Comments on: May 5, 2014: City Council Preview it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Frank Burdick Frank Burdick Sun, 04 May 2014 12:33:01 +0000 This proposed CDM contract extension is approximatelyf $750,000!! Consider that in the past year Council has authorized the following:
1.Current on-going studies ALL related to storm and sewer water management
a.Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project: $1,250,000
b.Upper Malletts Drainage Study: $ 215,000
c.Stormwater Hydraulic Model Calibration & Analysis Project : $ 900,000 (TO CDM)
Total Costs of On-going studies: $1,465,900

This $1.47 million DOES NOT include the current contract value with CDM, nor the excessive change orders issued too OHM (consultant on the SSWWE Study), OR the proposed $750k contract extension included in DS-1 Council Agenda.

When you fly up to 30,000 feet and see the big picture, you begin realize 3 basic facts:

1. This is a lot of money to JUST STUDY the same issue: WATER

2. The WATER all starts from the same spot…(precipitation and the river) and evenually all ends up in the same spot…. the river.


4. City Staff has publically stated that the City can not afford the recommendatons of the Upper Mallets Study for 5 years.

How can the City justify continuing to fund Consultants and NOT infrastructure repairs?

By: Vivienne Armentrout Vivienne Armentrout Sat, 03 May 2014 17:19:29 +0000 I agree with everything BLB has said. But we also have to be cognizant that the Department of Natural Resources is a major player. They have constrained hunters, especially with Antler Point Restrictions. See this page: [link]

This is a measure to keep hunters from shooting younger bucks so that some hunters may bring home bigger antler trophies.

Another management tool is antlerless deer permits. These are administered in a flexible fashion, depending on deer populations. See [link] Antlerless deer are females and very young males. The linked document explains the thinking and suggests that deer populations may be needed to “recover” so that there are plenty of hunting opportunities.

If we want to minimize intrusion of deer into our urbanized and suburban areas, we may need to bring some political effort into revising some of these guidelines, which are aimed at keeping a higher deer population. The suggestion that smaller more localized DMU (deer management units) should be employed might make a good start.

Deer are a species that has evolved to accept substantial predation. We have exterminated or limited most predators other than ourselves. It is not humane to suggest that they should not be hunted, as some will do. That can lead to starvation, disease, and conflict with humans.

By: Barbara Levin Bergman Barbara Levin Bergman Fri, 02 May 2014 18:42:00 +0000 Thanks to Council member Jane Lumm for her work on the deer population issue and for her bill which she will introduce to Ann Arbor City Council next Monday night.

As well as bringing destruction to the gardens and trees in our city, the herds pose a real threat to public health everywhere in Washtenaw county. Lyme disease carried by deer ticks is increasing and so are are the injuries caused by deer/automobile collisions.

Any solution, as Ms. Lumm suggests must be the result of inter governmental cooperation. It seems to me that the Michigan State Public Health Department should acknowledge this as public health issue and therefore part of its mandate to protect citizens by participating in any solution to this problem. The Public Health Departments of Washtenaw County and in the counties surrounding our county would do well in joining together to urge the State of Michigan to participate in funding solutions to the threats posed by deer.

An important part of of ending the destruction and disease caused by deer lies in greatly reducing the deer population in Ann Arbor and across the county. Their population here and across the nation are greater now then when our country was first settled. Deer are indeed beautiful, but they are also a threat to both of our environment and of our physical well being.

By: Dave Askins Dave Askins Fri, 02 May 2014 17:18:45 +0000 Re: [1] Yes, that’s inaccurate because it’s over-broad. I’ve inserted text in blue-face to bring it in line. By way of example, the park advisory commission is one of those boards that has term limits as a result of the charter provision cited.

By: Jack Eaton Jack Eaton Fri, 02 May 2014 16:55:12 +0000 The article states: “There are no term limits for Ann Arbor city boards and commissions…” Section 5.17 (a) of the City Charter provides: “No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years.” The operative language being “such board” which follows a list of particular boards. The environmental commission is not one of the listed boards.

Some on Council believe that the Charter expresses a general goal of limiting the duration of service on boards that also should be applied to boards not specified. The City has many talented people who could be tapped to serve on these boards and commissions if we did not fall into the habit of reappointing the same people again and again.

Terms of service on boards can be staggered to insure that there is both continuity and fresh voices. Limiting the duration of service is not meant as a slight to any individual, but is meant to encourage more diversity in participation.