2). The inclusion of hydro-electric generating capability is also one of security, and long-term investment.
What is more important to a city’s pysche/economy than a consistent supply of water, and(limited)electricity for emergency use?

This subject is new(please forgive any ignorance), but it seems like the deterioration of the mill gates was due to long-term city negligence, and/or poor initial construction, and it is now a problem.
The taxpayer argument now seems to have been reduced into whether or not to charge UM students on the rowing team permits to pay for the entire reconstruction…..huh? The city throws millions left and right.

Have any typographical studies been done?
Are there better local areas along the Huron to potentially contain large amounts of water besides Argo?

“The inspection report for the Argo Dam identifies problems that may threaten its safety. Specifically, the toe drains along the downstream side of the raceway canal embankment are failing. …The toe drain system should be repaired immediately… These problems were pointed out in our 2001 inspection report, and to date, the City of Ann Arbor has done nothing. The situation has since worsened. …Both of these dams [Argo and Geddes] have high hazard potential ratings.” (emphasis added.)

That’s straight from the State of Michigan’s Dam Safety Office–five years ago. Nothing’s been done since then to fix it. HRWC’s not making this issue up, or exaggerating it.

The chronicle posted the letter here:
http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/nov182004deq.pdf

The better problem statement should be similar to this: “the toe drains in the earthen portion of the dam need to be repaired which will have a financial impact on Ann Arbor.” The argument of cost poses somewhat of a conundrum to Ms Rubin. Please consider the added solution of closing off the millrace, which would reduce the immediacy of any threat to the earthen dam. Arguably, this closure might be the cheapest solution. This then begs the question of the cost to repair. You state the repair cost to be $500,000. There are additional voices stating the true cost lies between $200K and $300K, possibly less if the millrace is closed. Your silence on alternative solutions and costs is inopportune, showing both a less then robust analysis on your part as well as adding to the chicken-little style of writing that was evident in the Ann Arbor News.

Part of the dam, specifically the concrete section, is indeed in good condition. Unfortunately, most people believe this is the full extent of the dam. One aspect they are not considering is the toe drain, which is also a part of the dam. The toe drain is covered under the dam permit and all technical descriptions, as are the gates, chains, mill race, mechanics, etc.

The toe drains are deteriorating and not draining the water in the earthen embankment adequately. These drains reduce the elevation difference, and therefore the water pressure, between the mill race and the river.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is concerned that parts of the earthen embankment will liquefy and fall into the river. The water in the mill race would then rush into the river, carrying loads of sediment with it and creating a “new” channel. This may cause flooding downstream, obstructions and back-ups in the river, and could kill plants and animals.

Moreover, the MDEQ staff have been dogging the City of Ann Arbor to come up with a plan for the dam for more than five years. Over that same time period, staff and budget cuts have led the MDEQ to publicly announce that it would not be able to respond to minor pollution concerns, review wetland permits, or review minor applications for new permit discharges. In short, MDEQ has been forced to take action only on significant environmental dangers. MDEQ cannot afford to fret about minor problems. The fact that they have expressed this raised level of urgency about Argo dam and the risks associated with an embankment collapse causes the Huron River Watershed Council great concern.
Smart people have disagreed with HRWC about the level of hazard the dam presents. Some have looked at the sturdiness of the concrete portions and gone so far as to conclude that the dam is in “excellent condition.”

Some have taken that argument so far as to accuse HRWC of lying about the dam’s condition. They’re both wrong and unfair. Both sides in this debate have looked at available facts and evidence and drawn different conclusions. HRWC stands by its conclusions which are at least as reasonable as concluding, despite the toe drains’ problems, that the dam is in great shape. More important, whatever you call the dam’s condition, the fact remains: a half-million dollar repair job is looming. We have to make a decision now about what to do with this dam.

When your observation – only 900 people voted for Sandi Smith in a contested election, so 1200 votes is an improvement – is directly on point, mentioning your point is not bad manners. On the other hand, withholding your point, in that context, is a failure of public service and democracy.

I agree with Mr. Dairy’s implied observation that council does not want anyone looking at it or its actions too closely – if at all. This particular theme manifests itself on issues from zoning to PUD’s to the police station to the Staduim Blvd Bridge to the police retirement buyout.

Mike Anglin’s (5th ward) crime of questioning and opposing the policies of this council has resulted in a crude effort to remove him from office. The only solution to this non-responsive council-majority faction is to remove its members, instead. Shining more light on the policies and behaviors of this majority faction will aid in that effort.

The GO Ask Voters group is working toward bringing a proposed Charter amendment to the voters. Under the auspices of the amendment, voters would authorize General Obligation Municipal bonds that are repaid in whole or in part by direct taxation. Revenue bonds, emergency bonds and other bonds floated for projects related to infrastructure (sewer and water, for instance) would NEVER be subject to referendum under the auspices of the proposed Charter amendment.

If, for instance, Council can’t find a private developer to build the proposed conference center, and chose, instead, to float general obligation municipal bonds for the project, if we voted to adopt the proposed Charter amendment, such bonds would have to be approved by voters before they could be issued. Council would have to come to voters with a well-crafted explanation as to why they wanted to spend our money on a conference center. Then, we would vote.

As I said at our recent Ward 1 meeting, putting such funding requests on the ballot would NOT result in additional costs to the city unless, of course, Council and city staff were so utterly incapable of planning and so thoroughly disorganized that they couldn’t manage to get the request before voters during any one of the FOUR state-mandated dates on which we go to the polls. In essence, state law allows us to vote once every quarter!

One last note. At that same Ward 1 meeting, Councilmember Sandi Smith raised the point that at the most recent school board election, only 1,200 voters cast ballots. She was afraid that a relatively small number of voters could derail, say, a convention center. What I didn’t point out (for the sake of good manners) is that last August Sandi Smith was delighted to accept the nomination to sit on City Council thanks to the votes of just 900 people out of the 18,000 registered voters who live in the First Ward. Our other Ward 1 Councilmember, Sabra Briere, won her seat with fewer than 350 votes in the primary.

GO Ask Voters is about transparency in government, the expansion of voter rights, and giving voters an opportunity to participate directly in governance. Voter approval of GO Municipal bonds is the law of the land in 44 states. We’ve collected 2,500 signatures, and we’re on target to bring the proposed amendment to Ann Arbor voters!