FYI, Kirk Westphal, who’s a prospective council candidate for ward 2, proposed the formation of a peak oil task force a while back when we both served on the environmental commission. (Council members on the commission [Hohnke and Teall] led the “No” votes that prevailed.)

I would be surprised if Council votes on the resolution tonight. We should expect amendments to the amendments and a request to delay consideration until everyone has time to consider the new amendments. (All of this will happen after the public hearing, so please turn out to express support of the resolution.) Translation: Let’s put this off until after the deadline for filing petitions to run for Council.

I’m glad this phase (at least) will end tonight (or at least soon). We have broader circumstances to prepare for on the heels of the stock market downturn.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. Or so it reads. Complete with ad hominem attacks on Kunselman. Apparently they were not satisfied that refuting Kunselman/Kailasapathy’s message was sufficient, so, attack the messenger.

Given the recently “unearthed” e-mail exchange between one councilperson and Susan Pollay, this vote will be an interesting test of the question posed by (#5).. Can personal animosity be put aside to do the right thing?

What would it take for Ann Arbor to have a council dominated by adults?

Nice work, Dave

I also consulted the County Treasurer, as I recall, and was provided the backup information for this statement. I also obtained a draft copy of the DDA charter renewal and it was stated clearly in the background material that they were keeping the original borders but considered that they could take action outside those borders. And in fact the action never appeared on the BOC agenda. I would have requested a debate about it if it had. The County had already started to lay off people and cancel programs because of the cuts in revenue-sharing, and we needed the money.

And yes, Leah Gunn was at that time serving on both the BOC and the DDA.

One quibble: “so we’re stuck with ‘as set forth above.’” Not at all. That’s what the amendment process is for.

I agree that the amendments regarding term limits and taxing jurisdiction representation are unnecessary, and I favor the alternative remedies you suggest.

For part 2, how about examining the ins and outs of council’s inexplicable decision (unanimous, yet, right?) to waive the refund from the DDA last year. You could be very understanding again, this time regarding the lone (AFAIK) rationalization relative to avoiding throwing a wrench in the budget process for both entities. Then you could lay out how granting a grace period for the repayment until the following fiscal year (or even two more)—but still requiring it—would be the only logical decision.