake. Ironically, it was directed toward a man who was no longer there – Tom Crawford, our recently deposed City Administrator. The letter is brief and to the point. Here are the most pertinent points. They were written in paragraph form but placed in bullets here, emphasis added.

  1. However, as FRA previously informed the City, the cost estimate for the City’s preferred project is an order of magnitude higher than other new intercity passenger rail and multimodal stations for which MDOT was awarded Federal funding by FRA to construct.
  2. The cost is high because the City’s preferred location for the station is constrained and the City is proposing a substantial amount of parking, requiring the station to be located over the tracks.
  3. In addition, the City’s preferred station design exceeds intercity passenger rail needs.
  4. Therefore, FRA is discontinuing the development of the EA and does not intend to complete the environmental process at this time.

Mayor Christopher Taylor, who has been a major cheerleader for the station, predicted in early 2018 that the City of Ann Arbor would receive a go-ahead from the FRA by the end of 2018.  The City has been in long discussions with the FRA in an effort to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that indicates a project will not cause environmental harm before Federal funding can be applied to projects. Once that finding was received, the City would be clear to seek grant funding for construction of the station. (The earlier grant was only for preliminary planning and design.) It hasn’t happened.

Point by Point

Here are the underlying facts behind each of the important points made in the FRA letter.

(1.) However, as FRA previously informed the City, the cost estimate for the City’s preferred project is an order of magnitude higher than other new intercity passenger rail and multimodal stations for which MDOT was awarded Federal funding by FRA to construct.

Translation: The cost is hideously high – ten times that for any comparable proposal for a new train station. The reference is to the ARRA grant of $198.6 million received by MDOT to improve and strengthen the Chicago-Detroit line (Wolverine route). This grant, administered by MDOT, is the source of the $2.8 million Ann Arbor has used to plan the FRS. At last estimate, the cost of both phases of FRS would be $171. 4 million (Final Cost Estimate). Compare to the cost of the Dearborn station, constructed with these grant funds for a cost of $28.2 million (open in 2014), and the Troy station, about $12 million (open in 2014; part of the cost paid by other transportation funds).

(2.) The cost is high because the City’s preferred location for the station is constrained and the City is proposing a substantial amount of parking, requiring the station to be located over the tracks.

Translation: Because of the insistence by the City that the location should be in Fuller Park, rather than any of the other sites considered (the current Depot Street location was much favored by many commenters), the parking structure is loaded tightly into the area currently occupied by the UM parking lot. That lot is situated in part of Fuller Park that has been leased to the University of Michigan. The UM has only temporary possession of it, since the lease must be periodically renewed. However, by virtue of this possession, a structure could presumably be erected on it to serve the UM. This has been clearly stated as an objective since the very first version of this project. (Note diagrams in our post, Fuller Road Station: It’s All About Parking. )

According to the Architectural Narrative (Neumann Smith, 2018), a total of 1332 parking spaces is planned (Phases I and II).

The proposed design. Note that the main section is the parking structure. The station (pink/orange) is poised over the tracks.

As noted in the letter, this immense amount of parking in a small space has resulted in the positioning of the train station over the tracks. It is so obviously a near afterthought.

(3.) In addition, the City’s preferred station design exceeds intercity passenger rail needs.

Translation: The design of the station, especially the requested parking accommodation, is based on a very large estimate of future passengers for the train service. But based on ridership for the intercity traffic (as distinguished from a commuter usage), this exceeds any reasonable estimate of people wanting to go from Ann Arbor to Chicago, for example. There are some subtle policy differences here. Amtrak service (which this project is supposed to support) is primarily an intercity network, though commuters may use part of the system. But commuter service is different and may involve entirely different management and even equipment. Indeed, MDOT attempted for some years to refurbish some used train cars to serve commuters. While the tracks are used by all rail providers (including freight trains), MDOT’s grant was actually to provide high-speed rail for intercity travelers.

Mayor Christopher Taylor has clearly confused these two uses of a rail system. In his 2018 letter to constituents Annual Report 2018, he predicted 1.5 million passengers by 2040.

Additionally, the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan (RTA) is proposing commuter rail service linking Ann Arbor and Detroit along the same rail right of way. Should the proposed commuter rail service be implemented, the RTA projects that an additional 143,320 to 229,950 passengers per year would use the station for work commute trips and other intra-metropolitan area travel. Combined intercity passenger rail and commuter rail passengers could result in nearly 1.5 million total passengers per year using the station in 2040.

We now know that commuter rail service between Detroit and Ann Arbor is unlikely to happen in the near future, since the RTA millage (2016) failed to pass, as did several attempts to revive it. But Taylor also exposed a conceptual error here, since the primary use of this grant program was not to support commuter rail.

Examination of FRA comments on a review draft of the Environmental Assessment reveal a concern with cross-talk on this conflation of the two types of rail travel and usage.

The core point here is that the projected rail travel does not justify this number of parking spaces, and therefore this immense parking structure. It has so clearly become a case of the tail wagging the dog, with the little train station nearly engulfed in a parking structure.

(4.) Therefore, FRA is discontinuing the development of the EA and does not intend to complete the environmental process at this time.

Translation: What is not quite said here but is certainly intended, is that the project is dead as currently configured. Since the NEPA approval is required to access Federal funds and it will not be coming and is no longer in process. That is it, finis, kaput. Or, with apologies to Jim Morrison,

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end

A Long History

Perhaps the best starting point in understanding the history of the Fuller Road Station (FRS) is the letter to citizens of Ann Arbor sent by former Mayor John Hieftje on July 28, 2011. As we recounted in our post, Fuller Road Station and the Mayor’s Letter, Hieftje explained that the station would be built (located at the site of the parking lot on Fuller Park) as a replacement for the current Amtrak train station on Depot Street. It would be a joint venture between the University of Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor, with some Federal funds paying for the majority of the cost. But the UM would essentially pick up the matching funds. He stressed that

A big advantage of the financing plan for the overall community is that the University’s upfront contributions can meet the required local match for federal funding for the entire rail station…The Fuller Road Station, Phases I and II can be built without any significant upfront cost to the City.

Some millions of dollars expended by the City later, the basic theme has remained the same: We can build an elaborate parking structure with an appended train station with little local City money. The Federal government will pay for most of it and the UM will pick up the rest. And, importantly, the station must be built at the Fuller Road site.

An Early Hiccup

We have detailed the history of the City’s failed joint project with the UM in our post Fuller Road Station – A Review. Delays in attaining approval from the Parks Commission and the Council caused the UM to withdraw from the agreement in February, 2012. But a new vision quickly replaced that one. President Obama’s ARRA (stimulus program) awarded a grant to Michigan to implement Obama’s vision of high-speed rail. In September 2011, US Rep. John Dingell announced that Ann Arbor would receive a small fraction of that grant ($2.8 million) for planning a train station. (Note: Federal grants were made on an 80% Federal – 20% local match basis. The actual amount of the grant was $3.5 million, of which Ann Arbor must provide $700,000.)

Tough going

The communications with the FRA were evidently difficult as the City attempted to get approval of the preferred site for a new station in Fuller Park. The FRA required the City to look at different site alternatives, which required a separate analysis (Alternatives Analysis, Phase I, Phase II). As discussed in a May 2016 article in the Ann Arbor News, there were some changes in FRA management of this project. Attempts by the News to obtain information were answered with heavily redacted email text. Citizen FOIA requests were similarly answered with heavy redaction.

The City submitted its Environmental Assessment to the FRA in September 2017 and it evidently was subjected to some hard review. As described in the Ann Arbor News, a tough conference call in April 2018 involved many probing questions from the FRA and a surprise requirement to engage in an archeological study. This required an additional cost, another consultant, and another delay. The study was completed in October 2018 and no further action was required. This was the comment: “none of these sites appear to be associated with important events or patterns of history, or with individuals significant in local, regional or national history.”

There was also extensive public comment, much of which stressed unhappiness with the choice of the Fuller Road site rather than the existing location on Depot Street. Ann Arbor staff and consultants were required to respond to these comments as part of the EA process, but the comments and response are not shown on the City’s web page for the project. The last update to the City’s Ann Arbor Station web page indicated that a revised EA was being reviewed as of June 2019.

At What Cost?

The promise that no City of Ann Arbor funds would be spent was abandoned some years ago. The actual period of the grant ended on September 30, 2017, after which the City was working on its own dime (could not apply any expenses toward the grant). This was well covered by the Ann Arbor News and we asked whether the Council was ready to gamble (they did).

This article details a number of the projected costs.  It mentions the embarrassing gaffe that the project team made in failing to add up the figures. (Rita Mitchell, a citizen volunteer, brought the error to their attention.) In recent years, the Council has been obliged to vote on additional funds to complete the EA process.

Notably, the project has stayed at the top of City budget priorities, in spite of the eye-popping numbers. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is the best report the City’s financial departments are able to produce, showing both the timeline and the projected costs of capital projects. The Ann Arbor Station has stayed at the top priority for years, and is still there. But the schedule has slipped.

 

 

The CIP is intended to show costs in “all funds”, including local and external. Note that for the NEPA activities, all have already been spent (click to enlarge the figure). We are currently in FY 2022, and the total is shown as $2,386,000 (figures must be multiplied by 1000). This is not the complete cost of our activities because that is less than the amount of the grant, and we know that was exceeded. Final design (which would require new funding) is intended to begin in FY 2023 (next year) and planned to cost $14,700,000.  The station construction is shown to begin in FY 2026 and to cost a total of $86,068,000. Of course, without grant funding (which was never guaranteed but is now impossible), this will not happen.

Taylor has continued to suggest that the Federal government will pay 80% of the cost of any construction. But of course, there has to be a program. The TIGER program expired several years ago, and until our new rail-loving Secretary of Transportation makes some announcements, we don’t know of a current program by which Uncle Sam would buy us a train station. Also, most programs are competitive and it is not clear that this project would be successful, for many of the reasons stated in the FRA letter. In any event, without compliance with NEPA, the project is simply dead in the water.

And 20% of any program in the tens and hundreds of millions is still a lot of money. It has always been hinted (or said directly) that the UM would pick up a big piece of the costs for matching funds. Other “partners”, like the AAATA (which has its own funding problems) have also been suggested, but basically the question of how the City would pay for millions in matching funds has essentially been answered by hand-waving. Finding partners for $24 million or so might be challenging.

The Fatal Flaw

So what went wrong? Aside from a number of over-optimistic projections about commuter rail, etc., the true problem is that this project was always about parking for the UM. It began with the effort to keep a parking structure from bothering neighbors on Wall Street (long since constructed) and ultimately grew to a size and configuration that was impossible to defend as a transit project. Though the high employee count at the UM Hospitals was used to justify the possibility of an eventual commuter train, in reality the UM hospital staff agitate for more accessible parking. (The City Council just renewed the lease for the three parking lots once again.)

We could speculate about the connection between our Mayor’s insistence that the “station” will be built and his close ties to the UM, but there is no evidence that any direct pressures have been brought to bear. In any event, it is clear that the UM and its need to expand parking have played a large part in the design and placement of this overblown project.

What now? Indications were that City officials may be having conversations with MDOT and others, seeking to breathe life into the project. They are unlikely to succeed, given the finality of the letter from the FRA.

NOTE REGARDING COMMENTS: It has long been our rule that commenters must give a true name in order to participate. Some comments have been received that are excellent comments, but are anonymous. I dislike taking down comments after they have been posted, therefore we have now instituted moderation of comments. Comments should also be relevant to the subject of the post, and otherwise follow our previously posted guidelines. (See About.)

ADDENDUM:

Many readers may have missed the excellent blog, All Aboard on Depot Street. I certainly did. Because of programming decisions, the Home page does not take the reader to recent posts. They can be accessed from this page. (Note: this site is not secure and your system may give you a warning.)

You’ll note from the post that I have referenced here that the FRA has been sending the City messages about the inadequacy of the proposed project for some time. A document is shown here that dates from 2018. It expresses many of the same objections and concerns that were stated in the “goodbye” letter, in almost the same language.

This paragraph is from a message sent by Melissa Hatcher, who was managing the EA review, to Eli Cooper (the Ann Arbor staff who has been the major contact for this project) and Michael Nearing (the city’s project manager for infrastructure). The letter in general is urging a rethink of the PE (engineering) plan because of the excessive costs.

As best we can surmise, there was no action taken as a result of this letter. There was no rethink of the project and there was no publicly discussed effort to reconsider the project. It appears that the strategy was “hold on and hope”.

It is notable that essentially the same information was sent in the August 2021 letter, but this time it was sent to the Ann Arbor City Administrator, presumably the top individual in the organization. So the current letter is the proverbial club to the head. “Get this???”

UPDATE (September 5, 2021): Some interesting afterthoughts by John Hieftje, the former Mayor, quoted here. He accurately notes that in those early days MDOT was leasing rail cars to establish a commuter train system, which seems unlikely now.

“It was a different scenario back when I was hoping to get this project built,” he said. “The world’s a different place.”

SECOND UPDATE (October 13, 2021) Apparently supporters have prevailed on Congresswoman Debbie Dingell to go to bat for the Fuller Road Station. We can only hope that it has little effect, as it should. There are committees. Appropriations are required. Transportation funds are always limited. And this is just a bad, overblown idea.

 

 

Categories: Transportation

Comments: 10 Comments

Governance and Transit and Taxes, Oh, My.

January 18, 2018

Breakthrough nears on transit in southeast Michigan.  

That was the headline in a recent article in Bridge Magazine.  It is referring to the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan.  The concept of the RTA is to combine the transit systems of four counties (Oakland, Macomb, Wayne, Washtenaw) into a single authority. It has been just the latest effort to form a truly regional transit system for the metropolitan Detroit region. As this account from Curbed Detroit relates, the effort to achieve regional transit in Motor City has been frustrated over and over again. With the creation of the RTA, it was hoped that it might finally be achieved.  A carefully constructed plan (RMTP plan) was put forward in 2016, after many “listening tours” and much negotiation.  A millage proposal was placed on the November 2016 ballot.  It was not successful.

Now there is a last-ditch effort to save the RTA and the possibility of a true regional transit system for Detroit (the only major city without one).  But the factors that led to this latest failure, as well as many of the earlier ones, are still here.

Note: for all the illustrations of maps, a larger version may be viewed by clicking on the image.

Precinct-by-precinct vote for the RTA millage in November 2016. Credit to Steve Wilse (map creator) and the Motor City Freedom Riders.

Leadership

The RTA had gone through many birth pangs (for a blow-by-blow legislative account and other history, see our post, The SE Michigan Regional Transit Authority in Progress) before the package of bills was signed into law by Governor Snyder on December 19, 2012. SEMCOG, the SE Michigan regional planning agency, hosted the fledgling organization, supplying office space, support and a web presence.  The RTA Board consists of members appointed by the chief executive of each participating unit of government (in the case of Washtenaw County, which has no county executive, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners).  The Governor appoints the Chair, who is ex officio (non-voting).  Governor Snyder tapped Paul Hillegonds, a distinguished former state representative who has served in many public capacities as well as in industry.  He has led the Board through many travails.

The Board had some initial difficulties in settling on a Chief Executive Officer.  Then  they tapped Michael Ford, the CEO of the newly regional Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, who had had a notable success in the May 2014 vote to form the AAATA (as reported by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, over 70% of voters in Ann Arbor and the two Ypsilanti communities voted themselves a 0.7 mill tax to form the expanded authority).  With that background, he seemed the ideal person to lead the RTA through a successful regional millage vote.  The November 2016 request to taxpayers of Oakland, Wayne, Macomb, and Washtenaw Counties was to commit to a payment of 1.2 mills for 20 years to support the RTA plan. The millage failed, just barely.

The system map as proposed by the RTA in 2016

Since November 2016 the RTA board has been struggling to find a way to achieve success. The obvious approach is to try again with another millage, presumably after a few tweaks here and there. And the obvious moment is November 2018 (the legislation requires a November election date).

But it has been a rough ride, with several changes in leadership.  Michael Ford, with no electoral success to protect him, was terminated in March 2017 because of issues with his expenses.  His deputy, Tiffany Gunter, seemed to have things well in hand.   Under her leadership, a Board Retreat in May 2017 reviewed the possible issues and approaches (RTA Board Retreat) for the RTA to go forward in a forthright but optimistic manner. But in November 2017 Gunter quit.  According to this account in Crain’s Detroit Business, she had not been given a permanent slot and her salary had remained at the same level ($150,000) as when she was Ford’s deputy.  (Ford had been paid $200,000.)  The supervising planner had departed in May 2017 and now the transportation planner Lucas Reigstad also walked out.  Longtime transit supporter Megan Owens, on her Facebook page Support Detroit Transit (November 16, 2017), commented:

Today the RTA pretty much gave up and closed up shop. At today’s board meeting, the interim CEO resigned as did their staff planner, leaving 1 administrative staff person and some consultants. The board has no plans at this time to seek a new CEO. SMART has taken over their one project: RefleX. The RTA appears to have abdicated any leadership role, giving everything into the hands of the Big 4 (County Execs and Mayor Duggan) to decide if and when we get transit. The public, riders and other stakeholders appear to have no say.

Now a “leadership group” consisting of the elected county executives of three counties plus the Mayor of Detroit has been designated to figure out how to put this deal together.  Oh, yes, and also the Chair of the Board of Commissioners for Washtenaw County (Andy LaBarre) was invited to sit in.  (He is not mentioned by name and not pictured in this report by the Detroit News.)  But really, it is the Big 4 (Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, Wayne County Executive Warren Evans, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel) who hold the fate of the RTA in their hands.  Unfortunately, the issues that nearly derailed the RTA before the last millage vote remain.

A Question of Governance

The comprehensive difficulty is the issue of governance.  As we explained some years ago,

(Governance) alludes to the manner in which government conducts its business and especially the way it interacts with its citizens.  Some of the important elements in this interaction are representation, taxation, and power.   People generally want to believe that they are fairly represented at the decision-making level.  If the body collects taxes, are they proportionate to the function of the governing body?  And does this body exert a level of power over daily lives that is appropriate to its function, not dictatorial or burdensome?

Governance is at the heart of any effort to create regional entities, especially in Michigan.  When you combine a number of essentially sovereign civic bodies (four counties and a major city), questions of representation and power immediately emerge.  These are very unlike entities.  Oakland County is the most populous and richest. In any relationship that involves taxation, they are likely to contribute the most.  Detroit is The City but also has a history of economic problems. Wayne County is the county that contains Detroit.  Macomb County is the workingman’s county with a history of being extremely independent on electoral issues (remember the Reagan Democrats?). And Washtenaw is the afterthought, a relatively rural county with a small urban area and some assets like the University of Michigan and the associated technology culture. (The original RTA proposal did not include Washtenaw.)  All have different things to gain or lose from a regional association.

The Citizens’ Research Council, a nonpartisan and well-respected organization that often analyzes governmental issues in Michigan, published a critical examination of regional authorities,  with the RTA as its example. It highlighted how uneven the representation is across the authority.

From the Citizen’s Research Council. Note the population and representation disparities. Larger percent of population indicates less representation.

There was some dispute about representation early on. As finally constituted, the RTA board consisted of two representatives appointed by each county (and one by the City of Detroit), plus a chair (non-voting) appointed by the Governor.   I say “each county” but in fact the power of appointment resides with the actual county executives and the Chair of the Board of Commissioners.

The question of how many representatives was solved by simply making everyone the same.  Except Detroit.  Notice that though this is after all a Detroit Metropolitan organization, the City of Detroit receives only one representative, the least well represented of all.

Taxation

The representation is very uneven with regard to taxation as well.  Tax paid is determined by the ad-valorem of each county. (We explained some of this in the post, Taxes and the Local Government Quandary.)  Because Oakland County has a lot of valuable property, the tax yield both for the entire county and probably for individual taxpayers is quite high.  Note also that they have the highest total millage rate of all entities, meaning that their taxpayers are already paying a lot of taxes.

From the Citizens’ Research Council. Note the disparity in tax contributions. (The last column is total millage the citizens of each county are assessed, not the RTA millage.)

The answer to this inequitable (according to relative investment) arrangement was to make expenditures directly related to the funds contributed by each entity.  (For reference, Senate Bill 909 as adopted.)

An authority shall ensure that not less than 85% of the money raised in each member jurisdiction…is expended on the public transportation service routes located in that member jurisdiction.

Of course, this makes it almost impossible to have a truly regional effort.  The two Oakland County Board members, Chuck Moss and Timothy Soave, both of whom have solid financial and policy backgrounds, addressed a remarkable memo (Oakland RTA memo) to Ford and Gunter before the November vote.   Presumably some of their concerns were addressed, since they later acceded to the ballot issue.   But they note, “this 85% rule will require annual monitoring and different expenditure levels yearly as TV’s will always change, thereby causing the sum of the total proceeds to change.” Later in the 19-page memo, they complain that the mechanism to assure that RTA will stay with the 85% rule is vague and they also question the fairness of allocating the remaining 15% outside of the required set-aside.  Overall, the concern voiced here is that Oakland County will invest more in the RTA than the services provided will justify.  But the authors also question the ability of the RTA to administer the sums coming to them under the requirements placed on them, without harming the present local transit providers and systems.

Finally, the plan must establish a binding mechanism to guarantee that the benefits promised to each jurisdiction will be delivered, a mechanism that cannot be overturned by a simple majority vote of the RTA Board.

In other words, having two representatives on the board is not enough when one’s interests may be overwhelmed by the majority.  That is a power imbalance.

The CRC’s analysis concludes that representation by appointment in this fashion violates the “one man, one vote” norm for a body with the power to tax and cause many life rearrangements.  It posits that such a board should be elected by the population at large.  An example of this form would be the Ann Arbor Public Schools.  All voters of the district vote for the entire membership of the school board.  But it is not a coincidence that City of Ann Arbor concerns tend to dominate.  Most voters of the district live in the City.  In the case of Oakland County, their higher population numbers would likely give them at least slightly more weight on the RTA than they are being awarded.

Location, location, location

One obvious take-home from examining the results of the 2016 election is that the parts of the 4-county area that voted against the RTA millage were the areas not currently served by transit.   The parts where there were a high percentage of yes votes were the densely settled areas where people are using transit to get to work.

Job centers in the RTA area. From the RMTP.

Since fixed-route transit (bus routes) are usually installed only where the population density merits it, the transit web itself serves as a population indicator.

Existing transit services, from the RTMP. The single line between Washtenaw and Wayne Counties is the Air Ride.

In reviewing this, RTA staff suggested to the Board at their spring retreat that perhaps a circumscribed territory for the RTA, addressing only the urbanized areas where there were more yes votes, would be advisable in order to make a new millage more palatable.

Proposed limited territory, from RTA Board Retreat (only dark blue areas would be included in RTA).

This would, however, have two consequences.  One is that an increased millage rate (probably 1.5 mills) would be required.  It is assumed that the RMTP, which basically covered those areas, would remain intact. It also means that residents of those areas, many of whom are already paying millages for local services, would be asked to take on a considerable tax load for transit alone.  For example, Ann Arbor residents would add 1.5 mills to the current 2.7 mills, and thus a homeowner with a house valued at $200,000 would be paying $420 annually.  But considering that most Ann Arbor properties are now valued more highly, the more likely number is $630 (based on a market value of $300,000).

The Moss-Soave memo mentioned above makes a particular point about the possible impact on local transit millages, especially if the RTA does not deliver services seen to match its promises.  It asks what the RTA will do if local renewable millages fail because of taxpayer fatigue or disillusionment.

Maintenance of local services

One reason for urgency is that the RTA has no current source of funds. When the authorizing legislation was passed, it included a $250,000 appropriation, matched by $250,000 from MDOT.  In FY 2014-2015, the Legislature added a special appropriation of $1.1M.  Since then, they have obtained some planning grants and received some administrative charges for Federal funds.  They ended the fiscal year 2017 (September 30, 2017) with less than $1M.

They could dip into the government monies distributed to the current providers.  Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT), Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), and Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA) are now subordinate to the RTA for state and Federal funds.  Michigan state transportation tax (gas tax) is distributed to public transit providers via the Comprehensive Transportation Fund.  There are both operating subsidies and capital funds.  Federal funds from the Highway Trust Fund are also distributed to transit providers by a formula.  Because the RTA legislation allows 15% of these funds to be used by the RTA, the amounts distributed to local providers could be reduced by that amount.  Of course, doing so would likely harm the ability of those agencies to provide actual transit.  To my understanding, locally raised millages are exempt from this.  But clearly, unless the RTA can raise additional revenue on its own, it would not be helping the cause of public transit to hang on using those funds.

Disconcertingly, one of the options presented to the RTA board in its spring retreat was the idea of consolidation into one agency.

From the RTA Board retreat – an idea for consideration

On one hand, this is understandable.  A long-term complaint and a reason for establishing the RTA was that the suburban SMART system and DDOT have not coordinated well.  DDOT is a department of the City of Detroit and is supported by the Detroit General Fund.  SMART is supported by millages in various counties and communities (in something of a patchwork).  They really were two separate systems and their overlap has been a problem for the greater Detroit community.  But on the other hand, different communities have made decisions and commitments in support of these systems, and that is emphatically true of AAATA.  Talk about governance issues. Some communities have voted extra taxes for better service.  A consolidation does not recognize this.

Some obstacles to a changed RTA

Because this idea was the result of a closely argued process through the Michigan Legislature, any changes would have to pass through transportation committees of both houses and be passed and signed by the Governor in time to write up a new Plan and get the item on the November ballot.  It is still possible, but only if everything moves very, very fast.  Also, once you open up a piece of legislation, you don’t know what ideas people may have for changing other sections.  For example, what if the representation is altered, or the ways funds are distributed?

The impetus for the first pass was to provide a venue for the M-1 (now known as the QLine).  The Federal funding for that depended on the creation of a regional transit agency.  Now the QLine is built and operating.  Might the RTA structure be altered to give it better support?  (It is not currently part of the plan.)  So many possibilities.

The Big 2

If the news reports are correct, we’ll be hearing soon what the Big 4 have come up with.  The ever-hopeful Megan Owens asks supporters to put in a word.  Quotes sometimes appear.  But they are not always encouraging.  The problem is that the county executives of both Oakland and Macomb Counties are still reluctant though they are evidently willing to sit down at the table.  They were both unenthusiastic before the November 2016 vote but wound up taking no position.  These two (L. Brooks Patterson of Oakland County and Mark Hackel of Macomb County) are used to being the big power in their own turf, and are very territorial.  They might even like to have more power over the way the RTA is run.  So while Detroit and Wayne County are anxious to complete a plan, the Big 2 will not be rushed, even by the recent drive to entice Amazon to the area.  Hackel in particular has made remarks that indicate he is not supportive of the concept.  At one time, he mentioned roads and bridges, and recently he has been bringing up autonomous vehicles and the infrastructure to support them. (Macomb County has a strong involvement in that technology.)  He was heard on Michigan Radio as saying he wouldn’t support any plan that didn’t recognize that need.  The word on the wind was that we’d hear in January.  Here we are.

P.S. For those who missed the allusion in the title, Dorothy, the Tin Woodman, and the Scarecrow were tiptoeing through the Wood sharing their fear of Lions and Tigers and Bears (Oh, My).  But all they found was the Cowardly Lion.

ADDENDUM: Mary Morgan publishes columns irregularly via Medium.  The latest one is a transit update.  Sadly, she repeats the Bridge article without much more examination.

UPDATE: An interview with Paul Hillegonds by the Detroit News includes the suggestion that in the absence of a 2018 millage request, the RTA might look for income to survive until 2020.

“In the past, the state has supported us, but local bus services already are stretched,” he said. “The law requires us to stay in business, but if they don’t support the master plan in 2018, we will be running out of resources in 2019.”

Hillegonds mentions that one “Plan B” might be to look for the local bus services to support the RTA.  That would presumably mean, as we mentioned earlier, that they might tap into the regular operating budget for the local providers.

SECOND UPDATE: The Big 4 met on a stage with the Economic Club of Detroit (January 23, 2018) and left the RTA hanging once again.  As reported by Crain’s, the execs of Oakland and Macomb Counties are still not committing to any solution.  It now sounds as though they might be fishing to put some different features into the plan. Wayne County Executive Warren Evans said a decision was needed in the next 45 days if state legislative action is needed.

THIRD UPDATE:  Regarding automated vehicles, the University of Michigan is a leader in this field, including an automated shuttle already in use on campus.   The Federal Transit Administration is issuing an RFC for comments.

UM automated shuttle as shown on the FTA site.

FOURTH UPDATE: An interview with Paul Hillegonds and Robert Cramer (who runs SMART bus) at the January 29, 2018 TRU Transit Awards event is recorded in this podcast.   Hillegonds is cautiously negative about the notion of only Wayne and Washtenaw Counties joining to form an RTA (as was floated in this Bridge article).  He seemed to say that if Washtenaw got its commuter rail, there wouldn’t be money for anything else in the truncated RTA.  Also, he does not support any option that requires a change in the statute, which would mean action at the State level.  Instead, he stated that deputies of the County executives were working on a slightly amended plan that would maintain most of the current version.  One possibility is more cross-county routes.  The decision needs to be made by April or sooner to allow for work needed to put the item on the ballot.  He said that he hopes for a consensus on the Board.

FIFTH UPDATE: Oakland County executive Brooks Patterson sounds pretty definite in this February 7 article from the Free Press.

Only those communities that currently “opt in” with local property taxes to support SMART bus service should be included in a millage proposal to support regional mass transit, Patterson said.

Doesn’t sound like much of a consensus for a new millage proposal.

SIXTH UPDATE: Patterson really unwound in this February 7 interview with the Detroit News. Speaking of the current opt-out Oakland County communities, he said

“I will not betray them and slip some, or all of them, against their will, into a tax machine from which they can expect little or no return on their investment.”

SIXTH UPDATE:  Frustration with the Oakland County blockage has led some advocates to push the idea of a Wayne-Washtenaw RTA, presuming that the votes will be there since they were before. However, as we have noted, this would require state legislative action, and soon.  There are many difficulties with this scenario, but here is one enthusiastic scenario from a previous member of the RTA board. (Richard Murphy now works at the Michigan Municipal League.)

SEVENTH UPDATE: February 14, 2018 – looks as though the Board of Commissioners of Washtenaw County is ready to follow the dream. A BOC special meeting (on February 15) will have a discussion of a resolution in support for a Washtenaw-Wayne RTA.  According to a report by the Free Press, the hope of a commuter rail is probably driving this action.

EIGHTH UPDATE: The BOC did pass the resolution  (with three commissioners absent) on February 15. It instructs the County Administrator to “appropriately engage in discussions about a possible transit agreement between Washtenaw County, Wayne County, the City of Detroit, and other related public entities“.  The Administrator is requested to provide a report of options by June.

NINTH UPDATE: The Wayne County Executive, Warren Evans, has been pitching a revised four-county plan  (March 15, 2018) As noted by Curbed Detroit, it would call for a 1.5 mill tax.   But Macomb and Oakland County representatives are still showing notable resistance, according to Crain’s Detroit.

TENTH UPDATE: The outgoing Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, urged Detroit Chamber of Commerce members to get behind a four-county transit plan.  According to Crain’s Detroit Business, Snyder didn’t support the two-county concept. (March 27, 2018)

ELEVENTH UPDATE: A group of Detroit-area CEOs have come out with a plea to pass a plan, any plan. As discussed in Crain’s Detroit Business, (April 15, 2018) the execs are concerned with the image of Detroit with a poor regional transit system.

“The poor quality of our public transit is not lost on potential investors in our region. When Amazon passed on naming Detroit as a finalist for its second headquarters site, the lack of a workable regional transit system was one of a few key factors cited.”

Evidently the RTA Board is scheduled to meet on April 19 and is being entreated to put something on the ballot.  But no particular plan is being endorsed.  That doesn’t leave the board with much direction. The rules require that at least one of the appointees from all parties vote in favor of the item.  Considering the objections coming from both Macomb and Oakland Counties, that will be a challenge.

TWELVETH UPDATE:  At the RTA April 19 meeting, it was decided to move ahead with public comment on the Evans plan, now being called Connect Southeast Michigan.  The advocacy is currently located on the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce site, which may give you a clue to the motivation.  According to Crain’s Detroit, the RTA board may vote on whether to move this onto the ballot at their May meeting.

THIRTEENTH UPDATE: Not quite relevant to the RTA millage vote, but not very good news, was the failure of the QLine (M-1 streetcar line in Detroit) to achieve its ridership goals for the first year. As reported by Crain’s (May 2, 2018), the line was 500,000 riders below projections for the first year, despite a period of free ridership. The M-1 line was one of the major drivers for the formation of the RTA and received an upfront grant from USDOT upon the RTA legislation’s passage.  It is a public-private partnership, with substantial private investment, but it was hoped that the RTA could take over its operation in the future.

FOURTEENTH UPDATE: A distracting theme has emerged with action at the State Legislature. According to a Gongwer report published in Crain’s Detroit Business (May 9, 2018), a bill (HB 5870) has been introduced to allow communities to opt out of any new transit millage.  It appears to be mostly supported by Oakland County municipalities. This concept has caused the failure of past transit efforts in metro Detroit. Most likely at this point it is more an expression of resistance than a likely change in the state legislation.

FIFTEENTH UPDATE: The comments from Macomb and Oakland Counties continue to be negative to the RTA.  In a press conference reported by MLive (May 28, 2018), the two County Executives emphasized their support for a renewal of the SMART millage and not for the RTA millage.

SIXTEENTH UPDATE: The purchase by Ford Motor Co. of the Michigan Central Station in Detroit’s Corktown has changed some of the tenor of transportation talk, with an emphasis on autonomous vehicles taking some of the energy.  As reported in Crain’s Detroit Business, there is talk of making Michigan Avenue a test track for autonomous shuttles. (Ford’s intent is to make the station a headquarters for its autonomous vehicle development.)  Meanwhile, the actual use of the station for trains is being dismissed with little more than a nod. But the Wayne-Washtenaw enthusiasts who want a commuter rail are still bringing up the idea. Unfortunately, Wayne County Executive Evans is still hoping for a 4-county RTA.

SEVENTEENTH UPDATE:  The RTA board finally decided against placing the plan on the November ballot.  According to Crains, it didn’t make it out of committee so we don’t know how the Board would have voted.  Advocates are vowing to fight another day, maybe next year or the next.  Meanwhile, both the SMART and AAATA system millages are up for renewal this year.

EIGHTEENTH UPDATE: (August 2018) SMART regional transit millage (parts of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties) passed by a hair in Macomb County but handily in Oakland and Wayne.  The AAATA millage passed by a hefty 83% in the urban core region which it serves.

NINETEENTH UPDATE: The Citizen’s Research Council has produced a broad-ranging essay about regional transit across Michigan. (March 2019: Rethinking Regional Transportation in Michigan’s Urban Areas. )  It points to difficulties in governance and taxation, and suggests what for Michigan are revolutionary ideas, such as new forms of taxation separate from property taxes, and tax-base sharing and/or “feathering”, so that different areas pay different tax rates.

TWENTIETH UPDATE: MetroTimes is quite critical of the QLine (aka M-1), especially considering its overall effect on Detroit transit and the RTA.  Subtitle: “A Streetcar Named Disaster“. (May 2019)

TWENTY-FIRST UPDATE: With the death of long-time RTA opponent Brooks Patterson, advocates are figuring the odds on another RTA millage. Nothing simple yet. (September 2019)

TWENTY-SECOND UPDATE: This analysis by a current member of the RTA Board (Chuck Moss, Oakland County) seems very astute. He knows where all the bodies are buried:”the future of regional transit has some serious structural potholes as big as the worst ones on Telegraph Road”. (September 2019)

TWENTY-THIRD UPDATE:A new strategm for attaining a millage vote without Macomb County’s participation has been devised. It would require revision of the existing Municipal Partnership Act by the State Legislature.(February 2020)

TWENTY-FOURTH UPDATE:A letter from an impressive group of business leaders has been sent to the leaders of both legislative houses in an effort to jumpstart the MPA revision. (February 2020)

TWENTY-FIFTH UPDATE: A rapid sequence of proposed changes, including an abandonment of the MPA changes and a revision of the original RTA legislation, seems to have foundered and it is difficult to see how a new millage will make it to the ballot in 2020.

Categories: politics, Regional, Transportation

Comments: 10 Comments

Fuller Road Station – A Review

October 23, 2017

The Fuller Road Station has been one of the dominant stories in Ann Arbor politics for most of the last decade.  It blends two major influences:  former Mayor John Hieftje’s preoccupation with rail travel, and the University of Michigan’s growth plans and need for parking.  And, as a theme not invited by the powerful, Ann Arbor’s love of its parks.

A deadline is approaching.  The City of Ann Arbor requests public comments by November 2, 2017 about the Environmental Assessment for the Ann Arbor Station.  This is a tough homework assignment for the general public. The EA itself is 221 pages and then the Appendices are 735.  But these pages represent over 10 years of wishes, plans, politics, and especially money (from Ann Arbor’s civic pockets, and others).   Many studies, much data, probably hundreds of consultant hours, all to solidify the conclusion we knew all along:  the City of Ann Arbor wants to build a new Amtrak station on Fuller Park, next to the University of Michigan health sciences campus and hospital. 

Fuller Road Station site as located by Google

Rail

As we recounted in our post Ann Arbor’s Fading Dream of Trains and Rail Systems, it all began with John Hieftje’s Mayor’s Model for Mobility (2006).  Most elements of that model were included in the expansive transportation plan (the AATPU) passed by Council on May 4, 2009.  The plan (which still informs Ann Arbor transportation decisions) calls for signature routes, now the location of a proposed light rail line (the Connector).  They run through a nexus at Fuller Road.  Note the little blue train station icon. Under “mid-term recommendations” (5-10 years) it lists Construct permanent station at Fuller/Maiden intersection for Ann Arbor to Detroit Commuter Rail/AMTRAK service ($10,000,000) as one of its objectives.

Signature routes from the 2009 AATPU. (Click for larger image.)

 

Parking

From the beginning, the UM has been engaged with the City of Ann Arbor over the University’s growing population and its need both for increased transit and for parking.   As noted in this useful timeline from the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the UM first proposed to build a parking structure on Wall Street.  At a meeting held in January 2009, the idea of a multimodal transit center combined with parking for the UM (initially called FIT, or Fuller Intermodal Transit) was first floated by Eli Cooper, the City’s transportation specialist.  The Chronicle’s account of this meeting is worth reading for insights on how the City and UM interact.  The UM was persuaded to abandon the parking structure on Wall Street and invest its planning and its cash in the Fuller Road location instead.

The background information in the May resolution stresses the interest of the UM.  (Emphasis added.)

Work began on developing the plan update in April 2007.  The planning effort was guided by a technical steering committee comprised of city and stakeholder agency transportation and planning staff.  The University of Michigan contributed $20,000 to the planning effort and also contributed information about current and future travel patterns related to University growth plans.

To emphasize the point, a  Letter  (August 17, 2009) to City Administrator Roger Fraser from Hank Baier, UM VP for Facilities and Operations contained this information (emphasis added):

“As the conceptual plan for FIT is advancing, city and university staff will continue their efforts to more fully define next steps in anticipation that each of us will approve the conceptual plan in October. That schedule is necessary if we are to reach agreement on a first phase of construction that would accommodate university parking by 2012.”

Also on August 17, 2009, City Council passed a resolution awarding a contract to JJR LLC for Phase I engineering services for FIT, at a cost of $541,717.  (Emphasis added.)

“The City owns the land containing the existing southern surface parking lot along Fuller Road and has determined that this area is: uniquely suited as adjacent to the existing Amtrak passenger rail service corridor, which is proposed to accommodate commuter rail service linking Ann Arbor to Metro airport and Detroit and has been designated as a national high-speed corridor between Detroit and Chicago; immediately adjacent to the University Medical center campus with thousands of employees and visitors daily; able to provide direct pedestrian access to jobs and medical services; accessible to bus transport via Fuller and East Medical Center Drive and is along a proposed signature transit corridor identified in the City’s recent Transportation Plan Update.”

To finalize the concept, on November 5, 2009, Council adopted the Memorandum of Understanding with the UM to construct the Fuller Road Station.   It also increases the project budget to $111,228.  The MOU states that UM will pay 78% of the cost. Phase I will consist in part of a structure with 900 parking spots.

So, in a deft slight of hand, the City has put the Mayor’s vision close to a first realization, while reaching an agreement which will obligate the UM to pay for most of the first phase.  But there was a weak spot.  The City may have “owned the land”, but that land was a park.

Parks

With the accession of Roger Fraser as City Administrator, the City was casting its eyes on Ann Arbor’s extensive parks system as a possible source of needed funds.  There were actually lists of parks that might be sold.  But the parks loyalty of the Ann Arbor public should not be dismissed lightly.  In November 2008 the voters had approved (by 81.21%) a ballot issue that requires the City to ask for voter approval prior to selling any park land.
Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to require voter approval for the sale of any land within the City purchased, acquired or used for park land, while retaining the Sections current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any park land that is designated as park land in the City of Ann Arbor Master Plan at the time of the proposed sale?

Early signs of trouble for the Fuller Road Station (FRS) included a push-back at the Park Advisory Commission (PAC).  After a subsequent visit to PAC by Mayor Hieftje and several efforts at revision of a resolution, a resolution merely calling for “transparency” (to quote the Ann Arbor Chronicle) was passed, but not until hearing a great deal of intense public comment.   All this discussion was in consideration of the allowable uses for park land, which is where PAC had some voice.  This was addressed by Council simply by changing the rules: on July 6, 2010, City Council changed the zoning codes so that PL (public land) may be used for “transportation uses”; but again, as reported by the Chronicle, not without a great deal of passionate public comment.

Federal Funds

Note that at the time the Fuller Road Station was first proposed, no Federal funding was in hand. It was simply a joint project between the City of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, and the UM promised to pay the bulk of the initial cost.  (Which basically would have been the parking structure.) But things were looking up.  President Obama, as part of his stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), proposed the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program (HSIPR).  The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) assisted communities, including Ann Arbor, in making application (due date was April 4, 2011).  Ann Arbor applied for a grant to design a rail station at Fuller.  In May 2011, Eli Cooper was rather giddily announcing that the City had a $2.8 million grant for that purpose.   It would be through the auspices of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

Wait, That’s a Park.

An unexpected obstacle materialized just as the cheers rose.  The Huron Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club had been following the development of a parking structure and train station in Fuller Park with dismay.  They had a tool.  Because of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required.  And the result has to be a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (to the environment).  But wait – remember, this site is in a PARK.   That means that Section 4(f) comes into play.  Here it is, straight from the Federal Register.  (Emphasis added.) It unequivocally states that park land has certain protections.

(f) ‘‘4(f)-Protected Properties’’ are any publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance or any land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) within the meaning of section 4(f) of the DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)).
(g) ‘‘4(f)Determination’’ is a report which must be prepared prior to the Administrator’s approval of any FRA action which requires the use of any4(f)-protected properties. This report documents both the supporting analysis and the finding required by section 4(f) of the DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)), that (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of such land, and (2) the proposed FRA action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.”

In less than a month after MDOT submitted the City of Ann Arbor’s grant request,  the Chair of the HVC-Sierra Club, Nancy Shiffler, sent a letter to the director of the HSPIR project.  The letter points out, with some asperity, that the property is a park.

Time Passes

 Suddenly, things slowed down and there were few announcements. In July 2011 Mayor Hieftje sent constituents a letter assuring us that all was well, and the UM would “pay almost all upfront costs for Phase I”.   In October 2011, UM spokesman Jim Kosteva sent an anxious email to the City (Hieftje and City Administrator Steve Powers) with a reminder that time was of the essence.  “The U is hearing from and feeling the pressure of the 18,000 folks who work in and around the medical center as they are severely squeezed in their search for parking.”
Still, there were no more announcements.  In January 2012, the HVC-Sierra Club issued a press release.

What’s Ahead for Fuller Road Station? It’s Time for the City to Let the Rest of Us in on the Plans.

It is time for the city administration to stop playing shell games, for the city council to force a full
disclosure of what the plans are for the Fuller Park site, and for the city council to follow the mandate of
City Charter Section 14.3(b), which requires a vote of Ann Arbor electors for the sale of any part of City
property acquired for parkland uses, regardless of what any temporary current parkland use may be.

The Sierra Club and a newly formed group, People for Ann Arbor Parks (now Protect A2 Parks) reported the results of a FOIA in which they discovered speculation about also developing the Fuller Road area for commercial purposes.

On February 10, 2012, the UM announced that they were pulling out of the agreement. At the time, Christopher Taylor (then a CM for the Third Ward but already a frequent spokesman for Hiefjte) issued a defiant statement.  “The effort to bring a new station to Ann Arbor remains very much alive.”  He then revealed that prior money spent could not be credited toward the local match to the grant.  In two subsequent meetings during 2012, the Council appropriated money from the City budget for the match.  Since then, the months and now years have been spent in preparing the Environmental Assessment, then in submitting it to the FRA for review.  A strange period ensued in which these discussions were kept confidential, even after a FOIA by MLive’s reporter Ryan Stanton.  (The picture of the redacted emails is memorable.) (MLive archive of articles about the EA status)

For all those months, we didn’t know how the different sites proposed fared.  Under the FRA’s guidance, the City was obliged to examine all possible site.  The reason?  Because this site was in a park.  That is where the “prudent and feasible alternative” comes in.  They were obligated to show that this was the best, or perhaps the only, choice.  So months were spent in analyzing several different possibilities.   One of the more intriguing notes was that the FRA required the consultants to consider the possibility of using the old Michigan Central Railroad Depot building (now in use by the Gandy Dancer restaurant).  How did that come up? Notice the reference to a historic site in Section 4(f)?

Now we are truly in a rush.  The consultants are now being paid on our dime.  (The grant ran out: see our post, Ann Arbor and the Rail Station Gamble.)

Comments are due by November 2.  Send them to ecooper@a2gov.org.

A caution: there are a lot of things in this bulk of material to argue about.  Do we think Fuller or Depot is better for our downtown? Can we afford it?  When do we think a commuter rail will actually materialize?  But actually these are all immaterial to the Environmental Assessment.  Here are the questions:

  1. Does the plan cause damage to the park asset?  Not just to the current temporary parking lot but to the entirety of Fuller Park?  How well will a major Ann Arbor park co-exist with a busy parking garage and train station?  In other words, do we agree with a Finding of No Significant Impact?
  2. Even if we agree that some damage will occur, is Fuller still the only choice?  In other words, is there really No Prudent and Feasible Alternative?

Note: Ryan Stanton of MLive has done considerable valuable reporting on this subject. His work has contributed to our community’s understanding of this complex and important topic.

Note: Much information is to be found at the website of Protect A2 Parks, All Aboard on Depot Street.  Disclosure: I am a member of this group.

ADDENDUM:  Comments are due on November 2, 2017.  They should be sent to Eli Cooper, ecooper@a2gov.org.  Here is the official comment from the Sierra Club.

UPDATE: Yes, I finally got my letter in.  Here it is: EA comments.

 

 

 

Categories: civic finance, politics, Transportation

Comments: 9 Comments

Ann Arbor and the Rail Station Gamble

May 28, 2017

The leaders (movers, shakers, and Council majority) of Ann Arbor celebrate the notion of Ann Arbor exceptionalism.  This evidently extends to invulnerability in times of uncertainty.  While the nation and even the world wait to see what will unfold with the Trump presidency, we are ready to bet on future Federal dollars to achieve our dream of a new train station.  On June 5, 2017, City Council will be asked to pay an additional $137,026 toward the new station.  (The last vote was in January, to put money into a contingency fund for this purpose.)  This money is intended to allow the City to collect the last part of a planning grant for a new station. Yet, it appears unlikely that Federal funds will be available for actual construction of a station.  And even more significantly, the contracted work may not be finished in time to be reimbursed under the current grant.

A good summary of the situation was provided by Ryan Stanton, writing for MLive.com (Ann Arbor News).   Stanton has been following this issue closely and earlier submitted a FOIA to see the document that the City sent to the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) for review.  All in all, the City of Ann Arbor has qualified for an award in non-transparency with regard to this project. You may remember the famous picture of the email with all lines redacted.  It has released no public documents about the project since September 2016. (All public documents are available on the City’s Ann Arbor Station page.)

Timeline on Ann Arbor City website for grant acceptance

But the project is running up against a brick wall.  The grant funds expire (gone back to the Treasury) as of September 30, 2017 (end of FY 2017). The schedule published on the City web page indicates that the required public hearing and 30 day review of public comments was to take place in December 2016, with final approval of the EA in January.  But the proposal has languished in some void between the FRA and the consultants.  Now it appears increasingly difficult to fit in all the tasks needed before expiration of the grant funds.  That would leave the City liable for all the costs that have been incurred since this phase of the work began.

As the City Administrator, Howard Lazarus, noted in a letter to Council members,

FRA has expressed some concern over the City’s ability to complete the work within the grant funding period. To that end, FRA has authorized a “tapered match” approach, in which the City can access the federal funds first. Staff believes under this structure, we can advance the majority of the PE effort before the end of July. Council should note that the FRA cannot guarantee that invoices sent to them after June 30th will be processed prior to their mid‐September cut‐off for FY17 funds disbursements.

Lazarus is asking Council to approve an amendment to the consultants’ contract that appears to extend their tasks beyond the original contract. One could speculate that some of this is to answer questions from the FRA in their response to the previous submission.  There is a slight pleading quality to Lazarus’ letter to the FRA. (Note: full-size text may be viewed by clicking on these illustrations.)

From Howard Lazarus to FRA Midwest Regional Manager May 26, 2017

An odd note is that the project is not shown in the attached schedule to be completed until October 2017.  How does that reconcile with a September 30 deadline, much less a June 30 deadline?  Yet presumably the City would not pay the consultants in advance of their work.  (The usual approach is that consultants issue invoices as work is done, and the City sends them to the FRA for reimbursement of the grant amount.)  It appears that the City is proposing to make itself responsible for completion of the work past the grant deadline.  All of this seems to be very creative accounting practice.

What’s  the Problem?

We recently alluded to the history of former Mayor John Hieftje’s vision with reference to the grant that was awarded for the first phase of planning a new train station.  Like most Federal grants from those golden days, this ARRA grant of $2.8 million (from the Obama stimulus of 2009) is for 80% of the cost – in this case, for the Environmental Assessment under NEPA, and some preliminary planning and engineering.  It has been the expectation that a future grant for actual construction would follow that same 80% Federal – 20% local rule.  But even 20% of a multimillion dollar building is a big bite for a small city.  So originally, the promise from Mayor Hieftje was that the City would put in NO GENERAL FUNDS.  Instead, the local match was to be picked up by the University of Michigan in a joint project, the Fuller Road Station. (Here is a post in which that promise was made explicitly). That deal fell apart and UM built a parking structure elsewhere.  Ann Arbor had already expended a fair amount of money on early planning, but that work was not accepted as a local match toward the grant, so the money was essentially wasted and new cash from the General Fund had to be invested in order to stay in the running for the grant.  The City has now spent over $1 million just in matching funds for the grant (most of this went to consultants and planners), though much more has been spent that doesn’t apply directly to that grant now.  And now it could be liable for all the sum left (about $750,000), including the 80% Federal match.

Predicting the Future of a New Station

Much of the uncertainty has been in the Federal budget process itself.  As we explained in some detail earlier, transportation funding is complex.  Part of it is based on the Highway Trust Fund – a dedicated source of revenue.  The rest is dependent on the dispensation of Congress, in money from the General Fund or from new sources of revenue.  Much of that was hanging by a thread until recently because all Federal funds were dependent on passage of a continuing resolution – which happily was passed on April 28 and signed by the President.  Here is a summary of transportation funding under that resolution. Note that some important items, namely TIGER grants and New Starts, that were to be eliminated according to the President, were saved in this extension.

Meanwhile, the President, or more accurately, the White House, presented Congress with an Executive Budget. As has always been true of Presidential budgets, this is more a policy document than an actual description of how money will finally be allocated.  Only Congress gets to appropriate money.  But it is important because it shows President Trump’s priorities and thinking.  And those priorities do not include handing money out to little cities.  Here is a revealing summary of the “Infrastructure Initiative”.  From the summary:

The flexibility to use Federal dollars to pay for essentially local infrastructure projects has created an unhealthy dynamic in which State and local governments delay projects in the hope of receiving Federal funds. Overreliance on Federal grants and other Federal funding can create a strong disincentive for non-Federal revenue generation.

Instead, the White House would move to a model in which private investors would enter into partnership with states and local governments to build or improve projects that have a revenue generation capability.  So – toll roads, transit prices high enough to pay a profit, fees for using anything. The Feds would simply facilitate all this.  The idea is so potent that investment funds along these lines have already attracted Saudi investors.

Under the very best of scenarios, Congress will pass a budget for FY 2018, to begin October 1.  All current funding will expire as of September 30.  In the past few years, Congress has failed to pass a budget at all and instead has relied on a series of continuing resolutions, which generally hold most budgets where they began, with a few small changes.  But let’s assume that they make it this time. (After all, one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency.)  What are the chances that discretionary spending on transit will be included in the new budget, given the strong leanings by the White House and the tax-cutting mood of Congress?

A Double Gamble

So it appears that the City of Ann Arbor is placing bets on its cards for two outcomes:

  1. That it can recoup all the grant monies for the current project, against a very tough timeline
  2. That this will somehow result in the future in a new train station.

But it also appears that there is a mood of desperation at the possibility of having the effort collapse.  From Lazarus’ letter to Council:

From Howard Lazarus to Ann Arbor City Council

Rather high-stakes cards, and to my risk-averse eyes not a good bet.  Will Council raise, or fold?

 

 

 

 

Categories: civic finance, politics, Transportation

Comments: 6 Comments

Making a Federal Case for Ann Arbor Rail

April 3, 2017

As we related in the last post, Ann Arbor has been dreaming of trains for the last decade. We have paid for multiple studies, and detailed plans and reports have been produced. Our Mayor, Christopher Taylor, has named rail travel as a top priority. In a letter sent to many constituents early in January, he stated “Expanded rail service is vitally important to the future of Ann Arbor”. (Here are some further comments reported by the Ann Arbor News.) Now the City Council has just a couple of months before the next Budget is adopted.  How much of the City’s resources should continue to be devoted to this purpose?  After so many years with rail in the future, is it time to relegate these dreams to the past?

For Love of Trains

First of all, this question is not about whether we love trains.  Of course we love trains.  Most of us of any age or travel experience have happy memories to relate.  (I have a sentimental description of my own experiences in this post from 2011.)  Trains are part of the sensibility installed in us from childhood.  Here is a video of a favorite childhood song about trains.  Wouldn’t you like to climb aboard on this train, or at least join in?

Trains are a great mode of travel.  Sit and read (or work) or just look at the scenery. No worries.  Why wouldn’t we want to be able to travel to Detroit without worrying about freeway traffic and parking?  And as a commute, it can’t be beat, especially if that “last mile” problem can be solved.  (Transit from the station to work.)  If you have visited a city with a light rail system, you know how nice it is to travel around an urban area that way.  Just hop on, ride a few minutes, hop off.

For all these reasons, and for several others, the dream has survived since 2006 and has been enthusiastically adopted by many on our Council, and by many citizens.  The rail projects have all been studied and are ready to be implemented, more or less.  But is this possible?  Most of all, can we afford this vision under the present circumstances?

A Very Expensive Wish List

Because consultants have been hired to do studies of our rail wish list, we have some rather good numbers now for how much these projects will cost.  The costs for the Ann Arbor Train Station have been kept rather obscure through the Environmental Review process, as has much other information. A construction estimate was provided via a FOIA by Dave Askins (thanks to a direct response by Howard Lazarus, the City Administrator).  A couple of feasibility studies have been completed for the Connector. The North-South Commuter Rail (aka WALLY) Feasibility Study has recently concluded; here is the Financial Analysis.  The Ann Arbor-Detroit Commuter Rail was folded into the Regional Transit Authority and cost estimates were included in that plan (RMTP) .

From all of these studies, we can compile a total of the full cost of the rail wish list for Ann Arbor.  Note that these figures are not the amount that the City expects to pay.  The Connector, WALLY, and the Ann Arbor-Detroit Commuter Rail are all expected to be cooperative projects and other governmental entities are expected to contribute. (The Ann Arbor Station is an Ann Arbor project alone.)  But in every case, the expectation has been that the main burden of the cost will be borne by the Federal Government.  Often the statement has been made that 80% of the cost will be Federal, and the 20% local matching amount is partly offset in theory by the State of Michigan (MDOT).

Costs for these projects are of two types: Capital (original construction) and Operating (annual cost of operation and maintenance).  Capital costs are a one-time investment, but operating costs are perennial.

Capital costs for four rail projects

Annual operating costs for three rail projects. It is assumed that Amtrak would continue to operate the train station. These are gross costs; offsets for fares and fees not subtracted.

Making Decisions about the City Budget

Most City expenditures are based on fairly accurate estimates, either for existing contracts or from well-fleshed out plans.  Most budgeted items will be spent as described, with a fair certainty that the deliverable will be produced.  There is never quite enough money for all the things we would like to achieve as a community.

The City Administrator, Howard Lazarus, has been making presentations to the Council in advance of the budget.  Capital improvements are suggested for firehouses, streetlights, sidewalks, dams, and signals.  The slide also showed the following amounts ($millions) for FY 2018 and FY 2019. The last column to the right is “FY 2020+”.  Taken all together, the rail items constitute 43% of all capital improvements.  These are General fund expenditures in the City Budget for the next couple of years.

From the slide of 2018 capital improvement costs. Figures at bottom include more items than shown here.

If Council is going to continue to use Ann Arbor city funds (taxes) to pursue these rail projects, it is making a calculated gamble.  We are continuing to put chips on the table in hopes that there will be a big payoff.  And the expectation has been that the deep pockets at the table belong to the Federal government.  That is no longer true.

The Shifting Sands of Federal Funding

With the Trump presidency, predictions are impossible.  One can, however, hear solid hints of what he is thinking.  There are other players in Federal funding, especially many different factions and interests among members of Congress.  Here are a few high points about Federal transportation funding, which has usually been very contentious.

  • The gold standard is outright grants.  In other words, Federal taxes distributed directly to states and localities for use in transportation projects.  This is what we would like for all our projects.  There has been a move in recent years toward encouraging localities to apply for loans instead. The TIFIA program is an example.
  • Pennies were falling from heaven in 2009, with the Obama stimulus program, better known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  This was especially friendly to transit programs and included the high speed rail program (HSIPR)  program that has paid for our preliminary rail station study.  It was not renewed with the new Republican Congress in 2010. All ARRA grants expire at the end of the current fiscal year (September 2017).
  • The main source for transportation grants has been the Federal gas tax, or Highway Trust Fund.  The tax rate has not increased since 1993.  This fund was originally to pay for the Interstate system.  A mass transit fund was added to it in 1982.  The Transportation Act, which is the law that governs how the money is spent, has expired a number of times and been renewed and rewritten.   This is always a big food fight in Congress.  The way the money is allocated changes in each revision.  There are always legislators who would like to get rid of the mass transit and alternative transportation provisions so more money can be spent on roads and bridges.
  • Through some miracle (and our Senator Debbie Stabenow deserves a lot of credit), the Transportation Act actually got revised and renewed in the last Congress.  The name always changes.  The last bill was MAP-21; this one is  the FAST act.
  • An important feature of the Transportation Bill is that items funded by the Highway Trust Fund are not dependent on the Federal Budget because they are not part of the General Fund.  This has kept funding of mass transit programs, for example, very stable.
  • The FAST Act included rail travel for the first time.  BUT it did not attach Highway Trust Fund monies to it.  RAIL IS DEPENDENT ON ALLOCATIONS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET (the General Fund).
  • Congress has been keeping the Federal Government running by a series of continuing resolutions.  It has not actually passed a budget for a long time.  The current Continuing Resolution expires on April 28, 2017.
  • Meanwhile, President Trump and Congress are trying to conclude negotiations on a variety of bills and spending priorities.  Here is the Budget Blueprint recently published by the White House.

Important Cuts and Immediate Significance

The two most important points affecting grants to local governments for rail in the White House blueprint are the cancellation of TIGER grants and the loss of New Start funding for new projects.  TIGER has been a source of discretionary grants – very competitive (only 1 in 20 grant applications funded) but very essential to localities.  That is the source that Ann Arbor hoped to tap for the new train station.  New Starts have been the method of choice to start a new rail system “fixed guideway program” (which includes Bus Rapid Transit); this would have been the likely source of cash for the Connector or possibly one of the commuter rail systems.   Without these, there is literally no Federal grant program that could realistically pay for our rail programs.

Even if Congress does not follow this blueprint, it must still appropriate funds for any grant program.  With the Continuing Resolution due by April 28 and tax cuts looming on the horizon, this seems unlikely.

The Trillion-Dollar Question

What about the infrastructure program that President Trump has mentioned?  It would not be grants, but rather tax incentives for private investment.  The likely mechanism would be “P3” (Public-Private Partnerships) programs where the locality borrows money from private investors.   A preliminary list of likely projects has been released, but has no force in law.  Many such programs will require a source of revenue, such as fares, tolls, or fees.

ADDENDUM: The Administration’s likely approach is being telegraphed by Elaine Chao, the Transportation Secretary.  In this speech she says,

“Investors say there is ample capital available, waiting to invest in infrastructure projects. So the problem is not money. It’s the delays caused by government permitting processes that hold up projects for years, even decades, making them risky investments. That’s why a critical part of the President’s infrastructure plan will include common-sense regulatory, administrative, organizational and policy changes that will encourage investment and speed project delivery.”

This is a clear call for privatized projects.  What is not clear is what “impediments” are going to be cleared.  Agreement by local governments? Safety regulations? Environmental hazards?  Best not to picture this too fully.

The Gamble

Since it is so unlikely that there will be Federal grants to pay for the wish list of rail projects, what should the City Council do?  One alternative would be to sit tight and wait for developments.  But will they spend substantial funds in the next year on these projects, with all the other priorities? To do so seems to be a triumph of hope over prudence, indeed.  Perhaps there is a good lottery running somewhere.

 

 

Categories: civic finance, Transportation

Comments: 8 Comments

Ann Arbor’s Fading Dream of Trains and Rail Systems

February 12, 2017

The Mayor of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, held a convocation of area leaders on June 15, 2006, in which he outlined a broad vision of transportation for Ann Arbor and the region.   As he explained (press release), the vision would bring environmental benefits (lessen air pollution), enhance quality of life, and increase the region’s economic competitiveness.  The vision was named the Mayor’s Model for Mobility.  Its elements were an East-West Transit (commuter rail) to link communities in Southeast Michigan, as well as a North-South Rail.  There would also be a local connector system to link up the two railroads, and a streetcar system that would encompass the many sprawling campuses of the University of Michigan.  The plan was illustrated by a sketch that is positively jolly.

Mayor's_Model_for_Mobility_20060008The vision was bold and in those heady days before the economic meltdown that affected local property values (and thus local property tax revenues), it seemed not unlikely.  Hieftje at that time was at the height of his influence, with a City Council that was solidly behind him.   He had the power of appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the ear of our Congressman, John Dingell, and a strong relationship with the administration of the University of Michigan.

Since then, a lot has happened.  The economic collapse affected not only Ann Arbor, but Michigan and the nation.  There have been significant shifts in Congress and in attitudes toward transportation funding.  Prospects rose (with Obama’s election) and sank (Tea Party).  AATA (our local transit authority) put major effort into a countywide transit plan, which failed.  Then a smaller local urban transit millage succeeded.  A Regional Transit Authority centered on the Detroit Metro area was created.  Its millage failed and that effort is now in limbo.  (Some, but not all, of this history, is recorded in our posts on The Transportation Page.)

The remarkable thing is that, over a decade later and despite many discouragements, the current Mayor (Christopher Taylor) appears to be bent on fulfilling the original vision.  And its elements, especially those relating to rail travel, remain at the top of Ann Arbor’s priorities, as reflected by the Capital Improvements Plan.  But these are extremely expensive and rely on the assumption that there will be Federal grants to pay the major portions.

Looking At It With Clear Eyes

In light of recent changes, both in current transportation funding, and in the change of emphasis in the Presidency (as we indicated in the last post, the ground has shifted), how realistic is this vision now?  And how does this affect the rest of our local government initiatives, since we are presumably setting aside considerable funds in order to accomplish these decade-old objectives?

The timelines and priorities for some of the rail projects, such as the North-South rail (WALLY) and the East-West commuter rail, are more distant.  But the rail station (the Ann Arbor Station) is priorities # 1,2 and 3.  Also a very high priority is the Connector, a light rail system that will connect the UM campuses.  While the commuter rail projects and the Connector have other possible participants, the rail station is our very own.

First Comes the Train Station

The train station was part of a grant awarded to the State of Michigan from President Obama’s stimulus program.  That program, ARRA (American Resource and Recovery Act) was launched in 2009 and the availability of the funds is ending in May 2017.  Actually, the grant awarded is only to pay for the initial assessment of the site and preparation of a preliminary design and engineering review.

Mayor Christopher Taylor has consistently placed the Rail Station at the top of his list in importance for Ann Arbor.  In a recent article in the Ann Arbor News, he argued for its importance as he anticipates an increase in rail travel, including a new commuter rail service.  As described in a second article , Taylor was able to persuade a majority of his City Council to provide funds for work that cannot yet be done.

Council voted at the meeting of January 17, 2017 to allocate another $151,600 (matching funds for the ARRA grant).  As the background for the resolution states, availability of those funds is ending in May 2017.   This is awkward because the City is still awaiting a ruling from the Federal Railroad Administration as to the preferred site for a new station.  (The selection process has been arduous and there have been many delays.  More detail is available on the City website.  The two possibilities being considered are Fuller Park and the current site on Depot Street.) (Additional information and viewpoints are on the All Aboard on Depot Street website.)  Basically, the Council has now authorized funds for a contract which cannot be fulfilled at this moment but must be invoiced by May 2017.  (This is about 3 months from now, and critical information is not available.)

Money and Timelines

As always with government, much comes down to money.  How much will it cost? Where will it come from? When will it be spent?  The answers to some of these questions are in that Capital Improvement Plan mentioned earlier.  Staff takes all the information given to them and assembles timelines and cost estimates.  They also indicate some of the expected sources of the money.  But here are some important points to keep in mind.

The General Fund is the checkbook for the City’s cash flow.  It is the amount of money from property tax each year.  Most other funds in the budget are restricted to specific uses, such as roads from the road millage. If Council spends money on special projects, it is from the General Fund.  The General Fund revenues for 2016 were $83,617,342.  That’s $83.6 Million for the whole city.

Another important point is to recall that we are currently in Fiscal Year 2017.  It ends on June 30, at which point we will be in FY 2018.  Council is currently working on the budget for that FY, which will be passed in May 2017.  (Again, three months from now.)

Now look at this information from the CIP.  Note that some activities are already in process (2017).  But we have some big-ticket expectations, in a relatively short time.

Amounts from the FY 2016-2021 Capital Investment Plan. WALLY omitted.

Amounts from the FY 2016-2021 Capital Investment Plan.   WALLY omitted.

According to this, we’ll be building a train station in the next fiscal year (begins in July 2017)   And we’ll put more than 10% of the General Fund into this one project.

I don’t believe it either.  And there are other details.  The remainder of that $44.5 million is supposed to come from a Federal grant.  (Money has not been allocated.)  And I’m guessing that part of our General Fund amount is hoped to come from the State of Michigan.  AAATA is being tasked with a grant for some of the Connector expenses, but they have a hard time making all their current expenses.  The University of Michigan, on the other hand, has committed to major expenditures for the Connector, but this is not shown here.  Still, the mere scale of these commitments is breathtaking.

In the next post, more details about transportation funding as it might affect this project.  But meanwhile, all this is hard to take in.  Will we really rearrange our city priorities to accommodate this heavy a drain?  Are the uncertainties being considered?  How will it affect the budget (that has to take in all other City considerations) that is under preparation?  How much will this vision affect our reality?

UPDATE: At the February 13, 2017 Council Working Session, the City Administrator, Howard Lazarus, presented a slide showing new projections for the CIP.  It indicates $500,000 for the Ann Arbor Station for FY 2018 and $13 Million for FY 2019, with the cryptic notation, “New revenue or financing”.  For the Connector, it shows $600,000 for FY 2019, with nothing for FY 2018.  For FY 2020 and beyond, we now see $10 Million for the City alone, with the funding noted as “tbd”.

Categories: civic finance, politics, Transportation

Comments: 11 Comments

The Transportation Issue

March 27, 2014

What do potholes have to do with a local transit millage?  More than you might have thought.

snyderholesUnderlying the discussion of a new millage to expand our local transit system is the general frustration of the public at large with Michigan’s transportation system, most specifically the condition of the roads. Almost every political discussion now ends with a public cry: What about the potholes?  The liberal political group MoveOn.Org, usually concerned with social issues, has a petition asking state lawmakers to fix the potholes. The Michigan Democratic Party is even trying to make this a campaign issue with a Snyderholes website.  This political message encapsulates the transportation issue:  everyone agrees that it is a huge problem, and also that someone else ought to pay for it.  Note that the suggestion is that business taxes, rather than gas taxes, should be fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

Transportation funding is complex and always contentious. But it is important to understand it if one wishes to make any prescriptions for change.  See our posts on Transit, Transportation and the Money Question (all available from the Transportation Page).  See especially the post on the Comprehensive Transportation Fund as it pertains to transit, and the post explaining Act 51.  Understanding these two pillars of transportation funding in Michigan is key to understanding the fix we find ourselves in.  Transportation has become a zero sum game in that multiple constituencies are chasing fewer and fewer dollars for deeply felt needs.  A central problem in Michigan is that the main source of transportation funding (the state gas tax) is less and less adequate to pay for the increasing needs in infrastructure and service.

Federal funds a problem

Highway Trust Fund ticker. Goes into deficit before end of FY2014.

Highway Trust Fund ticker. Goes into deficit before end of FY2014.

A tax on gasoline is intended to be a user tax in which users of roads pay for them.  It has been the principal means of paying for most forms of transportation.  In the Federal Government, the (Federal) gas tax is the basis of what is called the Highway Trust Fund.    That fund is regulated by the transportation act, currently MAP-21 (expires in September 2014).  Here is SEMCOG’s summary of MAP-21.  MAP-21 is the source of most highway and transit funds that come through to Michigan communities via the Michigan Department of Transportation.  An important thing to know about the Highway Trust Fund is that it essentially funds an entitlement, since funds are distributed according to the formula set up by the current transportation bill.  For example, Federal support for transit projects is distributed by formula rather than by earmarks or other special treatment. But since this revenue source is actually trending toward zero, transportation needs nationally look rather desperate.  Here is an analysis by Transportation for America, a nonprofit interest group. Certainly there is no room there for helping Michigan solve its problems.

Michigan impasse

So, returning to Michigan: a logical solution to insufficient funds would be to raise the gas tax rate, or to add some other form of tax to it.  Last year, Governor Snyder’s budget message proposed an ambitious program of a new way of computing gasoline and diesel taxes plus new registration taxes.  He also proposed a local option that would allow counties to have a separate registration fee to help pay for local transportation.  In our tax-aversive state, this was (as we say in government circles) dead on arrival.  Instead, the Legislature allocated modest sums from the general fund in a supplemental appropriation to patch up a couple of major problems (one of which was the money needed to keep Amtrak’s Wolverine line running).

This year, it has been much the same story, though the Governor dropped the special fixes and simply made budgetary recommendations.  Here is the final version of the supplemental bill (SB 608), as summarized by the Senate Fiscal Agency.  A very rough-and-ready approach assigned $100 million from the General Fund to pay for “special winter road maintenance” and $115 million for “priority road projects” (to be determined by politicians, natch).  Here’s what they said about the special winter road maintenance:

Sec. 702. Transportation. Requires the funds appropriated for special winter road maintenance to be distributed to the State Trunkline Fund, county road commissions, and cities and villages, in the same percentages described in Public Act 51 of 1951, and requires distribution to each entity in amounts proportional to the current year amounts distributed from the Michigan Transportation Fund. Also requires that special winter road maintenance funds be used only for road maintenance, excluding administrative, overhead, and other indirect costs.

So that may help with the potholes in the short run.  (Note the reference to the percentages in P.A. 51.  This is practically the stone tablets of transportation funding in Michigan.  That was P.A. 51 of 1951, and heaven help those who wish to change those allocations.  See more information on those percentages here.) But we haven’t even begun to address generally bad road conditions, including more rural roads that have degraded far beyond potholes.  There are bridges that are unsafe.  (The Legislature advised some warning signs.)

County efforts

The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, which includes several commissioners representing rural townships, have been wrestling with the lack of adequate funding for the Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) for many months.  While Ann Arbor and other cities and villages in the County have their own allocation (21.8%)  from Act 51 funds, the rural roads are entrusted to the Road Commission, an appointed body.  They use their own allocation (39.1%) to address all maintenance problems and some of the improvements for rural roads. The news is not good.  As the Ann Arbor News reported, county (i.e., rural) roads are in really bad shape, both from years of “deferred maintenance” and because of the rough winter.  The Ann Arbor Chronicle has reported substantively on the efforts of the BOC to address a problem for which they do not really have jurisdiction (the WCRC has a completely separate administration and governing board; the commission members are appointed by the BOC, but it has no influence over day-to-day decisions).  The BOC has kicked around ideas about absorbing the Road Commission into their own body (in essence, becoming the WCRC) and appointed a subcommittee to look into that possibility, as well as expanding the size of the WCRC and making it an elective body.  According to a report by the Ann Arbor Chronicle of their March 1, 2014 meeting, it appears that none of those options will be exercised.

A possibility that appears still to be alive is that the BOC would use a pre-Headlee Act 283 (P.A. 283 of 1909) to levy a millage on all the county for roads.  The discussion, as reported by the Chronicle, seemed to veer between the idea that Ann Arbor and other cities would be allocated parts of this and that use of the funds would be decided by the WCRC.  Unlike post-Headlee legislation, this tax could be enacted without a vote of the public.  Township representatives at the BOC meeting were enthusiastic about this, given support by Conan Smith (an Ann Arbor Commissioner).  But Commissioner Dan Smith was instead suggesting a county-wide road millage to be approved by the voters.

The problem is that most cities and villages already levy special taxes on their residents to pay for their own road maintenance. For example, Ann Arbor voters have consistently renewed a local road millage.  For 2013, it was 2.125 mills. 

We come back to the issues of governance and equity.  Who should pay and who benefits? The discussion at the BOC elucidated those nicely. Commissioner Conan Smith explained the political problems entailed. He is a regionalist and favors having Ann Arbor taxpayers help to pay for rural Washtenaw County roads.  But should Ann Arbor residents help to pay for roads in areas outside the city, especially if they have no say in how those additional funds are spent?

Interestingly, Conan Smith (a city commissioner) and Dan Smith (a rural commissioner) had different solutions, where Dan Smith would allow Ann Arbor voters to make this decision for themselves (a countywide millage is unlikely to pass without a majority vote in Ann Arbor), while Conan Smith would prefer to impose a solution (using Act 283 ) that would bypass the voters.  Conan Smith, who recently announced that he would be running again for his seat on the BOC, acknowledged that he would be moving against the desires of many of his constituents and that this would cause some political problems.  As quoted by the Chronicle,

The road commission doesn’t have control over streets in Ann Arbor. So if he advocates for a tax to fund roads outside the city, and his constituents are looking at the poor condition of city streets, “I’m going to get hammered, right?”… (and later)… “He said he’s cast many votes that were counter to the direct, immediate financial interests of his constituents. For example, he cited the fact that he was in the majority in voting to fund the sheriff’s road patrols. It was a heavily-divided city-versus-township issue, and at least one Ann Arbor commissioner needed to support it in order to pass. He said he was a “different kind of politician than others, because I take that countywide perspective.”

Apparently much of Conan Smith’s interest in this was in bringing the function of the WCRC into the BOC.  In the end, he was the only vote in favor of that option.

There was evidently no discussion of when a countywide roads millage would either be imposed or voted on, or the rate of that millage.  Presumably the commissioners are aware of potential overlap with the urban core transit millage.

One pothole away from transit

The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority brought up potholes in their March 20 meeting.  The Ann Arbor Chronicle’s report of the meeting included some moments of perhaps unintentional hilarity as board members sought to incorporate information about transportation funding into their own concerns.  Lobbyists Clark Harder and Dusty Fancher were there to brief the board on events in Lansing.  It was pointed out that the public is very concerned about the condition of the roads, which board members evidently took as a bit of challenge to their own priorities.  Eli Cooper stressed the importance of continuing to improve funding for transit. From the Chronicle’s account:

There’s an opportunity right now because the potholes are creating focus. “We should never let a crisis go unused,” he quipped. Harder agreed with Cooper, but said that some of the MPTA members get a little antsy and concerned when everything they read in the newspaper is about potholes. But that is what drives the message statewide. And if that is what they have to use to get more funding for public transportation, then Harder was OK with that –as long as they don’t lose sight of the big picture.

 This moved Larry Krieg to suggest a slogan for the AAATA, “You are one pothole away from public transit”.  Presumably this was meant to say that your auto might be disabled so that you would be dependent on transit.

A reason to vote for the transit millage?

A reason to vote for the transit millage?

CEO Michael Ford, who receives a comfortable automobile allowance from the AAATA, supported this concept by sharing that “he’d had an incident with a pothole this week and found himself taking the bus. “It’s nice to have that option,” he said.

 UPDATE:  Evidently the transit-charm-against-misfortune theme is not restricted to AAATA.  Suburban Detroit’s SMART bus system is coming up for an increased transit millage vote.  Megan Owens of Transit Riders United says  “Any one of us is one broken leg or one bad pothole away from public transit.”   Ouch.  That happened to me. But my own bus route 13 wouldn’t take me to evening meetings – it quits too early.

SECOND UPDATE: MDOT has announced the amounts awarded to each municipality from the special appropriation.

“The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) allocated the one-time appropriation of $100 million according to the Public Act 51 of 1951 road funding formula, meaning MDOT received $39.1 million, counties $39.1 million, and cities and villages $21.8 million.”

“The Act 51 formula is complex. How much a county, city or village receives in funding through Act 51 depends on several factors, including road mileage and population. Counties, cities and villages receiving portions of the $60.9 million must use the money for winter maintenance costs, and not for things such as administration, overhead or other indirect costs.”

Here is the list of awards to counties, cities and villages the list of Michigan counties, cities and villages with their award amounts. Washtenaw County (i.e., the Road Commission) will receive $1,091,502.29 and Ann Arbor will have $461,171.49.  I suspect that the potholes will consume those funds rather handily.

THIRD UPDATE: A proposal has surfaced to rework Michigan’s fuel taxes. Whether it would actually increase money going to roads is questionable, and it is also not clear what effect it would have on transit funding.  Here are a few details as reported by MLive.

 FOURTH UPDATE: A commenter on a recent Ann Arbor News report about transit millage supporters and opponents seems to suggest that I am the source of the anonymous flyer linked to in the report.  While that flyer does reference potholes, it is a rather crude and questionable statement that buses cause potholes.  I don’t support that thesis (haven’t bothered to do their math), am not in the habit of putting out anonymous flyers (I sign my own blog and Twitter account), and emphatically reject any part in preparing or distributing that flyer.

In making some inquiries, I have been told that the flyer was distributed by email among a group of friends.  It is too bad that the Ann Arbor News chose to publish it.

FIFTH UPDATE: The Legislature is moving to assign the $115 million in “priority road projects”.  Expectations (as reported in the Detroit Free Press) are that the assignments will mirror the process from last year, in which almost all projects were assigned to districts represented by Republicans.   Here is the list of such projects from 2013.  Washtenaw County is noticeably missing from the list.  We are completely represented by Democrats.

Trans4M's diagram of effect on transit and other sections of CTF with Bolger's proposal

Trans4M’s diagram of effect on transit and other sections of CTF with Bolger’s proposal

SIXTH UPDATE: Trans4M (Transportation for Michigan) has a post discussing House Speaker Bolger’s proposal for altering the transportation formula.    It is a concern because it would bypass the Comprehensive Transportation Fund. The CTF is the source of much transit funding in Michigan.  The obvious intent is to emphasize roads even more.

SEVENTH UPDATE: Board of Commissioners chair Yousef Rabhi has confirmed that the May 7 BOC agenda will include discussion of road funding and setting of a public hearing.  The agenda will not be available until May 2.  Informal communications indicate that the BOC would set a public hearing for May 21, either for the option to place a millage on the ballot, or for the option to impose a countywide millage via Act 283.  The attractive thing about the Act 283 option is that the money could be available immediately, with the July tax bill, assuming that this item passes on May 21 and the subsequent meeting.  (The BOC customarily votes on such items at Ways & Means after a public hearing, then at the Board meeting two weeks later.) Cmr. Rabhi has informed us that this use of Act 283 is likely not feasible, on the advice of counsel.  May 7 agenda merely lists a discussion of  “options for road funding”. Depending on that discussion, a future public hearing could be set for a ballot measure.

EIGHTH UPDATE: Federal funding could take a real hit if the MAP-21 Federal Transportation Bill is not renewed by Congress.  It expires at the end of this fiscal year (October 1).  Here is an overview from Transportation for America.  The Ann Arbor urbanized area alone could lose $11.8 million in transportation (including transit) funding.

NINTH UPDATE: Here is an excellent, if belated, report of the April 17 Board of Commissioners working session on road funding from the Ann Arbor Chronicle.

TENTH UPDATE: The AAATA transit millage ballot issue was a resounding success.  Here are the numbers from the Ann Arbor Chronicle.

ELEVENTH UPDATE: Regardless of the information about legality of using Act 283 for a countywide road funding millage (see the SEVENTH UPDATE), the BOC has set a public hearing for May 21, 2014 on possible use of Act 283 for this purpose.  The brief report by the Ann Arbor Chronicle makes it clear that the BOC is not settled among themselves on this issue.

TWELFTH UPDATE: A new report pushes the idea of a mileage-based road funding tax. A report in the Detroit Free Press describes it. The actual SMART Mileage Fee Study is here.  In my opinion, this “road user fee” is a really bad idea from the viewpoint of global warming (it would penalize users of low gas mileage cars).  My guess as to why the Michigan Environmental Council is pushing it is that they are hoping for increased funding of transit.

 THIRTEENTH UPDATE: It looks as though attempts to find new revenue for transportation funding in the Michigan Legislature are dead for the current session. According to Mlive, putting a sales tax increase on the ballot was rejected, as was an increase in fuel taxes.  Senate Democrats attempted to link the fuel tax increase to a low-income tax break, which probably didn’t help.  Here is an additional update from Crain’s.

FOURTEENTH UPDATE:  MDOT has now released the list of special “ priority projects” to be funded by the supplemental legislation. Looks as though the major Washtenaw County allocation was to Prospect Road in Ypsilanti.  That beats last year, when our county got none of the special money (we are represented by Democrats).

FIFTEENTH UPDATE: The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners has now appointed a road funding committee. Here is the report from the Ann Arbor Chronicle.

SIXTEENTH UPDATE: On July 31, 2014, the U.S. Senate did a last-minute save on the Highway Trust Fund, passing a House bill that barely extends the funding till next spring.  It is a very short-time fix for several reasons, including the means of funding, which were a temporary adjustment in the way pension payments are shown in tax filings (“pension smoothing”). There is no long-term solution to HTF underfunding.  The main transportation bill, MAP-21, expires at the end of September.

SEVENTEENTH UPDATE: President Obama has now signed the temporary HTF save bill.  (Maybe that syntax is ugly, but so was the bill.)  Here is an overview from Transportation for America.

EIGHTEENTH UPDATE: The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners is moving toward a one-year tax under Act 283 after all. A public hearing is scheduled for October 1, 2014, after which the BOC will likely vote on the tax.

 

 

 

Categories: Transportation
Tags: , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

The Transit Question

February 23, 2014

With a May millage vote scheduled, the question of whether Ann Arbor and its immediate neighbors really want an expanded transit system should finally be resolved.

At last the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority have voted (after a good deal of hesitation) to put a measure on the ballot which will ask the public to endorse their vision of an expanded transit system.   The board of (then) AATA had a “straw vote” (nonbinding) in May 2008 to become a regional authority, rather than one centered in Ann Arbor.  In November 2009, the board t00k a formal vote to move toward becoming a countywide system and began calling in the experts to figure out how.  That effort was an embarrassing failure, as we have documented in our Topsy Turvy Transit series.  In a recovery move, AATA launched a campaign to establish a smaller Urban Core regional authority.  They encountered some of the same barriers (regional and township politics, limitations of the Michigan governance system) and were not able to persuade even all of this smaller number of targeted municipalities to join them.

The limits of the expanded authority. Pittsfield retains its POSA, Saline does not participate

The limits of the expanded authority. Pittsfield and Saline are not authority members.

In the end, only the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township have joined the newly named AAATA.  (As this formal description of the service plan indicates, Pittsfield Township and the City of Saline remain active participants in talks and have service scheduled, hypothetically to be paid for by Purchase of Service Agreements, or POSAs.)  Thus, the millage vote set for May 6 will be held only in the City of Ann Arbor, the City of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township.  Voters in all three municipalities will be asked to vote for this:
ballot languageThe campaign has already begun.  AAATA, as a public body, is not legally entitled to campaign for passage of the millage, but has an “information” page that pushes beyond simple facts into persuasive language.  A campaign by a coalition supporting the millage called “More Buses” is already soliciting contributions (it is largely fueled by Partners for Transit via the Ecology Center).   And now an opposition group is registered as Better Transit Now (their website is not yet active).  The Ann Arbor News has covered the contest with quotes from the participants.

Regardless of the outcome, this ballot issue should help to resolve the direction that AAATA will take in the future.  If the millage passes, the organization will likely continue to seek expanded regional initiatives (already they are contemplating additional “express” buses, including one to Belleville).  If the ballot fails, it should at the minimum be a moment for some serious soul-searching.

UPDATE: The Ann Arbor Chronicle now has an article describing the AAATA meeting at which the vote establishing the ballot issue was taken.

SECOND UPDATE: On his blog, Mark Maynard discusses the transit millage with some of its proponents.  They have few kind words to say about the opponents.  Martha Valadez, who is described as the field organizer for More Buses (she works for the Ecology Center), says this about the measure’s opponents:

They just refuse the truth and, instead, produce false information, stirring up fear.

Unfortunately, Valadez herself is given to careless use of the facts and overstatements of her position.  An example:

People involved in this anti-millage campaign complain that Ann Arbor is subsidizing services for Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. This just isn’t true. Each individual community would, under this newly proposed plan, be paying for the services they would receive in the five-year plan.

Actually, the City of Ypsilanti is even now being subsidized by taxpayers in the City of Ann Arbor.  The millage currently being collected from Ypsi City no longer is adequate to pay for their basic service, let alone the expanded service currently being provided.  The additional revenue from the 0.7 mills in the ballot measure would only be about $202, 700, which might just pay for current service but not much more.  What Ypsilanti Township expects to do is to move its current POSA costs to the millage collected by the authority.  Strictly speaking, Ypsi Township will not be paying anything at all as a community.  While Ypsi City’s taxpayers will continue to pay their current millage of just under 1 mill in addition to the new millage, Ypsi Township will simply offload its current general fund expenditure onto the new millage, and then ask for more service.  Here is the final text of the Ypsilanti Township funding agreement with the AAATA.

Fortunately, Maynard also includes policy wonk Richard Murphy (“Murph”), who makes a number of useful observations about route planning (hub-and-spoke emerging into a “spiderweb”).

Interestingly, Maynard’s guests draw comparisons to the failed AADL bond issue, saying that “the same people” are behind the opposition to the transit issue.  Actually, the only person that the two campaigns really have in common is Kathy Griswold.  But it sounds better to make the opposition into a tax-hating cabal.

THIRD UPDATE:  The history of the campaign against the AADL bond measure, which was on the November 6, 2012 ballot,  seems to have become relevant to this transit millage issue.  Here is a report by the Ann Arbor Chronicle listing the three campaign committees that formed to oppose the measure.  They were Love Our Library (Sheila Rice, treasurer), Save the Ann Arbor Library (Douglas Jewett, treasurer) and Protect Our Libraries (Kathy Griswold, treasurer).  Protect Our Libraries was probably the most muscular effort. Here is a contemporaneous story about the campaign that shows some of the advertising.

The committee supporting the bond measure, Our New Library, led by Ellie Serras, had a stellar list of endorsers and raised over $71,000, with in-kind contributions of just under $10,000.  In contrast, Protect Our Libraries raised less than $3,000 in cash and had an in-kind contribution by an advertising agency of about $33,000.  (Much of the campaign was run on its treasurer’s credit card.) (Libby Hunter, the treasurer for Better Transit Now, informs me that she was also part of the Protect Our Libraries campaign.  I don’t know in what capacity.  Both she and Lou Glorie contributed modest amounts to the campaign.)

morebusesThe measure was defeated rather decisively (55.17%  No, vs. 44.83% Yes).  (Here is the report by the Ann Arbor Chronicle.)  It wasn’t supposed to happen.  All the right people and the big money got behind the AADL bond and expansion.  Now that the transit millage campaign is being promoted in a similar way – lots of support from organizations and community leaders, confident media campaign, a puppy-love kind of subject (though buses perhaps less cuddly than libraries) – there seems to be some concern that an upstart group could once again deal a killing blow.

My take is that the library campaign was less the issue than that the community just didn’t buy it, or at least not enough voters did.  I think this millage vote is likely to rest on just such a question: is this what we want for our community?  The discussion won’t be over for some weeks.

FOURTH UPDATE:  The AAATA has now published a “report” that is a further marketing piece for the millage.  It has a number of “facts” that will need to be examined closely.  Some of them come from older general reports (state or national).  As an example, it claims that there will be a 15% reduction in drunk driving for each additional hour of evening service.  This “fact” references a Cornell University study conducted in 2008 that examined the effect in the Washington D.C. area of service via the Metro.  A preliminary draft of the study shows some meticulous protocols and data-gathering.  For example, the estimates of the amount of drunk driving are based in part on DUI arrests.  They also study the effect of placement of bars vs. Metro stations, and identify at which bar a particular DUI originated.  As you might expect, a location effect exists.  Bars located more than a 5 minute walk from Metro stations showed less reduction in DUIs than those located within a 5 minute walk.

Now, intuitively, if public transit is available and drunks are either smart enough or encouraged by friends to take transit, it will indeed cut drunken driving.  But what kind of numbers are we likely to see in a highly dispersed rural area?  What is the location of most bars in regard to transit stops?  Where are our drunks coming from?  (Let’s just exclude all our campus drinkers from the question – many of them presumably walk home.)  I don’t think a census has been performed, thus this is not a “fact” as far as the Ann Arbor area goes, just a nicely intuitive suggestion.

I’m sorry to say that this approach to data and presentation of facts seems to be rather typical of the AAATA’s marketing approach.  It shouldn’t be necessary to get down in the weeds and check every number, but I guess it will have to be done.

FIFTH UPDATE:  The Ann Arbor News has published a twin set of reports on the transit millage.  The first describes the objections that Ted Annis, a former treasurer for the AATA, has about the millage.  This article refers to a number of datasets about AAATA budgets and performance.  The second is primarily about salaries paid to AAATA officials.

Part of the interest in the two articles are the comments.  While some of them are the usual trolls, there is some serious discussion about such issues as efficiency, fares, the University of Michigan’s arrangements with the AAATA, and resistance to additional taxes.

SIXTH UPDATE: The Ann Arbor Chronicle’s report on a Board of Commissioners meeting where a discussion of the transit millage was held brings up an interesting point: to what extent will the millage solidify the income separation of Ann Arbor from the two Ypsilanti communities?  Yousef Rabhi is quoted as saying that he endorses the millage but not the idea that Ann Arbor should thus give up its accessibility to housing based on income.  “Rabhi said he wanted to make it clear that his support for the transit millage does not mean he supports using public transit to divide the community based on socioeconomic levels.”

 SEVENTH UPDATE: The question has been answered.   The Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti communities voted “yes” to an additional transit tax, with an authoritative majority of over 70%.  Some numbers here in the report by the Ann Arbor Chronicle. “The tax received clear majority support in all jurisdictions: Ann Arbor (71.4%); the city of Ypsilanti (83.4%); and Ypsilanti Township (61.6%).”

The AAATA can now place the orders for those buses.  The July tax bill will include the new millage and preliminary plans for implementation begin as soon as August.  The 5-year plan is detailed on the AAATA website.

Some elements of the plan require assent by communities not in the Authority, notably Pittsfield Township and Saline, to contract with AAATA for increased service. That will bear watching.

EIGHTH UPDATE: According to a report in the Ann Arbor News, Pittsfield Township has now (as of late October 2014) agreed to an expanded POSA that will increase bus service to the township.  I have not reviewed it to determine whether this will provide the full extent of service envisioned in the Urban Core plan.

 

Categories: civic finance, Regional, Transportation

Comments: 5 Comments

AAATA and the Zen of the Millage Vote

January 16, 2014

Will they or won’t they?  The tantalizing wait for a May millage decision.

The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority has been on a long journey.  We began reporting  in December 2009 on their efforts to put in place a county-wide transit authority.  It’s been a long Ride.  On November 8,  2012, the culmination of much planning, consulting, execution of legal documents, and public engagement collapsed when the Ann Arbor City Council voted to opt out from the nascent authority, in the face of the withdrawal by virtually every other jurisdiction in Washtenaw County.  But the AATA got busy and assembled “urban core” communities for some serious talking.

Partners for Transit cartogram representing communities' areas as a function of population

Partners for Transit cartogram showing population (click for larger)

The idea was to put together a smaller, tighter version of the countywide plan to serve only the relatively urbanized communities surrounding Ann Arbor.  This matches the population profile of the county and makes sense, as mass transit does require some masses.  They had some measure of success.  They have now succeeded in expanding the authority to include the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.  Other communities continue to be reserved about jumping in to a membership that includes being vulnerable to a future millage tax.  Still, the newly christened Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority plans to include Pittsfield Township and perhaps the city of Saline and village of Dexter via longer-term POSA contracts.

With that in hand, the AAATA has been involved in a major public engagement campaign for the new, reconfigured 5-year plan.  Our post Moving Us Forward: The Urban Core Expansion Plan explains that in some detail.

Now the AAATA has refined their plan, following public input. Tonight (January 16, 2014) the Board will be asked to approve the revised 5-year plan (formally the Five-Year Transit Improvement Program) “for implementation when local funding is secured”. The plan has a roughly $5.47 million funding gap. That is what is supposed to be filled by an authority-wide (Ann Arbor, City of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township) millage.  There is also a fairly hefty expectation of additional POSA funds. (Click the figure for larger view.) Note that the expected millage amount is still 0.7 mills, as has been estimated for months.

Estimated funding gap calculations from AAATA resolution

Estimated funding gap calculations from AAATA resolution

Who moved my millage?

But what is missing from tonight’s agenda is an approval of a millage ballot measure.  Partners for Transit, an organization formed originally to promote a countywide transit organization, today put out a public statement calling for AAATA to authorize a millage measure.

Partners for Transit, a coalition of business and community leaders, religious groups, social service organizations, and environmental organizations today called on the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to propose a new millage to advance the AAATA’s five year plan for improving public transportation in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and the neighboring region.

The account on the Ann Arbor News mentions that “AAATA officials have been talking about putting a 0.7-mill tax on the ballot in May to fund the expanded services in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township”, and doubtless PFT assumed that this vote is on tonight’s agenda.  But it isn’t.  Further, there is no mention of this issue in the minutes of the Planning and Development Committee, where agenda items are usually discussed.

Now, this is very peculiar.  We’ve been hearing for months about a likely May millage vote, and it is already being debated by the public.  Indeed, I spoke at public comment to the PDC two months ago and urged them to go ahead and schedule the vote. But apparently, AAATA administration and Board are still weighing their options.

The May ballot made sense for an important reason: the property tax collection schedule.  Local property taxes are collected in July.  A millage on the May ballot would mean that money would start rolling in for an August implementation, and indeed schedules presented at the fall workshops seemed to factor in that expectation.  A millage passed either at the August primary or the November general election would not be available until July 2015. This would put off implementation by a full year.

There was some urgency in getting the matter voted on by the AAATA Board.  There are statutory deadlines for putting measures on the ballot.  Two steps, first informing (by “petition”) the local clerks, then getting the final language to them for the ballot.  Here are the deadlines for this year.

millage deadlinesNote that unless AAATA holds a special board meeting,  they will already be too late for a May election.  Further, if they want to put something on the August ballot, they’ll have to act by April.

This was an error and the table has been replaced with one showing correct dates.  The “petition” step does not apply to ballot measures placed by a governing board, but rather to petitions which require collection of signatures.  In each case, the Board meeting for a month in which action is necessary does precede the deadline in that month.

Why the holdup?  We can only speculate.  There is always a strategy involved in getting a ballot measure passed.  We don’t know what the fine details of all the surveys that they have been conducting.  Has there been some uncertainty about public acceptance?  Any tax issue is always controversial. But positive survey results are not necessarily a guarantee.

The later elections this year seem to be problematic for a couple of reasons.  One is the possibility (probably remote) that the Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority might also place a transit millage on the ballot.  This seems not very likely reading between the lines of the Detroit News report of the RTA’s recent meeting.  They have had some setbacks, including a lack of support from the State Legislature and the loss of their selected candidate for CEO, John Hertel.  But the Chair of the RTA board, Paul Hillegonds, is quoted as saying that they have enough funds to get along for a while (mostly just to pay staff, not to undertake any initiatives).

Even more troubling might be the chaotic nature of current Ann Arbor politics.  With John Hieftje’s departure from his mayoral chair, the music has been getting downright frenetic, with four council members running for mayor and three new council candidates for vacated seats (partial summary here).   The months of June and July are likely to be steamy regardless of the weather.  The November election looks calmer in the city, but it is a gubernatorial election and there will be plenty of action at the polls for statewide seats.  Based on the November election of 2012, Ann Arbor is likely to contribute about 64% of the voters to an AAATA-wide election.  (The City of Ypsilanti is about 7%, Ypsilanti Township 28%.)  So the political mood in Ann Arbor could be important to the AAATA.  In addition, it is always the mix of voters for a particular election that matters.  Is a bigger turnout more or less favorable?  Typically there are many more voters, often less informed, in the November elections.  For a millage vote, it might be better to try to turn out favorable voters in a smaller election.

A timely report on tonight’s (January) board meeting from the Ann Arbor Chronicle provides one possible reason for the delay; a May ballot will incur more costs (because they’d have to pay for the election) than later.  With all the money spent to date, it seems it might have been worth it.

UPDATE: AAATA has already issued a press release regarding the Board’s approval of the plan.  Here is what they say about a millage:

AAATA officials say they are considering a recommendation that calls for the TheRide Board to approve placing a 0.7-mill, five-year property tax increase proposal on the 2014 ballot for residents in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. The date of a potential election is still to be determined pending the outcome of the AAATA Board’s decision.

SECOND UPDATE: In a follow-up article on Ann Arbor News AAATA Board Chair Charles Griffiths describes the potential benefits of the plan for “this year”, apparently without understanding that a deadline for the May ballot is about to pass without his board’s action.

THIRD UPDATE: I’ve been informed that I am misinterpreting the ballot deadlines.  The petition deadline applies to measures for which signatures must be collected. (See corrections in the body of the text.) The relevant deadline for a May ballot is February 25, for ballot language.  So it looks as though they can still make it.  But why the delay in approving it?

FOURTH UPDATE: Here is a report from ModeShift of the latest RTA meeting in which there was discussion of both an RTA millage and possible conflicts with provider millages (including AAATA) .

FIFTH UPDATE: The Ann Arbor Chronicle has produced a comprehensive summary of the January 16 AAATA meeting, in head-spinning time.

SIXTH UPDATE:  At their Planning and Development Committee meeting of February 11, 2014, AAATA board members sent forth a resolution to place a measure calling for an authority-wide millage of 0.7 mills on the May 2014 ballot.  This is likely to sail through the February 20 board meeting without a hitch, in time to be submitted before the deadline.

This is a boon to Council and Mayoral candidates, who are now relieved from being asked questions about their position on this measure prior to the August primary.

SEVENTH UPDATE: As predicted, the AAATA board voted unanimously to place the millage on the May ballot, after some carefully staged political theater (many speakers were present to urge them on). Excellent coverage by the Ann Arbor Chronicle has the details.

Categories: Regional, Transportation

Comments: Be the first to comment

Regionalism Reconsidered II

November 26, 2013

So what is Ann Arbor’s region?

In our first post in this series, we noted the importance of the concept of regionalism in current political discourse. But we also noted that there has been little discussion of the impact of regionalism on “the overall health and long-term development of communities, in other words, to the public good.”

First, what is a region?  It is a general term, of course, but there have been a number of attempts to define our region.  Here is an overview.

Let’s Make a Plan

SEMCOG region of 7 SE Michigan countiesBroadly speaking, in its simplest formulation regionalism is practised by information sharing and coordinated planning across jurisdictional boundaries. In Southeast Michigan, the regional planning agency has since 1968 been SEMCOG (the SouthEast Michigan Council of Governments).  This is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties.

As their website explains, SEMCOG is the contact point for many governmental programs, including regional transportation planning under MAP-21 (Federal trust fund), air and water pollution under those Federal acts, housing and land use under Housing and Urban Development (Federal) and many other Federal planning projects under MFPRS.

SEMCOG is also known for its data collection and summarization of items such as census figures, and its projections of population, job growth, etc.  These are sometimes taken as predictions, a mistake.  (It would be entertaining but time-consuming to go back 20 years and track how closely these projections have been made real over time.)  On the basis of all these data and projections, they consider trends and how to address them in their work program.

SEMCOG doesn’t implement or do.  SEMCOG facilitates discussion and makes plans.  Here is what the site says about how they operate (emphasis is mine):

All SEMCOG policy decisions are made by local elected leaders, ensuring that regional policies reflect the interests of member communities. Participants serve on one or both of the policy-making bodies — the General Assembly and the Executive Committee. These bodies act on recommendations developed through SEMCOG’s various engagement methods. We engage regional stakeholders from local governments, the business community, and other special-interest and citizen groups.

The significance of that statement is that all parties are equally represented.  That is a governance model that is very easily understood.

Regional Transit Coordination

regional transit authority2The Regional Transit Authority, formed as a result of state legislation, involves just four counties, all of which are also part of SEMCOG.  As we noted early on, there was some degree of fuss about how representatives were to be allocated to four counties and the City of Detroit, but after some down-to-the-wire legislative high-jinks last December, it materialized as a reality.   The authority is temporarily housed on the SEMCOG website, where meeting notices are to be found. (Evidently, minutes are not yet being made public.)

Information on the RTA is only sketchily available.  It will, according to its legislative mandate, coordinate the transit agencies within its borders (currently, DDOT, SMART, and AAATA).  In the future it may also create some regional high-capacity transit corridors.  According to an account by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the RTA is still looking for a source of operating funds.  It is working with a small grant from MDOT and a minimal appropriation from the original legislation.  One possibility was use of local bus operating funds, which would have reduced the ability of local transit agencies to provide transit.  That has now been excluded by agreement.  The authority could place a millage on the ballot for all four counties next year, or could attempt to impose a special vehicle license fee, which would also require a majority vote across the four-county area.  (No opting-out by individual counties is possible.)

Good for Business

One of the drivers for regional planning has been to enhance the opportunities for economic development.

a2 successAn early attempt at a regional economic entity in Washtenaw County was the A2Success venture.  This was an initiative of the Board of Commissioners and took the “suits around a table” approach.  In October 2007 a number of community leaders were assembled to launch a county-wide effort to boost regionalism in several areas, including education, transportation, business marketing and incubators, and human services. (One of the participants was a guy named Rick Snyder, a local entrepreneur.)  They formed “action teams”.  Several projects were launched and took on their own identities. washtenaw One was ReImagine Washtenaw; another was the effort at a countywide transit authority. The “A2Success” title referred to the notion of rebranding all of Washtenaw County as Ann Arbor. The idea was that Ann Arbor was a nationally recognizable location with a favorable image. Indeed, SPARK (an economic development not for profit that is partly supported by tax dollars) has characterized itself as AnnArborUSA.   Although A2Success is still listed on the Washtenaw County Economic Development webpage, its website is no longer active; an annual report  was last published in 2009.

Livingston plus WashWhile SPARK has retained its “AnnArborUSA” title, it has pushed into new territory.  It has had a business incubator in Plymouth Township (Wayne County) for some time.  In 2011, it moved into Livingston County as well.  In a telling statement at the time, its CEO, Paul Krutko, is quoted as saying, “We recognize the old parochial boundaries that are from the 18th Century … are not how the 21st Century works”.

Greater Ann ArborNow those boundaries have been expanded over six counties.  Greater Ann Arbor includes not only Washtenaw County and its adjacent semi-urbanized neighbors Livingston and Jackson Counties, but also rural Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties, not to mention Monroe County (which is due south from Detroit).

Located at the crossroads of the nation, anchored by the University of Michigan and home to one of the world’s most highly educated workforces, the Greater Ann Arbor Region is equipped and ready for business. No one can imagine, engineer, build and deliver your idea to the world better than we can.

Talk about a reach!  It was announced in MLive this month by Councilmember Christopher Taylor.  SPARK is, of course, involved.  As quoted by MLive,

Ann Arbor SPARK president and CEO Paul Krutko said that the new region will help all parties involved by allowing them to take advantage of the Ann Arbor name while giving companies more flexibility when exploring the region.

The 10 state prosperity regions in Governor Snyder's initiative.

The 10 state prosperity regions in Governor Snyder’s initiative

The geographic form of this enlarged Ann Arbor is easily traceable to Governor Snyder’s Regional Prosperity Initiative, which divides the state into ten economic zones.  We are Zone #9.  As the page describing the initiative acutely observes,

Michigan has numerous regional entities, including regional planning and development organizations, metropolitan planning organizations and workforce boards. Unfortunately, they were designed in such a way that results in overlapping goals and competing priorities.

And in another paragraph:

As it stands today, many of Michigan’s regions and their various public planning and service delivery entities have overlapping responsibilities yet competing visions for their economic priorities. The absence of a broad based regional vision and coordination of services create both redundancies and gaps.

required participantsSo what does the Regional Prosperity Initiative amount to?  It is a competitive grant program.  As the Governor’s message indicates, the intent is to avoid additional “layers of government or bureaucracy”.  Regional entities are encouraged to apply for grants from $250,000 to $500,000 (it is a little unclear whether that is a one-time grant or annual) to enact a 5-year “regional prosperity” plan that will have a “performance dashboard and measurable annual goals”.  This is classical Management By Objective language.  The required participants are split between existing educational, “workforce development” (typically training and employment counseling), economic development, and transportation agencies.  Clearly the intent is to create an efficient business environment with good transportation and readily available employees throughout the region, as well as to facilitate recruitment of new business to the area.

Something is missing

So what do all these regions have in common? Mostly, they have no power and no relationship to the population of the region.  And they are lacking a reliable funding source.  SEMCOG has some power in that it allocates grants, and its funding is by dues paid from the constituent governments, who are all represented.  The Regional Transit Agency will eventually have the ability to levy taxes (if the measures pass) and to make changes in local transit provider plans so that the area’s transit is better coordinated.  But the funding for those local transit plans is mostly based on funding by the localities where they are based, so that the issue of governance of this additional layer of bureaucracy will likely re-emerge over time.  Neither of these agencies has the power to pass or enforce laws and regulations over the region.  The economic development initiatives appear to be most active as marketing efforts.

It is notable how variable and inconsistent the regions are in their definition.  Washtenaw County is included in the greater Detroit metropolitan area in two, and separated from it in another.  (What in the earth does Washtenaw County have in common with Hillsdale County?  Not the politics, at least.)   Does it make sense to try for “regional cooperation” when the regions keep shifting?

In the end, all of these efforts are destined to be limited in effect, because they have no effective governance mechanisms.  Unless Michigan localities choose to be blended into regions, or unless the State Constitution is radically amended, most of these efforts will be talk, even if very well-informed talk by estimable citizens sitting around those tables, and staff generating reports with many tables of data.  As we indicated in our first post of this series, it is very difficult to get localities, especially townships, to give up any level of sovereignty.

ADDENDUM: Alert readers will have noticed that I left out one recently-discussed region encompassing Ann Arbor: the “urban core” that AAATA is basing its recent expansion on.  We discussed that at length in a recent post, Once Again, AAATA Exceeds Its Reach, and the post that follows it.

UPDATE:  Another important “region” for Ann Arbor is the Ann Arbor MSA, or Metropolitan Statistical Area.  This is a census region that includes the actual city of Ann Arbor but is actually the entire county.  Some articles and reports talking about Ann Arbor or ranking it according to various measures are actually referring to the MSA because that is a region for which the census collects a lot of data.

The Milken Institute recently rated cities according to their economic development success, or “performance”. Ann Arbor was placed in “large cities” because the rating really applied to the MSA  (Ann Arbor’s rank was 87, a loss of 11 notches in rank since last year).

SECOND UPDATE: Bridge Magazine has used the Governor’s economic regions in an analysis. They indicate that Region 9 (aka Greater Ann Arbor) nearly matches the Grand Rapids region in expected job growth for 2023, both just a little over 9%.  Of course, that is simply a projection.  Don Grimes was involved in the study. He links economic growth to population.  (Can anyone say “young talent”?)

THIRD UPDATE:

MDOT divides the state into 7 regions. The yellow one containing both East Lansing and Ann Arbor is the

The yellow region containing both East Lansing and Ann Arbor is the “University” region.

Yet another region that Ann Arbor belongs to is significant in transportation planning.  The University Region is a planning category for the Michigan Department of Transportation.  Projects are assigned by region, and there are staff specifically tasked for the region.  Ann Arbor is separated in this case from the Detroit Metro region and combined with nine other counties, including Ingham  County, the location of Michigan State University.  Recently MDOT released a list of accelerated road projects that received additional funding from the Legislature.  None of the projects in the University Region are located in Washtenaw County.

FOURTH UPDATE:

ModeShift’s David Sands with another excellent transportation article, this one about SEMCOG’s role.

FIFTH UPDATE: SEMCOG has now posted a compilation of all their transportation initiatives.

SIXTH UPDATE:  The RTA has hired a new CEO (Michael Ford) and as of May 2015 is moving along to create a transit plan, including a series of open houses around the region.  Here is their new website.

INTRIGUING SERIES: CityLab has begun a series on borders that looks promising for many insights on regionalism, and regions.  Drawing the Lines (January 2017)

Categories: civic finance, Regional, Transportation

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries