[LMich]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That sounds a lot better.

This Ann Arbor Chronicle article explains it even better. Anyone interested in the regional transit authority should read the entire thing. It takes a POV from Ann Arbor, but still describes the formula by which the authority will be funded. Some of it was a bit confusing, to me. Sounds like a county could levy a special assessment, but 90% of that would have to go for roads, but that the RTA could levy a special assessment in addition to a county levying an assessment, but this RTA assessment would strictly be for mass transit:

Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled

The Ann Arbor Chronicle Staff

January 26, 2012

Following an early morning announcement on Jan. 26 from state representative Rick Olson (District 55) – that a transportation improvement package for Michigan would be introduced in both houses of the legislature today – the text of the 17 bills is now available.

Much of the package deals with road funding, but some of the bills establish a regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan and its funding. Here’s a brief initial glance at some of the possible legislation.

HB 5309 establishes the region of the RTA as Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. The counties are not mentioned by name, but rather are described in terms of their population – a move likely used to avoid the 2/3 majority vote required under Michigan’s constitution (Article IV Section 29) for the legislature to enact local or special acts.

...

While most votes of the RTA board would require a simple majority, placing certain ballot measures before voters in the region – including a vehicle registration fee – would require a 4/5 majority (eight of ten members) of the board. The vehicle registration fees are addressed in other bills in the package.

Two other bills in the package (HB 5012 5312 and HB 5011 5311) provide another possible mechanism for funding public transportation and the RTA. HB 5312 provides that counties can adopt a voter-approved additional vehicle registration fee of up to $1.80 per $1,000 of the list price of a vehicle as determined by the existing statute. This county-based vehicle registration fee is not restricted to just the four counties in the RTA. Any county could enact such a fee and use some of that revenue to fund public transportation – but 90% of the revenue would need to be spent on roads, under Article IX Section 9 of Michigan’s constitution. This local, county-based voter-approved vehicle registration fee adds a new section 801k to the Michigan Vehicle Code.

And HB 5311 allows the RTA to enact an additional vehicle registration fee of up to $1.20 per $1,000 of the list price of a vehicle as determined by the existing statute – if voters in the RTA region approve it. It’s possible that a county in the RTA region could enact an additional vehicle registration fee on its own (801k), and that the RTA could also enact one.

The rules for how an 801k-enacted vehicle registration fee (by a county) could interact with a fee that is approved by voters in the RTA region are also set forth in HB 5311. The first condition is that the county-based vehicle registration fee and the RTA-based fee can’t sum to more than $1.80 per $1,000 of list value.

The second condition is that the county-based fee would be adjusted downward, if necessary, to meet the first condition. Because the RTA can only enact a fee up to $1.20, but a county can enact one up to $1.80, it’s not possible for the RTA to take all of a county’s fee that the county had intended to invest locally. The limiting case would be that a county enacted a $1.80 fee, and the RTA enacted $1.20. That would result in a reduction of the county fee to $0.60 – leaving the RTA fee at $1.20.

It appears that an RTA region-wide referendum on a vehicle registration fee would pass or fail based purely on the region-wide vote. In the specific case of Washtenaw County, there’s no provision that the referendum would need to get support from a majority of voters inside Washtenaw County in order for the fee to be imposed in Washtenaw by the RTA. Such a provision would be somewhat unusual, but it’s the kind of safeguard that the Ann Arbor city council has built into a pending agreement that it may enact to establish a countywide transit governance structure in Washtenaw County.

...

A few additional observations:

- I like that the SMRTA will only include the old metro core counties (Macomb, Oakland and Wayne) and Wahstenaw County starting out.

- One thing that's bothering me is the make up of the board. Of the 10 member board (really, 9 if you don't count the non-voting representative of the governor), all the counties get 2 members, but Detroit city only gets 1. I'm not aware of a regional board in that area where the state's largest city isn't given equal representation. If they think they can get this done without the votes of Detroit Dems in the legislature, I guess they could go this route. If they want to assure a bipartisan vote and a better chance of the bill passing on the whole, they'll equalize the board.

- I'm still confused about whether or not the two bills are mandating/dictating the type of transit along the first severel routes. I keep reading "rapid rolling stock" which I think each bill defines as BRT, but I think the state shouldn't be mandating the type of transit and rather simply facilitating the creation of the body to make it's own decisions about what mode of transit is best along any given line.