I suggest that the negative vibe which many associate with the number “196″ does not come out of a vacuum. Rather, it may come out from hole into which the local political class has dug itself: its words and actions in recent years have led some in our community – especially those who pay close attention to public affairs – to conclude that no assurance of any kind, from this group, can be relied upon, period. Fairly or not, this lack of credibility seems to apply to most elected officials from Ann Arbor, their appointees, and their hirelings, across government bodies. I wonder if there has yet been enough political turnover to create an environment in which the credibility of our public institutions could begin to be re-established.

But I do think it’s accurate to characterize the kind of proposed service improvements in this confined geographic footprint as similar to those for the proposed countywide service plan – if it were confined to this limited geographic footprint. In fact, I think it would be odd if the previous planning efforts were not incorporated into the current discussion.

I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that during the countywide debate, Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman – and many others were critical of the countywide proposal – argued that it was geographically too ambitious and did not allow Ann Arbor to maintain enough control in the new transit authority’s governance. Kunselman specifically called for a more limited approach, where transit improvements would be centered on Ann Arbor and those communities geographically adjacent to Ann Arbor, who stepped forward to be willing partners. Ken, I’m curious to understand how you believe the current effort diverges from the approach that Kunselman espoused?

I also think it’s unfortunate that by now in our community “Act 196″ is equated by many people with “countywide” and the negative (for many people) association of that will probably attach to any proposal that mentions Act 196 in any way. In fact, Act 196 can be used in a variety of geographic configurations. For example, it’s my understanding that in just spitballing various ideas of governance and funding, some of the conversations recently have included the idea that maybe a collection of nearby jurisdictions outside Ann Arbor might band together to form an Act 196 transit authority (not including Ann Arbor), levy taxes, and contract with the AATA (which would remain an Act 55 authority).

On that general type of approach – one that would maintain separate governance – Ann Arbor residents wouldn’t need to vote through a new transit millage associated with a new transit authority. Instead they could vote to approve a Headlee override, restoring Ann Arbor’s transit millage to 2.5 mills (from just over 2.0 mills), and that would have roughly the same financial effect as levying a new tax, while maintaining the same control over the levy – because it would be the same old familiar levy. Or they could also reject that request, for any number of reasons: they can’t afford it; they don’t believe transit improvements in Ann Arbor are necessary; they think the needed transit improvement could be achieved without additional local funding; they are worried about the unknown factor of the regional transit authority (RTA); they don’t think we should fund public transportation at all.

I see the March 28 meeting as putting on the table some specific services in a limited geographic footprint, explaining the cost of those services, and asking elected officials in that limited geographic footprint if they think they can work out an equitable governance and payment arrangement that will allow the AATA to deliver the services – and that their constituents will support.

I am glad that the chair Charles Griffith asked that question. But when I inquired among Council members, they did not seem to have received a notice.

I hope there is a good Ann Arbor presence at the meeting.