The City has been trying to solve space problems in the Larcom Building since long before I was elected to City Council in 1999. The AAPD has been operating for decades out of the basement in an area that was never designed to house them properly and the city has been paying long-term rent for office and courtroom space outside of the Larcom building.
The City currently rents space for the 15th District Courts in the Washtenaw County Courthouse. About three years ago the County told the City that the District Courts needed to move out of the County Courthouse as other plans were being made.
Two years ago a task force studied several existing sites as possible locations for the Police/Courts building and after a great deal of public comment and outreach, Council decided against building on the Library Lot site and turned instead to the Larcom Site.
Even though Washtenaw County had repeatedly said the City Courts must vacate the County Courthouse and everyone on City Council said we needed new quarters for the AAPD, I still hoped we could find another, less expensive way to solve the court problem and then tackle the police space situation separately. I did not want to go forward without a viable financing plan.
On top of the years of work that had come before, I spent another year searching for an alternative to a new building but could not find one. At my behest the city investigated existing buildings both on the edge of the city, in the Pfizer Complex and downtown.
Over and over again I discussed the court’s puzzle with the County administration and different members of the County Commission, some of whom I know well. I am convinced the county will not change its position; the Circuit Court Judges want the city out to facilitate plans to move the Juvenile Courts into the County Courthouse space, a move which would create greater efficiency for the county.
The county will probably agree to a little more time for quite a bit more rent money so it’s time for Ann Arbor to act. I am doubtful county judges would sign off on sharing space for much longer, certainly not without extensive renovations and an addition. From the city viewpoint, this would require similar costs as those for new construction on the Larcom site with ever rising rents added on.
This remotely possible solution of building new on the County site does nothing to solve the problem for the AAPD and it does not save money. Having the courts in the same building as the AAPD will save on security costs and it makes no sense to build a new Police Station without putting the District Courts on top of it and thus greatly reducing costs.
Rent for the courts space is going up at 9% per year. Going forward will create a large savings from bringing staff back into Larcom from rented space in the City Center Building when the AAPD moves next door. Over $700,000 per year in rent will be freed up to help make the bond payments for the new building and this will be added to the DDA commitment and other funding sources detailed in the current financing plan.
To this date, no one has come up with a viable alternative to a new Police/Courts Building. Without an alternative and with the lease at the County Courthouse expiring in 2010, I see no other course but to go forward.
Last year there was no clear financing plan; now there is and the project can be financed with existing revenues and will save the city money over the long term. This financing plan will not impact service delivery, human services or our parks. The financing plan can found in detail here (PDF).
The sale of bonds to support the Police/Courts project was approved on a 9 to 2 vote of City Council.
There were some in the community who questioned the sale of $27.5 million in bonds to support the $47 million project. While I certainly understand this, having once been against the project myself, I also feel that a fair amount of the opposition to the project has been politically motivated. New candidates for Council, desperate for an issue and platform, took up this cause.
When a local government sells bonds there is a period of time between the announcement of the bond sale and the actual sale. This is to provide time for anyone who questions the sale to gather petitions to force a public vote on the bond issue.
Petitions were circulated by a Council Member, council candidates and their campaign workers. Even paid solicitors were employed, getting $1.50 per signature, but in the end the drive fell far short of the number required to put the issue on the ballot. A good deal of misinformation was also distributed in the gathering of signatures.
After the petition drive failed, a supermajority of Council members agreed that it would set a very bad precedent to put the bond sale on the ballot without the required number of signatures having been gathered. Local governments sell bonds all the time, it is part of doing business. Just a few years ago, bonds were sold to support the Broadway Bridges. After that there was a $25 million dollar bond to support the new Wheeler Maintenance Center that replaced two aging facilities and just a few months ago council voted unanimously to sell $54 million in bonds for water and sewer infrastructure. No one suggested that any of these bond sales be put on the ballot.
To require a vote every time bonds are sold would slow the work of the city to do what needs to be done. It also speaks against the principle of representative government. Council members are elected to make decisions. No city in Michigan requires a vote of the electorate when bonds are sold.
Ann Arbor’s bond rating was recently upgraded and this speaks to solid financial management and the city’s low debt load. For more on this see the financial section of this website.
As always I am happy to meet with any resident who would like to discuss this or any other issue. Simply call my office and arrange for a time slot during my weekly office hours.
John Hieftje