Re (3), there are a number of questions related to the seating of the current u196 board as the formal 196 board as early as October 11. It seems to me that they are bypassing some procedural steps. As indicated in the article, Ann Arbor’s representatives should be named by mayoral appointment and council confirmation. I’m wondering whether the other communities would be expected to make some formal selection of their representatives to the actual board as well.

It also seems strange to convene this board before the opt-out period is over. If the entire u196 board is involved in this early meeting, theoretically they could elect officers from communities that have opted out.

The Article 7 agreements signed by the different communities specifically indicate that opted-out communities are not entitled to representation. (Here is an example, the Southeast District agreement [link] ) Similar agreements were signed by the other Act 7 districts.

“If the representative is a resident of a community that opts out of the countywide transit authority, the remaining communities may select another representative and the opt out shall be considered a for-cause removal.”

“Any community that opts out of the countywide transit authority shall be provided no rights or participation in the Transit Selection Committee or countywide transit authority board representative election nor transit service or included in the county ballot funding proposal.”

Thus, there are several questions about the legitimacy of the 196 board if constituted so as to include representatives from opted-out jurisdictions. I understand the wish to keep those communities “at the table” but it seems to me that a more informal means of maintaining communication should be employed.

Generally, a person may not hold offices on two boards or commissions where there may be contractual agreements between the two entities. The content of the act and the question of its application to these boards is discussed here: [link] The section 3(11) exception for PA 196 authorities does not appear to apply to the AATA and New TA because of the different composition of the two authorities.

If the transfer of assets or authority from AATA to the New TA will involve any contractual arrangements between the two transit authorities, those arrangements raise significant questions regarding the compatibility of offices.

AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the Washtenaw County, including but not limited to AnnArbor.com, the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the Washtenaw Legal News, and the Heritage Newspapers serving portions of Washtenaw County;

To fulfill that requirement, the AATA purchased an ad on The Chronicle that links to this static page: [link]. I also found the notice in the WLN. I didn’t go through and check the others. But the resolution charged the county administrator with the responsibility for making sure that the conditions were met before filing.

One thing I don’t see discussed here is the requirement that a service plan and financial plan be published in a newspaper of countywide circulation. The Chronicle had a brief notice. I haven’t seen one elsewhere. The BOC altered that requirement to require publication in media for local areas as well. Is there any information on when that requirement will be fulfilled?