Of particular note, the staff was unable to draw a direct link between the rate charged for connecting these services and whether any particular project would be funded. Only a couple of dozen property owners pay this fee in any year. The combined $41,000 in fees times 24 instances of connection would generate about $1 million dollars. While that seems substantial, it is really just a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost of any one sewer or water main project. Each such project relies on a different combination of funding sources (federal, state and local) and this fee is not related to any precise calculation of need.

The “Fixed Charges for the 2013 Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvement Charges” resolution appeared on the consent agenda and would likely have drawn no attention if it had been approved on a voice vote for the whole consent agenda. Council Member Jane Lumm asked that the resolution be considered separately because she had some questions for staff. I don’t think she intended to seek denial of the resolution but the answers to her questions and the questions of other Council Members led to the conclusion by most that this fee increase was not necessary.

These connection fees have increased by about 50% in nine years. But for the attention drawn to the continuing increases and the lack of connection to any funding need, the fees would have continued to increase at a rate well above the general rate of inflation.

In the end, Council voted 6-4 (Teall absent) to deny the fee increases. The real significance of this vote is that Council as currently configured may not be willing to support almost automatic fee and fine increases. I think this new scrutiny of fee increases is much more significant than the single vote taken at that meeting.

I might add that the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant has been under EPA interdiction for some time and we are at some stage of planning for its expansion or replacement. I haven’t kept up with this, but I’m sure it would have an impact on the costing for adding new service.

I’d love for some investigative reporter to slog through all the expansion costs (to the system) for downtown development and see whether that has been adequately charged back. I learned during the (last) conference center exercise that the downstream sewer from the Library Lot has capacity problems. People don’t consider when these big residential buildings are being built downtown that the “existing infrastructure” wasn’t constructed for hundreds of showers and toilet flushes every morning. I suspect that a large FOIA budget and tons of time would be required.

If this information is correct, it’s a clear indication that Ann Arbor isn’t interested in affordable housing for middle class families and individuals. All these costs add up as we move towards a city more interested in the Ann Arbor One Per Cents and less about everyone else.

I attended the taxicab board meeting, and hope to offer a report out on that meeting. During the conversation about attendance and scheduling, it emerged that Sturgis had actually applied for an appointment with the understanding that the board regularly met at 8:00 a.m., which it did when he applied. The board has since changed its meeting time (in an effort to achieve a quorum more easily). Even with Sturgis, there’s a vacancy on the five-member board. That means it’s still somewhat of a challenge to achieve a quorum. If two members are absent, they can’t conduct business. On Jan. 24, however, they had three members and were able to handle an appeal from a driver who’d been denied a license. (Spoiler alert: The appeal was granted.)

Based on Briere’s comments reported in this article, the issue with residency is that the resume should be updated to reflect his actual residency in the city of Ann Arbor.

Regarding a possible analysis of any appointment to the taxicab board as a political reward, I’m skeptical – regardless of the personalities involved. It’s long been a challenge to find people to sit on the taxicab board. If anything, I’d say the appointee is doing the appointer a favor, not the other way around. I think service on the taxicab board probably epitomizes “thankless public service.” I was glad the stars happened to align so that I was able to wedge it into my schedule last week.

Interstingly, the first thing Sturgis does as a member of he Taxicab Board is fail to appear for the first meeting as a board member two days later. Did he have an excuse?

An there is still confusion about his residence as there was when he ran for City Council. His resume does not reflect an Ann Arbor residency.

Was this Hieftje nomination just a political payback for his opposition to Sumi Kalasapathy?