Hello neighbors!
The regular agenda for Ann Arbor City Council is quite short this week, only three items: a consulting contract for more work on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DC-1), new policy for the City’s use of drones (DC-2), and a resolution directing consideration of amendments to marijuana regulation (DC-3). The most interesting item is tucked in the Consent Agenda: a contract for up to $175,000 to fund attorneys negotiating a public-private partnership with the developer of Arbor South (CA-16).
This week, City Council meets on Thursday, due to the special election scheduled for Tuesday. The City Clerk has shared that the cost of this week’s election – as directed by City Council – is over $200,000 so I hope everyone will make it count!
ELECTION: TUESDAY AUGUST 5
Early voting has now ended, but you can still participate in the election this Tuesday to help decide whether City property will be given away for $1. For information about how to vote, including hours and polling places, visit:
https://www.a2gov.org/city-clerk/elections/election-day-voting/
I have previously explained why I am voting NO on both Proposals A and B:
Vote NO on Proposals A&B – Giving Away Center of the City
https://a2elnel.com/post/vote-no-on-proposals-ab-giving-away-center-of-the-city/
See also my “Additional Thoughts” section at the end of this newsletter, which is also linked here:
Vote NO on Proposals A&B: A Bad Deal Disguised as “Yay, Library!”
https://a2elnel.com/post/vote-no-on-proposals-ab-a-bad-deal-disguised-as-yay-library/
A2Council Update Video
After every City Council meeting I send out an “A2Council Update” newsletter, which includes a summary video. Here is my A2Council Update video from the Council meeting of July 21, 2025:
Ann Arbor City Council Meeting Agenda
Below is my summary of issues on the City Council Agenda this week, with links to more information about each of them. If you have comments about any of these issues, you can email all of Council at CityCouncil@a2gov.org
Ann Arbor City Council Meeting
Thursday, August 7 2025 7:00PM
Ann Arbor City Hall (2nd Floor)
301 E Huron St, Ann Arbor 48104
The full agenda (including a link to the latest published PDF agenda, and instructions for dialing into the meeting) is on the A2Gov Legistar website:
https://a2gov.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1251586&GUID=3A60B1F0-FFB2-4B93-8A0E-73E597021C0B
City Council meetings are broadcast live by CTN on Comcast (channel 16) and AT&T (channel 99) and online at a2gov.org/watchCTN
Meetings are also streamed live on the CTN YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ctnannarbor
How to reserve public comment
People that wish to comment at a City Council meeting must sign up with the City Clerk’s office in advance. Speakers are allotted 3 minutes, with the first 15 speakers allowed to speak in a 45 minute session near the beginning of the meeting. Remaining speakers will speak at the end of the Council meeting. Public comment can be made either in person or remotely via phone/Zoom audio.
To sign up for public comment, please go to or call the City Clerk’s Office at 734-794-6140 on the day of the meeting between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. At 4:00 PM, all speakers that have signed up are randomly ordered in “priority groups”. After 4:00 PM, speakers are added to the end of the applicable priority group in the order received. No new speakers will be added to the list after 5:00 PM. For more information, visit the City’s website:
https://www.a2gov.org/city-council/council-meetings-overview/
Questions to the Agenda
In preparation for a Council meeting, Council members can ask questions of staff about scheduled agenda items. Questions must be submitted by noon on the Wednesday before a Council Meeting, and answers are returned the next day (Thursday) by 5pm.
AC-2 (25-1352) Agenda Response Memo and eComments – July 21, 2025
This agenda item has a PDF attachment with all questions raised by Council Members, and the answers provided by staff.
Communications from the Mayor
There are no appointments from the Mayor on the Agenda
Consent Agenda
Below is the list of items included on the Consent Agenda. If no one on Council specifically requests that an item be pulled for discussion, the whole of this list will be approved in a single vote.
CA-1 (25-1309) Resolution to Approve Change Orders #1 and #2 to the Construction Contract with 21st Century Salvage Inc. for the Demolition of Four City Properties and Appropriate Funding ($146,052.80 Increase; $1,569,803.80 Total Contract) (8 Votes Required)
CA-2 (25-1258) Resolution to Approve the Purchase of a John Deere Wheel Loader from AIS Construction Equipment Corp. (MiDeal – $278,241.62)
CA-3 (25-1267) Resolution to Authorize the Purchase of Vehicles from Lunghamer Ford (State of Michigan MiDeal – $326,137.00)
CA-4 (25-1302) Resolution to Authorize the Purchase of Firefighting Turnout Gear from MES Service Company LLC (Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement – $129,694.62)
CA-5 (25-1387) Resolution to Increase Purchasing Authority with Henry Ford Health from $30,000.00 per year, as Authorized in City Council Resolution R-23-020, to $40,000.00 per year for On-Site Medical Surveillance Services ($10,000.00 increase per year)
CA-6 (25-1339) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Enerdynamic, LLC dba Blanket Insulation Services for Weatherization Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($577,500.00)
CA-7 (25-1340) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Ecotelligent Homes LLC for Weatherization Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($577,500.00)
CA-8 (25-1346) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Michigan Solar Solutions, LLC for Electrical Services and Solar and Energy Storage Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($709,500.00)
CA-9 (25-1347) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Sharon’s Heating & Cooling, Inc. for Appliance Replacement Services and Mechanical HVAC Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($332,750.00)
CA-10 (25-1365) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with The Air King Heating & Cooling LLC for Appliance Replacement Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($250,250.00)
CA-11 (25-1368) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Homeland Builders of Michigan LLC d/b/a Homeland Solar for Solar and Energy Storage Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($594,000.00)
CA-12 (25-1369) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Decima, LLC for Electrical Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($115,500.00)
CA-13 (25-1370) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Expert Heating and Cooling Co. LLC for Mechanical HVAC Services Related to Bryant Neighborhood Decarbonization Work ($82,500.00)
CA-14 (25-1394) Resolution to Authorize a Subgrant Agreement with ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A., Inc., Accept Associated Grant Funds, and Appropriate Grant Funds to the Office of Sustainability and Innovations Major Grants Budget ($250,000.00) (8 Votes Required)
CA-15 (25-1360) Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Kittali Weidner, LLC in the Amount of $99,500.00 to Support the City’s Circular Economy Action Planning ($99,500.00)
CA-16 (25-1396) Resolution to Approve the Third Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, for Legal Services Related to the Arbor South Project and Appropriate Funds ($100,000.00) (8 Votes Required)
A budget amendment will fund up to $175,000 in legal services to negotiate a public-private partnership with the Arbor South Project. Arbor South is a proposed private housing development from Oxford Companies with hotel and commercial space, located at 2845 S. State (across from Briarwood Mall) in the Transit Corridor (TC-1) zoning district. Last year, the private developer requested that the City issue bonds to buy and operate three parking decks at Arbor South. This year, City Council directed the City Administrator to move forward with the plan.
In March 2024, the developers of Arbor South presented plans to a working session of the City Planning commission but did not mention the need for City-owned parking decks to support the project. https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-planning-commission-working-session-march-12-2024/
Public discussion of City-owned parking decks at Arbor South began in November 2024, when City Council held a work session. You can watch excerpts of that work session here: VIDEO: Few Things Considered: Arbor South Parking Decks
On April 7, 2025, City Council approved a resolution in support of City participation in Arbor South and directed the City Administrator to prepare the issuance of public bonds. (Legistar) https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-april-7-2025/
This week, agenda item CA-16 is the third amendment to a contract for legal services from Miller Canfield in order to negotiate a public-private partnership with Arbor South. The contract with Miller Canfield originated on July 4, 2024 but was not voted on or approved by City Council. The contract was amended on June 3, 2025 and again on July 7, 2025, both times without a vote of City Council. This week’s (third) amendment adds $100,000 to what has already been spent, adding up to a total of $175,000.
The City Administrator is permitted to spend up to $75,000 without authorization from Council. According to this week’s contract, lawyers at Miller Canfield have been working on a public-private partnership between the City and the developers of Arbor South since July 2024 — four months before Council discussed it publicly and nine months before Council approved moving forward with the plan. Expenses up to this point have not exceeded $75,000 and did not require City Council approval.
On June 16, 2025, City Council amended another contract in support of Arbor South, approving up to $175,000 in services from PFM Group Consulting LLC for “due diligence” related to the issuance of public bonds. (Legistar) https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-june-16-2025/
With the approval of CA-16, the City will have allocated $350,000 toward the negotiation of a public-private partnership with Arbor South, anticipating the issuance of $146 million in public bonds to fund City-owned parking decks at the private development.
CA-17 (25-1390) Resolution to Approve the Transfer of Affordable Housing Project at 201 W. William to Avalon Housing Inc. and Extend the Lease Term
Public Hearings
Anyone wanting to comment on these issues may speak for 3 minutes, without having specifically reserved time. Issues subject to public hearing will also be up for a vote by Council later in the meeting.
There are no public hearings on the Agenda
Ordinances – Second Reading
In order to amend the city code, Council must vote to approve the change, via ordinance, at two Council meetings. The following proposed ordinances were approved at a previous Council meeting, and are also subject to a public hearing as listed above.
There are no second readings on the Agenda
Ordinances – First Reading
In order to amend the city code, Council must vote to approve the change, via ordinance, at two Council meetings. The following proposed ordinances are being introduced for “first reading”. If approved, the ordinance will be voted on at a subsequent Council meeting (“second reading”), where it will also be subject to a public hearing.
There are no first readings on the Agenda
Motions and Resolutions
DC-1 (25-1383) Resolution Regarding the Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan Contract Amendment
Up to $83,300 would be added to a contract with consultant Interface Studio LLC in order to fund more time, an additional iteration of a Draft Plan, and attendance at upcoming public meetings regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This will bring the total contract with Interface Studio up to $883,990.
This funding was part of a resolution considered by Council on July 21, 2025 that also included a long list of policy recommendations for the City Planning Commission to consider in drafting the CLUP. At that meeting, the policy recommendations were approved but the funding for Interface Studios was postponed. https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-july-21-2025/
The initial contract with Interface Studio was first reviewed by a special working session of the City Planning Commission on March 7, 2023: https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-planning-commission-special-working-session-march-7-2023/
That $699,110 contract was approved by City Council on April 17, 2023. https://a2council.com/ann-arbor-city-council-april-17-2023/
DC-2 (25-1414) Resolution to Adopt the City of Ann Arbor Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Use Policy
By resolution, the City will adopt official policy for its use of unmanned aircraft (drones).
The City currently uses drones for aerial mapping and surveying for planning, infrastructure and “branding of the city image.” Additionally, the City uses drones in public safety for real-time situational awareness, search and rescue, and safety assessments during large scale events.
A new policy explains that outside of “exigent circumstances,” images of people will not be recorded or transmitted from locations where someone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. City drone operators will follow all existing FAA regulations and activities will be recorded by date (including detailed purpose). Unit managers and service area administrators will approve operations and provide oversight.
The new policy includes a list of anticipated and acceptable uses for the drones in order to support City operations such as:
- Inspection of infrastructure
- Detection of hazardous materials
- Deployment of rescue resources
- Documentation in fire investigations
- Collection of topographic data
- Promotion of events and tourism
- Creation of content for education about City services
City staff will not use drones for personal business, the deployment of weapons, discriminatory harassment, random surveillance, or any other illegal activities. Violation of policy will be enforced with appropriate training or discipline up to and including discharge.
DC-3 (25-1426) Resolution Directing the Ann Arbor Planning Commission to Review the Marijuana Facilities Provisions of the Uniform Development Code
By resolution, Council would direct the City Planning commission to consider amendments to Section 5.27.3, regulating marijuana dispensaries, growers and processors in the city.
Potential amendments:
- Reducing the distance requirement between marijuana establishments and K-12 schools. The current distance requirement is 1,000 feet.
- Permitting facilities outside of “Special Exception Use”, which currently requires application and approval from the City Planning Commission
- Amending provisions for growing and processing
- Lifting the cap on retailers in the city (the current cap is 28; there are 21 currently operating)
The resolution explains that the state of Michigan’s definition of a K-12 school has placed existing establishments in violation of the distance requirement. Additionally, “there is interest in prospective marijuana retailers locating within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school.”
Additional Thoughts…
I also posted this on my website
https://a2elnel.com/post/vote-no-on-proposals-ab-a-bad-deal-disguised-as-yay-library/
Vote NO on Proposals A&B: A Bad Deal Disguised as “Yay, Library!”
I’ve shared a good bit about Proposals A and B, to be decided this Tuesday, August 5, 2025. People have asked me what I think about the arguments that have been pitched back and forth. What I think is simple: no matter what anyone prefers insofar as development of the property adjacent to the downtown library, Proposals A and B are not a serious or sensible plan to get there. On Facebook recently, in speculation about the likely outcome, I offered my take. It has been shared by a few people and I’m going to share it here:
I don’t know how it’s going to shake out ultimately but it’s clear how aggressively the whole question has been publicized (at least by one side) to obscure the real issue. This is about hypocrisy, accountability and stewardship of city assets. The framing of and talking points for these issues – useless parking lot vs. housing and “yay library!” vs. “don’t you TRUST the library???” – has illustrated how confident leaders are that an electorate does not pay attention to details.
It wasn’t too long ago that City Council contrived an internal “sale” between city departments, forcing the housing commission to cough up over $6 million for property the city already owned and had already committed explicitly for development as affordable housing. That was nearly a whole year of the affordable housing millage revenue gone and effectively shuffled back into the general fund when city leaders insisted that the property had to be sold for fair market value.
This year’s deal – leading up to a private-public partnership – suggests that it’s now totally fine to GIVE away an asset worth twice as much, not for a specific plan but for the vague idea of “don’t you love the library?” (Unspoken on purpose: “don’t you love the library AND whatever unknown private development that will be figured out later but don’t worry your pretty little head about it now?”) The deal is a bad one, nevermind how anyone thinks the space should be used.
Why didn’t they schedule this for a high turnout election? Why didn’t they structure a straightforward repeal if it’s so apparent that public sensibilities have changed around housing and development (given the overwhelming “mandate” they often note)? If there’s an appetite for a private-public deal muddling public assets with profit interests and the overarching goal is housing, why would the library be doing it, rather than allowing the city’s own housing commission to lead efforts with the library as a partner (the housing commission has ACTUAL expertise in developing housing)?
There are a whole lot of reasons to oppose this for how they structured it to “game” a less attentive electorate and leverage warm fuzzies for the library. The common thread with the [Comprehensive Land Use Plan] is less about policy and more about trustworthiness: one more thing that seems to be happening (on purpose) so that fewer people participate in what’s going on or even have a clear idea of WHAT is going on. These low turnout elections typically draw more skepticism so I think the results are really a test of how much early voting is able to increase participation and harness the kind of voters who will fall for “Yay! Library!”
Thank you for taking the time to be informed about our local government!
Elizabeth Nelson