A law restricting idling vehicles was passed by the Ann Arbor City Council at its Thursday night meeting with only one dissenting vote, in a bid to improve local air quality. However, councilmembers said critical aspects of the ordinance — specifically, the exact geographic extent of the restriction and the means of enforcement — are yet to be fleshed out.

The ordinance will bar commercial and private motor vehicles in specifically designated “no-idle zones” from keeping their engines on when unoccupied, or running for more than 10 minutes while stationary. However, the law makes allowances for power-essential vehicle functions, such as air conditioning, heating, defrosting or 10 other exceptions for an idle vehicle within city limits.

Furthermore, the ordinance will ban the use of any stationary internal combustion engine — like power generators — unless they are actively in use for their primary purpose.

The law is slated to go into effect in July 2017, and non-compliance will be punishable as a civil infraction with a minimum fine of $100. However, a memo from city staff suggested that few law enforcement resources will be needed to enforce the ban on idling, as increased awareness would likely accomplish the desired effect.

“It is anticipated that this ordinance and the associated outreach, signage, and media coverage will serve to raise awareness of unnecessary idling, and will result in behavior change with little enforcement necessary,” the memo read.

The memo further noted that other communities across the country and in Michigan — namely Detroit, Mount Clemens, Novi, Saugatuck and Sylvan Lake — have implemented similar measures to protect air quality.

Councilmember Jane Lumm (I–Ward 2), the sole dissenting vote against the resolution, raised concerns that the law would either end up diverting valuable police resources or not be enforced at all.

“I certainly support the intent of this ordinance: reducing unnecessary vehicle emissions and their adverse effects,” Lumm said. “I just don’t think that adopting an ordinance with citations and fines requiring the use of scarce police resources to enforce it is the best way to address the issue.”

Lumm further argued the law is too vague because it gives City Administrator Howard Lazarus full authority in determining what areas would be designated as “no-idle zones”, and noted that the law has not received input from Ann Arbor Public Schools despite the large number of idling vehicles during student drop-off and pick-up.

Councilmember Jack Eaton (D–Ward 4) echoed Lumm’s concerns about police resources, arguing that future ordinances should take into account expected impact on staff allocation, but said he was confident this specific law would not put an adverse strain on law enforcement.

“I really question whether we can continue to pass forward ordinances that require us to dispatch police every time there’s a complaint of a violation without actually determining how much staff time this will take and without addressing the amount of staff we should have to do that sort of thing,” Eaton said.

Councilmember Chip Smith (D–Ward 5) was more critical of Lumm’s concerns, arguing the ban on idling was never meant to be enforcement-intensive. Rather, he said it is a measure to reduce idling through awareness and peer pressure.

“This is very similar to an ordinance like our prohibition on smoking in parks, as far as enforcement,” Smith said. “It is not something I believe that generates a lot of calls to the police to resolve these situations; more it is a peer pressure issue. Once people know to not do it they talk to people themselves. I’m not at all concerned about the impact on staff time.”