Upon further reflection, though, I think the point is moot. These deliberations show that the City would be uncomfortable with an Act 55 entity controlled by the county or otherwise organized based on purely population-based representation.

On the other side, I don’t see the other municipalities being up for participating in an entity that Ann Arbor thoroughly controls (either because it’s a continuation of the current AATA board or because Ann Arbor representatives control a majority and can push through any policies without regard to the concerns of the rest of the county).

I think the proposed governance model in which Ann Arbor is one vote away from a majority is probably the best way to balance the concerns of both constituencies.

I’m not a lawyer either, but that interpretation of the county joining the Act 55 entity doesn’t sound right. In any case, the plan has been to create the Act 196 authority for some time.

If that’s true, then Kunselman’s proposed situation is impossible: you can’t have both Ann Arbor control AND a countywide millage. If the County joins the AATA under act 55, it becomes a county entity, and Ann Arbor has less control that under the proposed articles of incorporation.

As Lumm said, “I’m not a lawyer”? So, did I get that right?

In terms of the “What’s the rush” question, ICPJ first got involved in efforts to expand transit options 3 or 4 years ago, back when Jeff Irwin was actively meeting with townships and trying to get buy-in. I would have liked to see this done 2 years ago, but the AATA leadership (wisely) chose to go through an extensive process of consultation and planning to hear from various stakeholders, hold a transparent process, and get feedback. They are by no means rushing.

Differences between Act 196 and Act 55 laid out here: [link]

Re: “Let’s say … six [of eight] jurisdictions opt out …”

Several similar questions are given responses in a set of documents released Jan. 17 by AATA. [link] Here’s the [.pdf of responses to councilmember questions] For a “massive opt-out” scenario (the sense of Ruth Kraut’s question, I think) here’s the AATA’s response:

Q2. What is the minimum level of participation of other jurisdictions required to move forward? What if it is just AA, Ypsilanti, and one or two townships opting in? What happens if Ypsilanti does not sign on? Who makes the final go/no go decision?

• To participate further in a countywide authority, municipalities must not “opt-out.” If there are communities that opt out, we would continue to move forward with a 5-Year transit improvement plan that was specific to the communities that have not optedout.
• In the event that there are transit districts without municipal members (e.g. all of the “West” opts out), Board governance would be restructured. In the unlikely event that Ypsilanti does not sign on to the Public Transit Agreement, they could continue to purchase service from the new authority much like they do today. This has not been a stable source of funding and has over several years created the possibility of reducing the already very low service level. They would not receive any transit improvements unless they were to purchase additional service from the new authority. In addition, Ypsilanti’s board seat is dependent on the transfer of Ypsilanti’s millage and this agreement, not having sufficient population to merit a board seat.
• Go/No Go: Ann Arbor will be able to make the determination to opt out if it chooses, making the conditions of the Public Transportation Agreement impossible to meet. If you are referring to who decides on a voter referendum, this would be a decision of the incorporated board, with the voters making the final decision by voting to invest in transit improvements outlined in a 5-year improvement plan once a ballot measure is put forth.

These are charges for improvements – when utility infrastructure is extended for the first time, or when a parcel connects to existing infrastructure through annexation from a township. A general principle is that a parcel has an improvement charge assessed only once, ever. So you’re already a regular Ann Arbor city water/sewer customer, these charges don’t apply to you.

The timeline linked to above is really helpful, but what I don’t understand is this: let’s say that 8 jurisdictions initially agree and the authority is formed, but then after the authority is formed six of the jurisdictions opt out–are the two jurisdictions still in responsible for the whole authority?

Last, I don’t understand what the hurry is about this. Our current AATA is not perfect but it’s not half-bad either. What happens if it gets postponed? Is this a “one-time-only” opportunity?

I’d like to clarify and explain my comment about the first 5 years of the TMP being complete by what appears to be the end of 3 years in the agreement. The difference is in fiscal years vs. calendar years. The FY 2012 budget (began October 2011) initiated a number of regional programs. The 4-party agreement provides for a deadline of December 31, 2014 to fulfill requirements for closing (transfer of assets) but the actual closing is not required before December 31, 2015. Since the FY 2015 budget would be completed in 2014, there will have been 4 fiscal years by then, and 5 by the end of 2015.

Of course, the key question is when the Act 196 authority would actually become operational, with or without Ann Arbor’s millage, and what functions it could conduct without the closing in the agreement. That is unclear.