City administrator Steve Powers and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) just before the Nov. 18, 2013 council meeting started – a conversation Lumm wrote about after the meeting in an email thread to other councilmembers.

The special meeting will include a closed session – based on written attorney-client privileged communication and land acquisition. The land acquisition likely relates to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a Nov. 27 press release. The business had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million.

The closed session to be held on Dec. 9 follows some friction among councilmembers about the way information was shared with the council about the sale. That friction resulted from comments overheard by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) just before the council’s Nov. 18 meeting started, which prompted her to email her council colleagues expressing her dissatisfaction that not all councilmembers had been kept in the loop.

The email thread, provided to The Chronicle in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, goes on to include a query by Lumm to UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva for information about the status of the Edwards Brothers property, followed by an admonishment to Lumm from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) that there were scenarios under which Lumm’s inquiry could potentially be detrimental to the city’s interest. The thread includes a note from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) that indicates concern that the issue should appropriately be discussed in a closed session under the state’s Open Meetings Act, not in an email thread among all councilmembers.

The email thread includes a clarificational inquiry to Taylor from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), as well as a note from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) about news coverage of the Edwards Brothers property sale. Eaton, Briere and Lumm signed the call to the Dec. 9 special meeting, which any three councilmembers can do under the city charter.

After the special meeting and its closed session, the council will move to the jury assembly room at the adjoining Justice Center for its annual budget planning session. That session could include an airing out of the issue of shared information – under an agenda item labeled “Articulating Mutual Expectations.” More specifically, the item indicates that the council will “identify and discuss mutual expectations for governing together” with the following desired outcome: “Articulate and agree on mutual expectations for members of the governing body.”

The background materials that have been provided to the council in preparation for the planning session include draft copies of reports with results from the National Citizens Survey that was conducted in the fall of 2013 by mailing a questionnaire to a random sample of 3,000 city residents, 778 of whom completed surveys. [.pdf of draft Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey report] [.pdf of responses, benchmarks, methodology and questionnaire]

The survey covered a broad range of topics. For example, 55% of survey respondents indicated that they rely at least somewhat for their news and information on online newspapers and media. That compares to 37% who said they rely some for news on printed newspapers. More respondents than that said they rely on news from the city website specifically (44%) or on radio stations (41%).

But questions about public safety – one of the top three priorities identified at last year’s planning session – will likely be of greater interest for councilmembers who will be weighing budget decisions at this year’s session. In general, under the community characteristics portion of the survey, 89% of Ann Arbor survey respondents rated their overall feeling of safety as good or excellent, with ratings for neighborhood safety at 97% and for downtown/commercial area safety at 92%. Those numbers are similar to the set of benchmarked communities that participated in the survey. The council’s measure of success for public safety includes the idea that residents should perceive the community as safe.

For the open-ended response survey item, which asked respondents to identify the city leaders’ top three priorities to maximize the quality of life in Ann Arbor, public safety was one of the top three items, with 19% of the open-ended responses identifying safety, crime and police as a concern. Also cited in 19% of responses were government, taxes and communication. However, the dominant concern in the open-ended responses was mobility issues – as 57% of responses were coded as related to roads, transportation, traffic, traffic enforcement, bikes and pedestrians.

That survey result mirrors the wide participation by the community in the recent debate about the repeal of the city’s crosswalk law. That debate ended in a city council vote on Dec. 2, 2013 to modify significantly the existing ordinance. But mayor John Hieftje announced immediately following the vote that he intended to exercise his power of veto.

The priority placed on the topic by the public and by councilmembers will also be reflected in two anticipated agenda items for the council’s Dec. 16 meeting. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is expected to bring forward a resolution directing the city administrator to present a plan for funding elements of the recently adopted update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. And Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has told The Chronicle he expects to bring forward a resolution on Dec. 16 that would allocate $500,000 from the general fund reserve this year to pay for police overtime to conduct traffic enforcement.

How police officers use their time while on duty is part of a report the council has been provided in preparation for the Dec. 9 budget planning session. Initial results from a newly implemented (Jan. 1, 2013) electronic timesheet logging system appear to indicate that police officers have at least 40% of their time that’s either unassigned or dedicated to proactive policing and community engagement. At last year’s planning session, the council had defined a success statement for public safety that included a goal of 25-30% time available for proactive policing.

The sequence of a special city council meeting followed by the budget planning session was also played out last year in mid-December. That’s when the council convened a special meeting to take a vote protesting the establishment of the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority. Like last year, the council’s budget planning session will be led by Julia Novak of the Novak Consulting Group.

Material presented in this article includes an annotated email thread about the Edwards Brothers property sale – which started in the Nov. 19 early morning hours, after the council meeting ended.

Annotated Email Thread

Chronicle annotations below are indicated in bracketed italics.

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:40 AM
[The council meeting that started on Nov. 18, 2013 did not conclude until 1:45 a.m.]
To: Powers, Steve
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Dear Steve,

This evening I tangentially and inadvertently became aware of a proposal that has been offered by the UM for the Edwards Brothers’ property. I’ll be perfectly honest, I overheard Mayor Hieftje share this news with Councilmember Petersen, and hence my inquiry. In the interest of providing all councilmembers with helpful information regarding this development, could you please share what you know about this matter with all of council? Please also provide your counsel on options that we may consider (timing, proposals, strategy, etc.) given the City’s right of first refusal position. 

[The Edwards Brothers press release issued on Nov. 27 named Sally Petersen (Ward 2) as a councilmember with whom Edwards Brothers leadership had met that same day – along with mayor John Hieftje. Petersen responded to an emailed Chronicle query about the rationale for her inclusion in the talks. Petersen gave two reasons: "1. The Mayor knows that I am interested in forging an improved town-gown relationship with U of M, their offer for the Edwards property, despite previous denial of affirmative interest, signals a step back in relationship building. 2. John and Susan Edwards used to live across the street from us on Devonshire and our daughters were best friends when they were at Angell Elementary. Joe and Sue Upton are friends from Church. It was natural for me to be involved from a personal relationship perspective."]

I sense that, if what I overheard is accurate, and I very much regret that this is how I was “informed”, we obviously do not all have the benefit of being provided the information necessary to adequately contemplate and respond to any strategy you may recommend or seek input on developing.

Thank you for assisting us in understanding our options, and for extending us all the courtesy of receiving this information in a timely, helpful, meaningful and equitable way. Aside from this specific request, I think my request for the equitable dissemination of information is so fundamental, so obviously the right and proper thing to do. We’re all just trying to do our jobs, and, obviously, in order to do that, information must be provided all councilmembers.

Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Briere, Sabra
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:38 AM
To: Lumm, Jane; Powers, Steve
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman,
Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Dear colleagues,

Of course, I didn’t overhear the conversation between Mayor Hieftje and Council member Petersen. But this article identifies the City’s right of first refusal and the UM’s desire to expand the athletic campus: http://www.mlive.com/business/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/11/city_of_ann_arbor_has_first_cl.html

Sabra Briere
First Ward Councilmember
(734) 995-3518 (home)
(734) 277-6578 (cell)

Emails received and sent to me as a Councilmember regarding City matters are generally subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:26 AM
To: Briere, Sabra
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher
(Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Sabra,

I saw this article. Please note what the Mayor states, WE will need to have a serious conversation. I’ve come to appreciate, sadly, after getting my news from news sources rather than the City (this has occurred frequently, on important matters!, since I’ve been on council), that information is not shared or disseminated even-handedly or fairly, and last night’s discovery was another unfortunate case in point.

After John’s aside to Sally sunk in, the magnitude, the significance, the way in which this was shared … , I asked Steve Powers if and what he knew about this. Had less than a minute b/c the mtg. was about to start. In that brief exchange, Steve confirmed, the UM made an offer, and seemed to imply (reading his “body language”) it wasn’t a positive development. I said this was a big deal, and would have said more, much more, but the council mtg. was now about to start. Council members should be treated even-handedly, and information should be provided ALL. I have made this request on innumerable occasions.

[When asked by The Chronicle for an example of another occasion on which she did not perceive that information was shared even-handedly, Lumm cited the news that the University of Michigan had ended its participation in the now demised Fuller Road Station project.]

Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Briere, Sabra
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:29 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Thank you for the clarification, Jane.

I guess, reading between the lines in the media coverage, that I had assumed the UM made a bid for the property. So that doesn’t seem like new information. I want to hear more about the City’s options.

Sabra Briere
First Ward City Council
Ann Arbor
734-995-3518
734-277-6578 (cell)

Sent from my iPad

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:52 AM
To: Briere, Sabra
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski. Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

The article was speculative, and how I learned, when the reporter called to ask me about this, the City had a right of first refusal. Nothing in the article about the UM making an offer. Perhaps, prior to my note, you were made aware of this as well? It should be clear, I am advocating on EVERYONE’S behalf. Not shouting, emphasizing so it’s understood why I think this is so important, speaks more about us, how we should treat our colleagues. Pretty basic, pretty essential, decent, common courtesy.

Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Powers, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:52 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher
(Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

The tax abatement agreement between City Council and Edwards Brothers gives the City (City Council) 60 days to exercise its right of first refusal. The 60 days is triggered by a formal notification from Edwards Brothers. No such notice has been received by the City. The property is surrounded on three sides by the UM Athletic Department. The UM Athletic Department has acquisition of the property included in its master development plan. The University recently received a $100 million dollar donation for the Stephen Ross Athletic Department. I don’t know if the University has made an offer or not, but I assume they will.

SP

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19,2013 10:21 AM
To: Powers, Steve
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Steve, last night you told me that they did make an offer. Sally confirmed that John told her the UM made an offer.

[It's possible that the apparent miscommunication here is a function of the fact that the University and Edwards Brothers had agreed to terms, but that the event triggering the city's 60-day right-of-first refusal window had not (and as far as The Chronicle's understanding goes, still has not) taken place. According to the tax abatement agreement, that event is a formal notification of Edwards Brothers to the city.]

Just the facts.

-Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Kosteva, Jim
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Jim, Last evening Mayor Hieftje shared with one of our councilmembers that the UM has made an offer to Edwards Brothers for the State Street property. I don’t know how Mayor Hieftje received this information or from whom, but any enlightenment on the University’s part would be welcome. The City apparently has, as stipulated in the right of first refusal provision, 60 days to respond, and the City Administrator indicates he is unaware of an offer and no notice has been received. Yet, the speculation, prompted by the Mayor’s “announcement” is heightened given the potential and significant impact on the City were such an offer to be presented. Any information you can provide in this regard would be welcome.

Thank you, Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tue 11/19/2013 10:50 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Jane,

Without myself having any personal knowledge of the situation, there are several reasonable scenarios under which this communication would be substantially detrimental to the best interest of the City. 

[Subsequent inquiry and response by Taylor indicates that by "this communication" Taylor meant Lumm's inquiry of Kosteva.]

Christopher

Christopher Taylor Member Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

734-834-3600 (c) [New Number]
734-531-1331 (w) [New Number]
734-213-6223 (h)
Like me on Facebook at: http://tinyurl.com/a2jsvpa <http://tinyurl.com/a2jsvpa>

From: Eaton, Jack
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:21 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Kunselman,
Stephen; Teall, Margie; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Christopher,

Being the new member on Council I want to be very careful not to harm the best interests of the City. Hopefully I can learn from the actions of others. So, please indulge my desire to understand the caution you are trying to communicate to CM Lumm.

When you say “there are several reasonable scenarios under which this communication would be substantially detrimental to the best interest of the City”, what do you mean by the use of the terms “this communication”. Do you mean:

(1) the communication between the Mayor and the unidentified third person;
(2) the communication from Ms. Lumm disclosing that overheard conversation to other members of Council;
(3) CM Lumm’s email inquiry to Kosteva asking about the status of the property;
(4) something else?

Thanks in advance,

Jack

On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:31 PM, “Taylor, Christopher (Council)” <CTaylor@a2gov.org> wrote:

Hi Jack,

Thanks for asking: #3.

Christopher Taylor Member Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

734-834-3600 (c) [New Number]
734-531-1331 (w) [New Number]
734-213-6223 (h)

Like me on Facebook at: http://tinyurl.com/a2jsvpa

From: Warpehoski, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:43 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Anglin, Mike; Postema, Stephen
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Two points:

1. I believe that consideration of this particular issues should best be taken under closed section “To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.” I do not believe this should be addressed through email.

2. Also related to OMA, I am concerned about deliberations not be conducted outside of public view, so I ask that colleagues take care with emails to all and reply all messages.

[The point that Warpehoski is making is that if at least a quorum of councilmembers were to engage in deliberative back-and-forth which purpose was ultimately to effect public policy, then this would constitute a "meeting" under Michigan's Open Meetings Act. That would be a violation of the OMA, because it's difficult to imagine how an email conversation could be noticed to the public or be made accessible to the public.]

-Chuck

Chuck Warpehoski
Ann Arbor City Council, Ward 5
cwarpehoski@a2gov.org
c: 734-972-8304

Visit www.chuckwarpehoski.org for Ward 5 updates and to sign up for a Ward 5 email newsletter. Emails received and sent to me as a Councilmember regarding City matters are generally subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Eaton, Jack
CC: Postema, Stephen; Powers, Steve
Subject: Re: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Christopher and Jack, Thanks. Heeding your admonition, after I sent the inquiry to Kosteva, obviously, and wondering why this poses a problem to ask the University for clarification. Honestly don’t know why it’s detrimental since the City has a potential interest.

[On the question of what Taylor had in mind when he described "several reasonable scenarios under which this communication would be substantially detrimental to the best interest of the City" Taylor answered an emailed query from The Chronicle by indicating he would decline to respond. The Chronicle followed up by asking if Taylor's reason for not wishing to comment was based on the idea that explaining the kind of scenario he had in mind would itself increase the likelihood of having a scenario unfold that was detrimental to the city. Taylor indicated that was not the reason. Instead he indicated that he was declining to comment out of "comity." ]

Think there needs to be a council mtg. to discuss. This all seems to be unfolding quickly.

Thanks, Jane

Sent from my iPad

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!