Ann Arbor Public Power Group Responds to City Legal Questions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 14, 2026.  Ann Arbor for Public Power (A2P2) emphatically takes issue with the Ann Arbor City Council’s October 5 resolution instructing the City Attorney to challenge the legality of Proposal E. Voter approval of Proposal E would amend the City Charter to create a municipal electric utility and governance board. “We are confident that Proposal E is entirely legal and consistent with both state law and the current City Charter,” said A2P2 executive director Brian Geiringer. “That’s not just our view, it’s the opinion of the Michigan Attorney General’s office. For City Council to suggest otherwise was completely irresponsible.”

In her August 12 letter to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Pendrick affirmed that Proposal E conforms to state law and the Ann Arbor Charter. And she concluded that Proposal E is a charter amendment, contradicting the Council resolution assertion that Proposal E “revises the City Charter.” (Charter revisions, which are major changes in the form of city government, require a different and much more involved process.) “While this initiative petition provides the Board with certain control over the electrical utilities, it does not appear to change ‘in the form of government’ nor does it appear to conflict with other Charter provisions,” Pendrick wrote.

“Proposal E amends the City Charter by adding a new section, it does not propose a general charter revision under Michigan law,” agreed Ross Hammersley, principal attorney and partner in the Traverse City law firm Olson & Howard, PC. “The proposed new Section 15.11(b) adds the utility Board as part of the current city government that would be under the Council’s authority.” Hammersley, who is a city attorney for multiple cities in northern Michigan and advises municipal electric utilities there, has consulted with A2P2 and helped draft Proposal E. 

Some council members at the October 5 meeting suggested that Proposal E would enable the new utility Board to borrow money against the will of Council, or even initiate condemnation proceedings against DTE on its own. “Unfortunately those suggestions appear to be a mischaracterization of the language proposed in Proposal E, because none of that is true,” Hammersley said. “The proposed Charter amendment provides authority to do things municipal utilities are capable of doing in Michigan, but it does not require or even permit the Board to begin taking such steps unilaterally. Proposal E was carefully drafted to create a new utility board while affirming the City Council’s authority over budgets and borrowing, as the City Charter requires.”

The Council resolution, given its vague and undocumented concerns, appears more political than legal in intent. “Council tried to ‘tip the scale’ on the upcoming vote with its unprecedented action last week,” Geiringer said. “This is all about undermining Proposal E before the election. We hope that voters will make their choice based on the facts.” 

A copy of the August 12 letter from the Michigan Attorney General’s office affirming Proposal E’s legality is attached as a PDF file.