The City of Ypsilanti just had a pretty big vote ya might have heard. The City Council voted 4-1 to approve $274,000 to pay AATA in full for the 7 routes in an out of Ypsilanti that service 578,000 people each year, getting to and coming home from work, going shopping or other errands. Now, Brian Robb D-2 felt the city should have held out and seen what AATA was going to ask for first before committing that much money. We disagre with him on this and want the busses funded fully BUT he makes a good point, a very defensible point and one that who knows, um, Trudy Swanson and Lois Richardson could have chimed in on. But they were nowhere to be found. Now we're SURE they'd both have a good excuse for not being at one of the more important City Council meetings this year and giving the 1st Ward NO REPRESENTATION on this vote. Basically the 1st Ward had no say on this topic.
If it were us and we lived in the 1st Ward, we'd be on the phone right now finding out why they weren't there and what was so pressing they would both miss the vote.
Betcha Megan Turf wonders why too.
EDITORS NOTE--We were informed by Brian Robb that Trudy Swanson is recovering in the hospital and has a fine excuse and thusly we took her name off the headline.
We wish Trudy Swanson the fastest recovery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Bus funding is something that few people understand.
The largest user of the AATA bus system are people associated with the University of Michigan. According to the AATA, they account for 40% of all trips. It's important to understand they get to ride for free. As 40% of all ridership, they account for $5.3M in costs. The UofM only pays $1.9M for this service. As a result, they are subsidized to the tune of $3.4M a year.
It's also important to understand that 100,000 of the people coming and going to work from Ypsilanti are also associated with the UofM. The City does not get any credit for the UofM's $1.9M contribution.
In an email from AATA Board Chair David Nacht that went only to the mayor and one other council member (and was not shared with the rest of Council), he mentioned that the AATA finance and audit committee were disussing three important issues:
1) maintaining the current 182,000 hours of service
2) a 2008/9 budget goal to reduce the hourly operating cost from $107/hr to $96/hr. (The AATA has one of the highest operating costs in the entire midwest.)
3) a fare increase to $1.50
The reason I want to delay committing funding to the buses is because that contract runs from October 1st to September 30th. We should find out what the finance and audit committee concludes. And we should talk to other users of the bus services that do not pay a Purchase of Service Agreement (like WCC and St. Joe's). What kind of leverage can we possibly have by showing our hand now? Finally, we don't even know what it is going to cost us. I think it's irresponsible to fund something without knowing the cost. We are elected to make sensible decisions on behalf of the residents. Knowing what things cost is part of being responsible.
As to completely funding busing in the City, busing is the only service we are 100% funding. By supporting full funding ,the rest of Council is making it the number one service we provide and the City's number one priority. I respectfully disagree. Public Safety is our number one priority and should always be our number one priority.
Finally, both Trudy and Lois voted in favor of fully funding buses at the May 8th Council meeting. In addition, Trudy has been in the hospital. I'm sure you can send her get well wishes in care of the City.
Brian Robb
City Council, Ward 3
brobb [at] cityofypsilanti [dot] com
Hey Brian--
Thanks for the facts you've laid out.
Also thank you for letting us know Trudy is in the hospital. Something not known to us here. We of course wish her the best and that would CERTAINLY fall under the good excuse we mentioned on the front page.
I toss around the police protection vs bus funding and sometimes it's one sometimes it's the other. People DO need a fully running bus service (and your info on this IS helpful). Maybe we COULD have saved a few thousand. My question would be could AATA ever just make a margin call in that OK, you guys don't wanna pay us full measure, you're done as of X date. That's a chance we can't take. I'm NOT saying we're taking it now but we NEED bus service.
NEED. Once it stops or is cutailed in your city good luck attracting anyone or anything business-wise which we most certainly WILL need to improve the old tax base around here. Without the AATA running here, we become some kind of outpost in eastern Washtenaw County with a reputation as POOR TOWN. I'd support bus funding over the loss of one or two police officers and a question I have is are we LOSING them or are we just not hiring more to replace attrition?
We here at YCD would support a 1.50 bus fare. We're not saying things have to be free, and a rate increase is logical and fair.
OK, perfect world for next year we DO get a break on the inbound outbound bus rate and then transfer bus monies to police and fire.
We may disagree on portions of this topic, but I DO certainly appreciate your looking to save taxpayers money and your committment to this city. You serve your Ward well Brian.
Also, I just re-read your comment on the % of U-M who use it and ride for free and addled me, it took a second to become clear. YEAH, something needs to be done about their tremendous subsidy vs the one we used here in Ypsi.
So let me get this straight. Although U-M is a major employer of the area, the downside of that is that Ann Arbor property owners have to make up for all that lost tax revenue.
But Ypsi gets bent over because it subsidizes busing for U-M riders that don't pay? And what U-M does pay doesn't cover their usage?
All of this while they are sitting on that multi-billion dollar endowment fund, they don't have to follow noise and construction ordinances, and oh yes, they turned their noses up at graduating at Eastern.
I think that losing bus service is not an option. Mass transit is one of this area's largest shortcomings.
But I believe in everyone paying their fare share, too. And that certainly doesn't seem to be happening here if I have been reading this correctly.
OK, I'm still FOR funding the busses fully, but Brian makes a point that cannot be ignored any longer. WE as a city are stepping up to our responsibilities (see where the moral high ground comes in here nicely?) and paying our full load, and the U-M is NOT and we SHOULD, and I will, make notice of this issue.
The issue isn't whether bus service should be funded, but how, and by whom. It's clear that the system currently used to determine who pays what subsidy is badly broken, and that Ypsi gov't doesn't know how to go about actually commencing a negotiation to restore some semblance of equity to the system.
Council should have voted the subsidy down to force such a negotiation. Had they done so, the message would have been communicated that the funding system must be re-evaluated. As I pointed out on my blog some time ago, Council can always vote the subsidy down, and if the AATA won't negotiate (I think they will), Council can restore funding later.
However, we don't have city leadership that appears to understand market economics in any context. Hence, just as Water Street will sit empty for the foreseeable future, we will continue to overpay our AATA subsidy because of a lack of ability or desire to advocate equitable distribution of scarce revenue. Council appears long on talk and political pandering, but short on results.
My greatest fear is AATA calling our bluff after a few years of paying some of our way. Let's not forget they are a monopoly and as Brian points out they have a seemingly high cost of doing business. It could be argued that's why they wouldn't call in the debt if you will. I look around this good world and see companies pretty regularly and fairly without conscience make the other decision to give the big FU to loyal customers.
Besides, with the cost of fueling those things right now their margins are markedly tighter.
Trusty--how would we engage the maize and blue trillion dollar monolith? It's way past time to, but any ideas as to which portion of Jabba the Hut to speak at?
Remember, those 100,000 subsidized UM affiliated riders (students, faculty, staff, hospital workers, etc.) live in Ypsi, and pay taxes in Ypsi.
Being able to commute to A2 is absolutely essential for the economic viability of present-day Ypsi. And given how overpriced the A2 housing market is, improving the bus service (and perhaps a bit of marketing) will make Ypsi even more attractive.
Think about it – all those fat UM paychecks being spent down here….
I’ve commuted by bus in several cities, including via AATA, and their service is frankly borderline. There aren’t enough buses at peak times, isn’t enough evening and weekend service, and aren't enough outlying routes around Ypsi. (e.g. Whittaker road library.)
My fear? AATA would use funding problems to reduce (*not* eliminate) an already marginal bus service – effectively crippling service to Ypsi, and making living here impractical for UM folks.
Longer term, for AATA I see two main issues:
First, AATA has to bully a *lot* more money out of UM when their contract comes up for renewal (and given the number of UM commuters and the campus parking situation, AATA has considerable leverage).
Secondly, AATA has to do a better job of controlling costs. (And I'd start by comparing the administrative structures and middle management of AATA to their peers.)
But fully-funded or partially-funded, Ypsi doesn’t have the leverage to force AATA to take those actions.
Personally, I'm glad to have the uncertainty removed -- and I expect I'm not alone. For example, for folks considering whether they can live in Ypsi and commute to UM, uncertainty over future bus service would be a major problem.
Now that there's apparently a some guarantee of service, it needs to be publicized to landlords, realtors, and the relevant housing offices at UM and EMU.
Lois Richardson was at the Gateway Council meeting and got over to City COuncil as soon as possible and arrived just after 8pm but the meeting had jsut adjourned.
Gateway Council is a regularly scheduled meeting scheduled long before City Council scheduled the conflicting Special Budget meeting.
And the idea of a vote on the AATA was only discussed last Thursday at a previous Special Budget meeting. So if you had plans or special speakers coming to a meeting, it would have been hard to change those plans since the council decisions to vote on AATA was done with just a couple of days notice
It is highly unusual to have special funding resolutions during budget meetings. Those are usually reserved for the regular council meetings.
Oh bY the way, the first resolution on AATA funding, well Bill Nickels missed that meeting as well. I didn't see any posting about him being MIA.
His reason was a very good one as well. He too was in the hospital with with an impacted tooth.
It really points out the politicizing that has gone on about AATA bus service. No wonder given that the folks that voted for bus funding this time were the same folks that cut funding last year and cut funding the year before and the year before that.
Now that an election is coming up, you see folks back pedaling on their previous votes to cut AATA funding.
Yet it has been Lois and Trudy that have been the most out-spoken supporters of bus service. Who can forget Lois Richardson stepping our from the Council table, to address the council as a citizen during audience participation to implore that bus funding not be cut.
The Council then voted to cut fuding by 25% than 50% in year two and eliminate all subsidies in year three. Now it is year three and those same council members that voted to cut AATA service now are scrambling to pass a no-nothing resolutions professing support.
All the while, did you catch that the City's millage rate has gone up another full mill. Council buried that in the budget bill coming up in June so as to not have to vote on that increase.
One more point, two other candidates, Megan Turf and Rod Johnson also were not at the budget meeting on Tuesday. Shocking? Not really. They were at CoPAC, another regularly scheduled meeting.
Cheers!
- Steve
I'm not politicizing, I just want to make sure where city council members are on such important votes, Steve. I realize they had supported it in the past but it came up, was a big deal and Lois was elsewhere that's all. Accountability. As for the backhanded swipe at Megan Turf---was she expected to vote on it? I hardly think so, not being on city council and all.
Post a Comment