YPSILANTI · THE PUBLIC RECORD Independent evidence project
YPSILANTI TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN · REVIEWED OCTOBER 11, 2026

Ypsilanti.
The public record.

Understanding the proposed University of Michigan / Los Alamos research computing center at Textile and Bridge Roads.

This independent review brings the records together: what they establish, what has been reported, and what still needs an answer.

Explore the seven findings Read the evidence packet

Evidence before conclusions.

This review separates documented facts, reported claims and questions that still need answers. The available records have not established unlawful NDAs, project-caused environmental injury, or the disturbance of a burial site. These questions deserve clear answers.

Documented recordAttributed statementAnalysis & limitsOutstanding evidence
01 / THE FINDINGS

Seven questions.
A traceable record.

Select a finding to see the evidence, its limits and the question it leaves open.

THE TOWNSHIP’S PERSPECTIVE

Brenda Stumbo:
questions about disclosure.

The township supervisor’s account helps explain how early expectations became a dispute over information, participation and the project’s scope.

What Stumbo says

Brenda Stumbo, Ypsilanti Township’s supervisor since 2008, says officials initially understood the proposal to involve about 20 acres and 200 jobs. In interviews and a June 2025 email reported by Planet Detroit, she said the township had been misled about the project’s size and lacked sufficient information as plans developed.

Her concern also involves the township’s role. The Eastern Echo reported her statement: We asked to be at the table and U of M flat out refused. She described the updates provided at meetings as limited.

These are Stumbo’s reported statements. The original June email and underlying meeting communications have not been retrieved in this review.

Official supervisor biography ↗January 2026 account of the initial briefing ↗July 3, 2025 reporting ↗February 3, 2026 interview reporting ↗

What the records show

U-M’s first land-purchase authorization concerned 19.82 acres at 10221 Textile Road. On June 12, 2025, the Regents approved an additional 124.68-acre acquisition. These records establish the land-acquisition sequence; they do not establish what was promised in private discussions or the buildings’ eventual footprint.

The township board’s Resolution 2025-23, adopted August 19, 2025, states that officials still lacked the full scope, including the centers’ sizes, the DTE substation’s location and environmental and utility implications. It also says officials learned only after July 15 about eighteen months of earlier NDA-protected negotiations involving the American Center for Mobility. Those statements are the board’s formal position.

Original parcel authorization ↗Additional parcel authorization ↗Resolution 2025-23 · pages 1–3 ↗
U-M’S RESPONSE

In his December 12, 2025 response to Congresswoman Dingell, President Grasso said U-M had held numerous meetings and briefings with township officials beginning in November 2024. He acknowledged that the absence of definitive technical details had contributed to community uncertainty and agreed that a public meeting in the township was necessary.

The record documents a disagreement over the timing, completeness and usefulness of disclosure. The underlying communications remain important to assessing Stumbo’s account and U-M’s response.

Read U-M’s official response · pages 1–2 ↗
02 / THE CHRONOLOGY

How the record unfolded.

Dates follow the documents. Signature dates, publication dates and approval dates are distinguished.

    03 / THE DOCUMENT LIBRARY

    Go to the source.

    Exhibits A–U and 19 supplements. Government records, institutional statements, resident-hosted copies and contextual reporting retain their own provenance.

    The two large environmental PDFs are linked at their source rather than embedded. A resident-hosted primary document remains a copy of a primary record; the hosting site’s analysis is a separate source.

    04 / OUTSTANDING RECORDS

    The gaps are part of the record.

    “Not retrieved in this review” does not mean a record does not exist.

    R

    Original SHPO correspondence

    The complete letter or email, its date, recipients and releasable attachments. The resolution’s quotation is not a substitute for the original.

    S

    Professional archaeological findings

    Releasable cemetery delineation, desktop, field or geophysical reports and methods. Sensitive burial coordinates should remain protected.

    U

    Section 106 & tribal consultation

    Project-specific lead-agency, federal-nexus and consultation determinations. General guidance does not establish this project’s review status.

    Other records and reconciliations still needed
    • Certified adopted Resolution 2026-26 and approved October 6 meeting minutes.
    • Original June 2025 correspondence about engagement and confidentiality.
    • A complete project-specific withholding log, original denials and applicable exemptions.
    • Funding appropriations, obligations, transfers and enforceable employment targets.
    • Underlying U-M survey findings and a newer specific response to the cemetery warning.
    • Reconciliation of parcel descriptions and the MOU year discrepancy in the October 8 response.
    05 / PEOPLE & PURPOSE

    A record built through
    patient public work.

    WITH APPRECIATION

    Andrew “Andy” Melichar

    Much of the collection underlying this review was made accessible through Andrew Melichar’s work on ypsidatacenter.org: collecting records, organizing documents and pursuing numerous FOIA requests.

    His time, technical work, personal resources and records-access expense deserve prominent credit. His public account says he personally funds the website. Published U-M correspondence for Request 270436 estimates $1,800 in fees and requests a $900 deposit.

    Other residents also contributed records, including the confidentiality-agreement collection. This website credits that shared work while independently distinguishing documents from advocacy analysis.

    Read the source site’s own account ↗

    About this independent review

    The purpose is to make specific disclosure and due-diligence questions accessible to residents, journalists and independent reviewers. This project is independently prepared and does not speak for a government agency, university, laboratory or community coalition.

    Submission & national context

    The evidence packet was sent to Erin Brockovich on October 11, 2026.

    Erin Brockovich’s national reporting on data-center disclosure, including her September 10, 2026 interview with Ken Cook, offers a broader context for the local transparency questions examined here.

    View the contextual interview source ↗

    Updates & corrections

    October 11, 2026: Initial website edition, based on the 79-page packet and source register. Outstanding originals remain marked. Living pages may change after this snapshot.

    October 12, 2026: Added the township disclosure section and revised wording and presentation after review.