Hello neighbors!
Due to the Martin Luther King Jr holiday, this week Ann Arbor City Council meets on Tuesday, January 20. At first reading, Council will consider changes to development requirements and process (C-1, C-2), tenancy fees (C-4), and the rezoning of property on Huron Street (C-3). Additionally, Council will vote to add staff in the transportation department (CA-8) and approve a salary increase and bonus for City Administrator Dohoney (DC-4). The rest of their agenda includes items related to the development of affordable housing at 350 S. Fifth (CA-3, CA-16, DS-2, DS-3) and funding for parking structures at a private development, Arbor South (DC-3).
For more about Arbor South, see my “Additional Thoughts” section below, also linked here: https://a2elnel.com/post/arbor-souths-end-run-around-8-votes-start-with-brownfield/
My recording of the January 13th Council Administration Committee meeting includes information relevant to this week’s agenda, but not shared in documents. In the recording linked below, City Administrator Dohoney explains that a consultant found plans for 350 S Fifth to have an “adverse impact” on an adjacent historic district. For anyone interested in that issue, you can find his explanation at time stamp 32:10.
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 January 5, 2026:
In Case You Missed It…
On my YouTube channel, you can find recordings of public meetings that are open to attend live (online or in-person) but are not made available by the City to view later. Please reach out if you have suggestions about public meetings that should be recorded. Subscribe to my YouTube channel if you would like to be alerted to new content as it gets added.
https://www.youtube.com/@a2elnel
Council Administration Committee: January 13, 2026
This is a recording I made of a Zoom audio meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 by the Ann Arbor Council Administration Committee. Video was not made available.
https://a2council.com/council-administration-committee-january-13-2026/
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
Tuesday, January 20 2026 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=1366661&GUID=9BDB3651-3C8E-4E55-9523-90B683DFDF3F
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-1 (26-0115) Agenda Response Memo and eComments – January 20, 2026
This agenda item has a PDF attachment with all questions raised by Council Members, and the answers provided by staff.This agenda item has a PDF attachment with all questions raised by Council Members, and the answers provided by staff.
Communications from the Mayor
MC-1 (25-2261) Appointments – Confirmations
This appointment from the Mayor was presented at the previous meeting, and will therefore be voted on at this Council meeting.
- Elizabeth Martin – Board of Review
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 (25-2144) Resolution Approving a Contract with the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County for the 2025-2026 Winter Emergency Shelter and Warming Center ($222,000.00)
CA-2 (25-2255) Resolution to Approve an Agreement for Joint Recreation Programs with Ann Arbor Public Schools
CA-3 (25-2249) Resolution to Approve the 350 S. Fifth Ave. Development Agreement for PUD Site Plan SP25-0009 (350 S Fifth Ave) (CPC Recommendation: Approval – 6 yes, 0 no)
A development agreement for 350 S Fifth will permit a 20-story mixed-use building containing 330 affordable apartments and a shared service drive for future use by Ann Arbor Area Transit Authority (AAATA).
CA-4 (25-1965) Resolution to Prohibit On-Street Parking on the North Side of Catherine Street from N. Division Street to N. Ingalls Street
CA-5 (25-2268) Resolution to Approve Change Order No. 2 with Fonson Company, Inc. for the Westgate Watermain Replacement Project (Additional $220,884.97, Total Contract Amount $2,411,824.68; RFP 25-10)
CA-6 (25-2211) Resolution to Approve Professional Services Agreements with The Mannik and Smith Group, Inc. ($275,000.00); Material Testing Consultants, Inc. ($275,000.00); NTH Consultants, Ltd. ($150,000.00); and Tetra Tech, Inc. ($185,000.00) for Geotechnical and Environmental Services
CA-7 (26-0007) Resolution to Approve a Purchase Order with Toter LLC for Solid Waste Containers (not-to-exceed $150,000.00 Annually)
CA-8 (26-0029) Resolution to Approve Adding 2.0 Full Time Employee Equivalents (FTE’s) to the Transportation Unit and Appropriate $87,500.00 to the FY2026 Major Streets Fund Budget (8 Votes Required)
A budget amendment for $87,500 will fund two additional employees in the Transportation Unit in order to cover “workload growth and operational demand.” A proposal to add one Signs and Signals Manager and one Signs and Signals Supervisor will increase “Transportation Engineers’ capacity to focus on development review, Council transportation goals, multi-modal transportation design, and project management.”
CA-9 (26-0031) Resolution to Increase the Purchase Order with Lunghamer Ford, for Four Vehicles (Increase: $16,379.00, Total: $231,591.00)
CA-10 (26-0015) Resolution Authorizing Water and Sanitary Sewer Capital Recovery Charges for 1155 Arlington Blvd.
CA-11 (26-0028) Resolution Authorizing Water and Sanitary Sewer Capital Recovery Charges for 3455 La Salle Dr.
CA-12 (25-2256) Resolution to Approve a Three-Year Software Subscription Agreement with SolarWinds via CDW Government, LLC for Network Monitoring and Security Auditing and to Appropriate Funding from the Information Technology Services Fund Balance ($174,607.59) (8 Votes Required)
CA-13 (26-0001) Resolution to Approve a Three-Year Software Subscription Agreement with EnergyCAP, LLC for Municipal Energy Monitoring Software ($120,701.53) (8 Votes Required)
CA-14 (26-0051) Resolution to Approve a General Services Agreement with Comprenew to Execute Sustainable IT Management and Household Electronics Collection Events ($110,000.00) (8 Votes Required)
CA-15 (25-2270) Resolution to Approve Change Order No. 2 to the Contract with Melink Solar, LLC for Solar Installations at the Wheeler Service Center to Cover Additional Project Costs of $265,433.15 (Total Contract amount: $3,328,637.15) (8 Votes Required)
CA-16 (25-2245) Resolution to Approve a Grant Agreement with the Ann Arbor Housing Development Corporation to Support the Development of a Sustainable and Affordable Housing Project at 350 S. Fifth Ave. and Appropriate Funding ($1,000,000.00) (8 Votes Required)
A grant agreement will direct $1,000,000 in City funds toward the development of 350 S Fifth. All funds come from the budget of the Office of Sustainability and Innovations: $812,446 from the County Mental Health Millage and $187,554 from the Climate Action Millage. It is estimated that sustainability features at 350 S Fifth add $7.8 million in hard costs.
CA-17 (26-0054) Resolution to Approve a Retainer Agreement with Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. and The Sam Bernstein Law Firm for Legal Services to Support the City’s Participation as a Named Plaintiff in a Class Action Anti-Trust Litigation Regarding Fire Truck Pricing, City of Ann Arbor v Oshkosh Corporation et al., Case No. 25-cv-1973
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.
PH-1/DS-1 (26-0017) Resolution to Find the Ann Street Curb Cut at 201 North Main Street to be a Traffic Hazard and Approve Its Closure as Part of the Ann Street Improvements Project
This item was removed from the agenda on 1/15/2026.
A resolution to remove a curb cut on Ann Street, at the corner of Main (201 N Main). This corner is the site of a liquor store with curb cut access via both Main and Ann. Their small parking lot frequently hosts a food truck. The Downtown Development Authority has plans for improvement to Ann Street that will eliminate all curb cuts for off-street access to this property. Finalized plans for that project can be found at this link, under the tab “Public Engagement.” https://engage.a2gov.org/annstreet-improvements
PH-2/DS-2 (26-0063) Resolution to Approve a Transformational Brownfield Plan for 350 South Fifth Avenue
A transformational brownfield plan will reimburse $29,983,781 in tax increment finance (TIF) over a 30-year period to support the affordable housing project at 350 S Fifth. The project will be co-developed by the Ann Arbor Housing Development Corporation and provide 330 affordable units, ground floor retail, and enhancements to the Blake Transit Center.
PH-3/DC-3 (26-0098) Resolution to Approve a Brownfield Plan for the Arbor South Project
A brownfield plan will reimburse $373,825,905 in tax increment finance (TIF) over a 30-year period to support the Arbor South Project at 2800 East Boardwalk Drive, 2845 State Street, and 2991 State Street.
The developer of Arbor South will be reimbursed for:
- Priority 1: $184,866,844 for parking structures
- Priority 2: $160,188,060 for off-site sanitary sewer trunklines and interceptor, water, storm sewer, bus rapid transit stop, pedestrian improvements
This plan was posted and removed from two Council agendas in November 2025. Previously, it was presented together with a public private partnership agreement that committed the City to issue $166,390,000 in public bonds to purchase land and three parking decks from the developer.
This week, the brownfield plan is presented separately, without the public private partnership.
For explanation of how this does (or does not) differ from what was previously presented, see my “Additional Thoughts” section below.
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 ordinance 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.
C-1 (25-2201) An Ordinance to Amend Section 5.19 of Chapter 55 (Unified Development Code) of Title V (Bicycle and Vehicle Parking) CPC Recommendation: Approval (8 Yes, 0 No)
Proposed changes to UDC 5.19 Parking requirements would remove the table of vehicle parking requirements for all land uses. That table currently establishes vehicle parking “maximums” as well as minimum requirements for EV parking spaces as a percentage of spaces provided. Amendments will also adjust requirements and design for bicycle parking facilities.
C-2 (25-2252) An Ordinance to Amend Section 5.28.4 of Chapter 55 (Unified Development Code) of Title V (Community Participation Requirements) CPC Recommendation: Approval as Amended (8 Yes, 0 No)
Changes to the UDC will add a requirement that all-weather signs be posted on-site where certain development activity is planned.
For activities that require a community participation meeting, signage must be posted 15 days before that meeting. The sign will include the file number, address, current zoning information, name and other details about the proposed project (if any), petitioner’s name and contact information, plus meeting information. Currently, the only activity requiring community participation are applications for Special Exception Use, Rezoning (with exceptions, e.g. annexations less than 2 acres to single-family residential use), Planned Unit Development, and Land Division appeal.
For activities that will be approved by the Planning Commission without a public hearing, signage must be posted within 15 days after the application has been accepted for review. The sign will include the file number, address, current zoning information, name and other details about the proposed project (if any), petitioner’s name and contact information. Activities in this category are site plans.
C-3 (26-0002) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 55 (Zoning), Rezoning of 0.15 Acres from PUD (Planned Unit Development District) to R4C (Multiple Family District), 715-717 E Huron Street Rezoning, 715-717 E Huron Street (CPC Recommendation: Approval – 7 Yeas and 0 Nays)
A rezoning of 715-717 E. Huron from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to R4C (Multi-Family Dwelling District) will allow the conversion of office to residential use. No development is proposed and an area plan is waived.
C-4 (26-0114) An Ordinance to Amend Section 8:532 of Chapter 105 (Housing Code) of Title VIII (Building Regulations) of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor
An ordinance amendment regulates optional tenancy fees that are reasonably avoidable by the tenant, such as parking fees, pet fees, and lock-out fees. It also bans separate, mandatory tenancy fees. Any mandatory tenancy fee – one that cannot be avoided by the tenant – must be disclosed and advertised as part of the base rent. All optional tenancy fees must also be disclosed, listed on the first page of the lease agreement or clearly in one place as an addendum. A landlord cannot charge parking fees if the tenant has not agreed to use parking amenities.
Motions and Resolutions
DC-1 (25-2262) Resolution to Reappoint Maya Curtis to the Board of Review as a Non-registered Elector (7 Votes Required)
This appointment from the Mayor was presented at the previous meeting, and will therefore be voted on at this Council meeting. Seven votes are required because “the appointee is not a registered elector of the City of Ann Arbor”.
- Maya Curtis – Board of Review
DC-2 (26-0104) Resolution to Amend 2026 Council Calendar
The 2026 Council calendar will be amended to cancel the February 9 work session.
DC-3 (26-0098) is the same as PH-3 above.
DC-4 (26-0121) Resolution to Finalize Evaluation Report and Amend the Employment Agreement for City Administrator Milton Dohoney Jr.
An employment agreement for City Administrator Milton Dohoney will be approved, including a salary increase and lump sum payment, the amounts of which are currently left blank. Recommendations were discussed in a closed session of the Council Administration Committee on January 13, 2026. Further discussion of terms will occur in a closed session at this week’s Council meeting before they are approved by the whole of Council.
DS-2 (26-0063) is the same as PH-2 above.
DS-3 (25-2158) Resolution Authorizing Publication of Notice of Intent to Issue Capital Improvement Bonds to Fund a Portion of the Development of 350 S. Fifth Avenue as Affordable Housing (Not to Exceed $35,000,000.00) (6 Votes Roll Call)
A Notice of Intent will be published regarding the issuance of $35,000,000 in Capital Improvement Bonds to support the development of affordable housing at 350 S. Fifth. The bonds will be repaid with revenue from the Affordable Housing Millage.
Additional Thoughts…
I also published this on my website:
https://a2elnel.com/post/arbor-souths-end-run-around-8-votes-start-with-brownfield/
Arbor South’s End Run Around 8 Votes: Start With Brownfield
In November 2025, a detailed plan for public subsidy of Arbor South was presented in two parts: brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) together with a public private partnership (PPP). The two-part plan was placed on (and removed from) two City Council agendas, due to absences and uncertainty around whether enough Council Members were willing to vote in support. A brownfield plan can be approved with a simple majority but the PPP – directing the purchase of land – requires eight votes.
On the January 20, 2026 agenda, City Council considers approval of one part of that plan: the brownfield TIF that will divert up to $373,825,905 in tax revenue toward the purchase of parking decks and other infrastructure to support a private development project called Arbor South. That brownfield plan requires only a simple majority for approval.
DC-3 (26-0098) Resolution to Approve a Brownfield Plan for the Arbor South Project
Last year, I submitted two FOIA requests for City Council and City staff communication around this deal, covering the weeks between mid-October and early December 2025. In response to my requests, I received hundreds of pages of emails and text messages. Below, I use that correspondence to show how the Arbor South brownfield plan was discussed behind the scenes.
BACKGROUND
City Council first discussed public subsidy of the private development “Arbor South” at a work session in November 2024. At that meeting, co-developer Jeff Hauptman of Oxford Companies pitched the idea of three City-owned parking decks to meet the needs of his private development. City Administrator Milton Dohoney offered support, proposing that the City establish a new Parking Authority to manage these decks. The City’s CFO presented a total cost to the City of $104 million.
The overarching theme of that 2024 work session: the development at Arbor South would not be feasible without a public private partnership and City ownership of those parking decks.
Six months later (April 2025), City Council discussed issuing bonds for those parking decks in the amount of $146 million. In November 2025, a public private partnership agreement for Arbor South required the City to issue $166,390,000 in bonds to buy both the decks and land from the developer (cost of land: approximately $12 million).
In just one year, the estimated City cost of these decks – as presented to the public – has increased by over $60 million.
To date, City Council has approved $350,000 on outside consultants and lawyers putting the deal together. It’s unknown how much City staff time has been invested. In emails from December 2025, one City staffer refers to “almost daily” meetings with the developer.
Last month (December 2025), by resolution, City Council directed the publication of a memo, theoretically to help the public understand the terms of a public private partnership. That resolution refers to how the deal is so “lengthy and technical… requiring clear explanations” that “a clear summary is necessary for the community to understand.” The premise of the memo: the public would struggle to grasp the complexity of the deal on their own. A Council Member promoting this memo offered it “in the spirit of educating them.”
The ultimate memo offers scant details, emphasizing repeatedly what the developer will provide. The words “risk” and “debt” appear exactly once, in a sentence emphasizing how the City’s general fund is protected. Notably, one Council Member described this memo as “almost the exact same summary memo of the PPA that we [Council Members] received, slightly redacted to remove anything that makes it privileged.”
BROWNFIELD THEN & NOW
The City has adopted standards around brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) and how it will be awarded. From the City’s Brownfield policy:
Brownfield Plan Review Criteria (all criteria must be met, if applicable):
1. Developer-reimbursable Brownfield TIF shall not exceed 20% of overall project investment. This limit does not apply to projects with $3 million or less in private investment, not including property acquisition costs.
https://a2gov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7242046&GUID=318A8181-B164-4944-8C99-8599919B017C
The brownfield plan for Arbor South lists a total private investment of $406,000,000 with developer reimbursable costs adding up to $345,054,904. Staff memos (dated last fall and again this month) estimate that over 30 years, the Developer is likely to receive $299,763,596 in TIF. Given these numbers, the proposed brownfield TIF would be between 74% and 85% of total project investment.
Last fall, when the Arbor South brownfield plan was presented together with a public private partnership agreement, a staff memo explained that the 20% standard was applicable “where a public entity does not have a direct financial role.” Staff implied that the standard did not apply because the project was “unique” due to the public private partnership. This week, without the added context of that partnership, staff language has shifted. A staff memo this week refers to the criteria – which, according to City policy, “must be met” – in the past tense, as “an effective benchmark for prior projects.”
The brownfield plan and staff memo attached to this week’s agenda are only slightly different than what was published last November.
As presented this week, an updated brownfield plan still refers to the PPP as likely or inevitable, referring to “an anticipated municipal bond issuance should the City of Ann Arbor chose (sic) to participate as such at a future date.” Without the benefit of the PPP, commitments to build affordable housing shift. The November brownfield plan describes the delivery of up to 215 affordable units “prior to delivering any market rate units.” That language is removed in the new plan.
A staff memo reiterates the need for the PPP and refers to a consultant report from January 2025:
“Based on PFM’s analysis, the project as proposed would not be financially feasible without City participation, as the developer’s projected returns fall below the thresholds typically required for a project of this type.”
The original brownfield plan for Arbor South was placed on (and pulled off of) two agendas in November 2025 and deleted. However, the original documents (both the plan and the original staff memo) are linked here, via the public hearing held on November 6:
https://a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7728292&GUID=1521600B-01B4-43E3-A7A4-474DC1E17178
“I DOUBLECHECKED W THE DEVELOPER”
In late 2025, via emails and texts, Council Members and the Mayor collaborated on strategy to persuade colleagues to support plans to subsidize Arbor South. Council Members co-wrote their sales pitch to the public, exchanging ideas about how to frame it in a newsletter. In putting facts together, one Council Member assured colleagues that she had “double checked [with] the developer to make sure this is correct.”
Resident communication to City Council has been overwhelmingly opposed to public investment in parking decks at Arbor South. In response to dozens of emails, one Council Member copied and pasted the same cheerful reply:
Received. Thanks for providing feedback on this important decision!
I am still ultimately undecided and currently weighing a lot of factors on this project, so I appreciate learning your perspective.
Every report presented to City Council has emphasized the need for public subsidy of Arbor South, not only in terms of brownfield TIF but also the public private partnership that would commit the City to buying and owning three parking decks on site.
A resident, identifying herself as a certified Urban Planner and former Economic Development consultant, emailed City Council about these reports:
I have authored similar studies commissioned by deep-pocketed developers. Their conclusion, that the project is not “feasible” without City subsidies, is not surprising; it is strategic.
In private communication among Council Members, more details emerge. For example, where the developers of Arbor South are credited with financial support for affordable housing, one Council Member admitted that “it won’t be technically contributed in cash to the AAHC, just contributed work with a cash value.”
“SIMPLE AS THAT”
The public has been told repeatedly that the City must approve the PPP to buy and manage parking decks in order for the project to move forward. Communications between the Mayor and Council Members emphasize the same point: Arbor South is not viable without both the brownfield TIF and the PPP.
In private lobbying to Council Members, Mayor Taylor emailed his theory of the Arbor South brownfield TIF:
we are not committing to a subsidy in the traditional sense – your dollars, my dollars, are never going to this project. We are agreeing to direct taxes that would never otherwise exist to build the physical infrastructure necessary for the project to exist
He argued for the PPP and referenced a consultant report from January 2025:
the developer will not be providing parking, and that that is a cost savings to them, but as PFM has concluded, the project does not exist otherwise. Simple as that.
The mayor is eager to accept help from anyone willing to promote this project.
Last November, a Ward 3 resident nominated himself as a dealmaker, repeatedly emailing Council Members Ayesha Ghazi Edwin and Jenn Cornell with ideas about the public private partnership for Arbor South. Sending sometimes four or five emails in a single day, the resident persuaded Ghazi Edwin to forward him communications from the City Attorney. Eventually, the resident emailed the Mayor and other City staff with an elaborate plan for how he could insert himself as a participant in this deal. The resident proposed to:
give supportive members a defensible rationale for a “yes”
And
give the broader community confidence that this is not a one-off special deal
After arranging his own personal meeting with the developer of Arbor South, the resident offered “Maybe my role is to simply use this meeting to help the City craft the public summary and communication plan.” When he specifically volunteered his services to lobby council members, City staff raised alarm to Mayor Taylor:
I am very concerned that he will take it upon himself to email all of Council and whomever else with his recommendations that may seem reasonable on their face but reflect an extremely limited understanding of the project and will just further complicate things. For example, the gist of his email yesterday was that he could potentially help facilitate a conversation between the City and the development team, when, in fact, we communicate almost daily.
Replying by email, Mayor Taylor was unconcerned about potential miscommunication or misinformation from someone with “extremely limited understanding.” Instead, he was focused on counting votes:
On the other hand, if the 7 yes’s are firm, and if [Ghazi Edwin] has confidence in [resident], then perhaps this is an opportunity for him to be work with her/them to find enough adjustments to give her comfort?
In that email, Mayor Taylor references the eight votes required for approval of the public private partnership.
WHY THIS MATTERS
It makes no sense to approve the Arbor South brownfield plan on its own, as is presented this week. When proposed alongside the PPP with the City, the percentage of subsidy was excessive. Without the benefit of the PPP, the updated brownfield plan is an even more explicit giveaway: reimbursements are triple what is permitted under City policy, without any justification. Staff’s weak defense: pretending that City policy is not, in fact, a criteria but rather a soft ‘benchmark.’
The strongest advocates for this project are the Mayor and Council Members whose political campaigns have received thousands of dollars in donations from developer Jeff Hauptman. Hundreds of pages of emails reveal how aggressively they are pushing this deal on behalf of their campaign donor and how desperately they want to see it move forward. Council Members double check their understanding of the deal with the developer himself.
Presenting the brownfield plan for approval first, without the PPP, is intellectually dishonest insofar as it implies that the City might not ultimately approve that PPP. Approval of this brownfield plan brings the City one step closer to a very bad deal: committing the City to issue public bonds to purchase land and parking decks adding up to $166,390,000.
If the brownfield plan is approved this week – as it can be, with a simple majority – the next step is lining up the eight votes required to approve the public private partnership (PPP). Council Members who are skeptical about that PPP will face a barrage of lobbying from colleagues and whomever else the Mayor believes might be persuasive, even if they have an “extremely limited understanding” of the deal.
Thank you for taking the time to be informed about our local government!
Elizabeth Nelson