By Jeremy Selweski
C & G Staff Writer

FERNDALE — In its efforts to upgrade the city’s main facilities on East Nine Mile Road, the Ferndale City Council is examining a few different possibilities but has yet to reach a consensus decision.

At its July 28 meeting, the City Council heard a presentation from Plante Moran CRESA consultants weighing the pros and cons of the city’s options in rejuvenating its increasingly dilapidated, out-of-date 43rd District Court, Police Department, Fire Department and City Hall buildings. The different proposals would cost the city anywhere from roughly $4 million to $8 million and are based on the amount of money available in the city budget.

One possibility is to move the courthouse next door by purchasing the adjacent Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency building and simply renovating City Hall and the police station.

Another, more expensive option would involve moving City Hall into the second floor of the Credit Union One building next to the police station while renovating the current City Hall facilities into an all-in-one “justice building” containing both the police station and courthouse.

One thing the city will not be doing, however, is raising taxes. “The golden rule of government finance is that you must pay for current services with current revenue,” said City Manager Bob Bruner, addressing the council. “You don’t take it out of (the city’s) savings account. The council can address facility needs without requiring a tax increase or a vote from the people.”

Instead, funding for the project would come from sources such as the 2007 reserved general fund, the 2008 general fund, the 2009 budgeted unreserved general fund, transfers to the public improvement fund, and courthouse fines and fees.

The city would be forced to give up some “money in the bank” for various projects in order to finance the project, however. In return, though, the upgrade would offer new facilities with better services, an enhanced work environment for city employees, increased net worth for the city and improved accessibility under the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ferndale’s final decision ultimately depends on “the City Council’s tolerance for risk and both the interest rate and term of debt used to finance the project,” according to the Plante Moran presentation.

“It all comes down to maintenance costs,” said architect Paul Wills. “(The deterioration) eventually gets to the point where it costs more to maintain (a building) than it does to reconstruct it. You just have to figure out, what’s that threshold?”

On March 23, the City Council approved a proposal from Plante Moran to assist the city in determining the best course of action for an improved municipal complex. A team of city appointees and department directors was assembled, and subsequent meetings were held to identify the financial resources available for new city facilities.

Wills said that after touring the city facilities and talking to city employees about “what’s working and what’s not working,” Plante Moran was able to determine that 52,563 square feet of total proposed space was needed, compared to the 40,106 square feet currently available in the city buildings.

David Asker of Plante Moran added that Ferndale’s nearly half-century-old buildings had aged beyond their reasonable shelf life. “In southeast Michigan, most city facilities are 40-plus years old, but the average life of a building is only 35 years.”

The topic stirred up some debate among residents and council members at the meeting.

Resident and former mayoral candidate Tom Gagne was vehemently opposed to both proposals. “I haven’t detected a compelling reason to consider any of these alternatives,” he said. “There are fewer and fewer people in Ferndale — it’s not a growing community.”

Added resident Greg Pawlica, “This plan shows a real lack of vision and foresight on the part of the council. If you go through with this, Ferndale will become known as the ‘credit union city.’ It greatly concerns me that the council is rushing into this without considering the ramifications. … Do not give up our city’s identity by moving our home into a building we do not own.”

Councilwoman Tomiko Gumbleton shared some of Pawlica’s concerns. “The first thing I thought of (when I saw this proposal) was, ‘Where is the city’s identity going to be?’”

For Mayor Craig Covey, the main issue at stake is the high cost associated with both options. Citing the more expensive proposal, he said, “Just because you have the ability to spend 7 1/2 million dollars doesn’t mean you have to.”

However, Councilman Scott Galloway reiterated the point that Wills made earlier. “Sometimes it’s more cost-effective to build new rather than renovate,” he said.

The council ultimately voted to further explore both options, but decided to wait before casting a final vote on the issue. Addressing the uneasy residents in the audience, Councilman Mike Lennon succinctly summed up the council’s course of action — and its ambivalence.

“We’re not making any purchase,” he said. “We’re not doing anything. No one’s making any decision here tonight.”