Local Politics
  1. Home
  2. US
  3. Michigan
  4. Ann Arbor
  5. Issues

Proposal E Resolution

At a glance

  • What: Resolution 26-1684 (R-26-396) regarding Proposal E, apparently related to public power or municipal energy policy.
  • Where it stands: Approved October 5, 2026, by roll call vote 10-1, with Councilmember Harrison opposed.
  • Votes: Yeas: Mayor Taylor, Briggs, Disch, Eyer, Radina, Ghazi Edwin, Watson, Akmon, Cornell, Mallek. Nays: Harrison.

Background

Substantial public opposition expressed at the October 5 meeting regarding the resolution. Multiple speakers opposed DC-4 (the resolution), expressing concerns about costs and direction provided to the City Attorney. Former city energy coordinator David Konkle expressed support for public power but had concerns about costs associated with Proposal E. Ann Arbor for Public Power (A2P2) provided an official response available on their website (per Brian Geiringer's statement).

Public Comment

Opponents (October 5):

  • Andy Brosius
  • Mike Nowak (concerned about direction to City Attorney)
  • Jamie Lackner
  • Lauren Sargent (concerned about direction to City Attorney)
  • David Konkle (former energy coordinator, supporting public power but concerned about costs)
  • Charles Loucks
  • Dave Zeglen
  • Alex Lowe
  • Duncan Darnell
  • Edward Platt
  • Kathleen Quebedeaux
  • Peter Higgins
  • Zach Buck (concerned about direction to City Attorney)
  • Erik McCleary
  • David Boyd-Lassalle
  • Madison Lukomski
  • Brian Geiringer (A2P2, with official response on website)

Supporters (October 5 continued comment):

  • Eric Ivancich

Sources

Log

2026-10-05 - City Council

Resolution R-26-396 approved by roll call vote, 10 yes (Taylor, Briggs, Disch, Eyer, Radina, Ghazi Edwin, Watson, Akmon, Cornell, Mallek), 1 no (Harrison). Extensive public opposition citing costs and concerns about direction to City Attorney. Likely related to public power or municipal energy utility.

On the video, the resolution was amended before passage to remove language encouraging a "no" vote. Debate covered the charter amendment's "shall" language, the separate 60% supermajority vote needed to buy DTE's system, lost tax revenue, litigation costs and the Sustainable Energy Utility as an alternative.