Jim, I take your comment to be one about policy not the a question about the application of the formula. In other words, I understand your comment essentially to be: Good policy would dictate that this is the way it should work – namely, that state assistance reflects the budget of individual transit agency.

But for readers who understand it to be a question about the application of the formula, then this part of the article provides the answer:

The formula provides a “floor” that guarantees a transit agency at least the amount of state operating assistance it received in 1997. Because of the drop in its budget, DDOT’s strictly proportionate share within its group this year would have been less than the 1997 “floor” – by $8 million. So the formula required that DDOT be made whole with respect to that floor. If the “floor” provision did not exist, that would have resulted in $8 million more for non-DDOT members of the group to split up. [.pdf of briefing memo on MDOT allocations]

I think the rationale for the floor was to protect a transit agency from the growth of a peer agency’s budget, not a radical decline, which is what happened this year.

The “MDOT Formula” makes no sense to me. If Detroit’s transit budget is reduced by 22%, shouldn’t their State share also be reduced by 22%, leaving the Ann Arbor share unchanged?

I find it disturbing that there is a move to keep non-participating communities on the new board. I wonder what effect such a move will have on the Ann Arbor community’s acceptance of the millage.

My new post [link] is an attempt to provide an overview of all the different transit programs and processes in play. I hope that it might serve as a reference.