The Ann Arbor City Council on Jan. 6 postponed consideration of a $1,728,000 contract with NewGen Strategies and Solutions to complete a phase 2 municipalization feasibility study, saying the administration committee will review next steps before council votes again.

The move came after more than an hour of public comment and council discussion about whether the study as scoped would produce usable valuations and whether it contained adequate, confidential legal analysis to inform a future offer or litigation.

Supporters from Ann Arbor For Public Power and other volunteers said they welcomed a pause to craft a stronger scope and to build community trust. Brian Geisinger, executive director of Ann Arbor For Public Power, told council that tabling the item aligned with the group’s request and expressed gratitude for the pause. "We intend to move forward with both confidence and care," Geisinger said.

Opponents and some technical commenters raised concerns that the bid’s price and scope would not resolve the largest uncertainties: stranded-asset and going-concern valuations. Greg Woodring, president of Ann Arbor For Public Power, said the phase 1 engineering estimate was about $200,000 but that stranded costs could range from $80 million to $800 million; he noted the draft phase 2 budget allocates about $37,000 to investigate those questions. Ken Garber and others urged incorporation of privileged legal analysis into the study so the city could produce valuation work informed by counsel without revealing strategy.

City staff said the project team supporting NewGen will include representatives from the city attorney’s office and outside legal counsel so the city’s legal team is kept apprised of developments. Staff also told council the $1,000,000 preliminary estimate was based on conversations with other communities and consultants, but the city received only one responsive bid to the RFP and the final price presented to council reflected that single bid.

Council members stressed two linked uses for the report: (1) to inform any initial offer the city might make and (2) to serve as an evidentiary tool in potential future litigation if a municipalization effort proceeds. Several members, including Mayor Taylor and Council Member Briggs, argued the study should produce values under multiple accepted valuation methodologies so the city would not be left without a competing valuation if a court favored a different method.

After debate, Council Member Briggs moved to postpone the matter until the administration committee provides a recommendation; Council Member Cornell seconded. The motion passed and the item was postponed for later consideration by the administration committee. The council did not record a roll-call tally in the meeting minutes for the postponement vote.

Council members and several public speakers emphasized the need for broad public engagement and clear planning about what council will need from the study before taking the issue to voters.

Ending: Council members said they expect follow-up work will return to council, with clearer scoping for legal analyses and valuation methods and additional time for community conversations. The administration committee was identified as the next step to produce a recommendation for council.