Despite Budget Woes, Dearborn Buys new City Hall
Despite running a multi-million dollar deficit, Dearborn city leaders voted to purchase a new city hall.
With the city of Dearborn running a budget deficit that city officials have repeatedly said is upwards of $20 million, the decision this week by council and mayor to set aside nearly $4 million in taxpayer money to buy a new city hall has us shaking our head in disbelief.
For sure the building at 16901 Michigan Ave., which formerly housed the metro Detroit headquarters of payroll processor ADP Inc. and has been vacant since 2010, is a decent “deal” in a down real estate market. But a “good deal” shouldn’t be reason to spend when residents have been told we have money challenges.
Yes one can make the argument this purchase is for the long haul, but don’t think for a minute the new building won’t need major rework to accommodate city offices. This isn’t as simple as hanging a new city hall sign on Michigan Avenue.
City leaders know this, too, which is likely why no one was able to address the costs required to retrofit the ADP building to make it City Hall suitable. The city has set aside about $525,000 above the $3.2 million purchase price for the building. That won’t even begin to cover costs to get this building into shape.
Finance Director Jim O’Connor told the Dearborn Press & Guide that the money to cover the purchase of the building will come from either accumulated savings in the general fund, bonds, or an unspecified third source that he called “promising.”
We are told there’s a “potential buyer” lined up for City Hall, which is why this measure passed on a 5-2 council vote. City Council in March authorized a letter of intent to sell the campus to Artspace Projects Inc. for repurposing as live-work space for low-income artists.
But the nonprofit developer has not yet signed off on the agreement nor have city officials shared what price, if anything, the city will get for this prime piece of real estate.
We have heard the arguments that City Hall needs a supposed $5.7 million in repairs and that’s why Dearborn needs a new City Hall. But that is nonsense. Like classic cars, you can restore a building and indeed make it better. Even more efficient. The new building supposedly is three times less costly to operate? Says who?
Does Artspace have the funding to fix the building or is the city simply giving the building away?
If the city really is working to trim its workforce and operate with fewer people does it really need more space, which is one of the key arguments to justify the purchase of a new building. We think not. Yet, city leaders argued that the current City Hall – 95,000 square feet of it – has wasted space, such as the sweeping circle staircase in the center of the main City Hall building. Most people, including Artspace, would call that staircase a great design. So, too, about City Hall’s wide hallways.
They don’t make buildings like our City Hall any longer because it would cost too much to duplicate it. It is easier to build cheap buildings, such as one the city plans to purchase.
Just two council members opposed the purchase plan. Council President Tom Tafelksi and Councilman Brian O’Donnell.
“We’re saying we’re broke,” Tafelski said. “We can’t open up pools. Our neighborhoods have grass that’s nine and ten and twelve inches. Our legacy should not be in bricks and mortar. It should be in preserving and protecting the neighborhoods and fundamentally changing the downtown districts.”
Do our elected officials even have a plan to resuscitate our ailing city?
May 24th, 2012 at 9:13 am
This is unacceptable! How can the city say it’s broke when they are spending millions for something we don’t need with the stroke of a pen? I’m so tired of them talking about saving money down the road and looking at the big picture. I’m still waiting for the money to come rolling in from the expensive parking structures and our brand new downtown. Have they made enough in parking tickets to warrant the sticker price of all these new trash cans they bought yet? And why are they putting in new water lines when the old ones weren’t damaged and fixing pieces of cement that I never noticed as being broken? Millions of our tax dollars being blown and yet the kids in my neighborhood can’t walk to the pool or library. Well, at least I won’t have the same sadness I would have had years ago if I decide to retire outside of Dearborn. There is nothing left for me here.
May 24th, 2012 at 9:31 am
Why don’t they move the various offices to downtown West Dearborn? There are plenty of vacant buildings, two HUGE empty parking structures and tons of paid parking. Also lots of restaurants and bars to walk to after work after you go feed the meter again.
May 24th, 2012 at 9:40 am
I can sum up my feeling for Dearborn City Government in a few words:
Incompetent
Ignorant
Arrogant
Dictatorship
Self serving
When can something be done to stop this runaway train of spending and self serving decisions? Election time? Is there any legal grounds that have been crossed to put a City further into debt? Isn’t a City Government supposed to serve its citizen, not use them for their agendas? It feels like laws have been broken by not being transparent with decisions that affect taxpayers pocket books.
Will someone please call in the Feds! I smell something like how Ficanno runs his house. We need these idiots thrown out of office or jailed. Taxpayers deserve leadership, not dictatorship.
May 24th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Tafalski is correct. Before we have a signed agreement to sell City Hall Brainless O’Connor and Bluto go out and buy another building, after crying poor-mouth to the people. Get your act together because we know you have pending lawsuits to settle, as well as other monnetary problems facing you — are you simply going to go to the people again for a vote to raise more money? Although I agree the present City Hall is not functional today to suit the residents needs, at least wait until a sale of City Hall is in the works (with at least signed documents), before getting innvolved in placing the City in depth further. Tafalski at least is on the right track why not listen Bluto. It seems like your advisors seem to be Brailess O’Connor, or Pee Wee Somers. Change is a coming.
May 24th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
It is CRAZY to be spending this kind of money when the City claims it is broke. Tax revenue is down, lawsuits are up. The City is not giving accurate figures in the whole cost. Besides retrofitting the building, there are moving costs, closing costs, new furniture, IT, phones, rewiring, down time, over time, etc… It goes on and on.
Are we going to give away City Hall like the City did with the Montgomery Wards building? Classic example of buy super high and selling for peanuts. Time for this group to go. Thank you Brian O’Donnell for having the guts to stand up to the spend thrifts.
May 24th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Great management Mr.Magoo, keep listening to your great advisors, Pee Wee Herman Somers, and Jim (the shister) O’Connor. Way to buy something before you have the money for it, as the sale of the present City Hall hasn’t been consumated yet. Why not wait, to make sure you can cover your ass, but then again that is too logical. You suckered the people of Dearborn with the additional funding vote request last year,but now the people see what kind of manager of our City you really are, totally incompetent.
May 24th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
So let’s throw all the seniors that worked their whole lives to retire at the towers in Florida out. Then we can kick all the kids out of the small pools and libraries. Then we will have money to buy ourselves a new city hall and get new offices and a pay raise. Oh and don’t forget the 4 million dollar splash park that none of the kids will be able to walk or ride a bike to. We don’t need more millages we need new leaders. So sick of this “it will cost too much to repair so we have to buy new” excuse.
May 24th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
When they spend someone elses money they talk the talk but, don’t walk the walk. then again they are politicians and thier flunkies.
May 24th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
No, let’s not concentrate on bringing more businesses to Dearborn to actually make it a city to come to. No, let’s not concentrate on making this city look good again.
Yes, buy another piece of property that will suck up even more cash.
You have people saying we have no money yet people are getting ridiculous raises and the little guys are getting screwed out of even more money.
May 24th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I have a plan to resuscitate our city:
1) Pull a petition to recall the mayor
2) Get signatures
3) Organize a campaign to oust him before he can do any more damage with ill-conceived schemes.
This man has absolutely no business managing a city. He can not develop a plan, he can not articulate why his decisions are good for the residents, he can not tolerate residents disagreeing with his decisions, and his schemes are bringing permanent damage to Dearborn. I was not always a fan of Mayor Guido either, but O’Reilly truly makes me appreciate the things Guido did do well– at the top of my list: communicate with residents. I long for the days of Guido now, and I hope we can get someone new into the mayor’s seat BEFORE the next elections in 2013.
May 25th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
I do not know the answers to these questions. Is the purchase of the new building contingent upon the sale of the old city hall? Usually when one goes to buy a new house, it is contingent on selling the old house and is part of the contract. What is the capitalized rate of return on the savings of the new building? If the city can save $100,000.00 a month in expenses, the new building would pay for itself in a little over three years. How is the city going to be paid for the old building? If it is sold for $3.6 million, then it is a zero sum game. Just asking.
May 25th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Yes, just like the parking decks paid for themselves NOT. We can’t spend money on speculation. There is no proof it will be cheaper. Plus the new building will have to be renovated.
May 26th, 2012 at 6:53 am
Diogenese – using past history and common sense combined, here are the answers to your 2 questions: 1) No contingency and 2) Rate of returm = zero. These are the same leaders that allowed Burton Katzman to go Belly-Up and leave our City (tax payers) holding the bag w/no legal recourse and an unfinished multi-million dollar project. The Art Project group told McCheese the “check’s in the mail” and McCheese keeps looking for it in the mailbox? Get it?
May 26th, 2012 at 6:57 am
Why is it so easy for the council to come down on the court and ask for removal of a judge but refuses to do anything with the legal department who continually gives poor legal advice and cost this city millions? Time to farm out the legal department and do the right thing. Maybe Bazzy and Abraham are too close to legal to see the truth. Please don’t “judge” someone else’s garden until you take the weeds out of yours.
You will all be run out of office if you approve 4.5 millage increase in this budget. Shame on you all for bullying residents when they question your tactics.
May 26th, 2012 at 7:09 am
Maybe if the city would have resolved all the lawsuits instead of putting all your eggs in a basket with the woeful legal advice of Deb Walling we could afford all the services and employees we once had. The legal department, mayor, council and Summers have cost us millions. Examples: Christian missionaries, Terry Jones, 3 court lawsuits, 3 police officer lawsuits and soon to be HR Director and DPW lawsuits. This is a travesty to our entire community. Outsource this department and hire a real employment specialist.
Unfortunately when these individuals think they are the smartest people in the room change is impossible. Looking forward to the election!!!
May 26th, 2012 at 11:37 am
These are questions that the braintrust at Michigan & Schaefer should be asking. Those questions are too logical for our supposed leaders to inquire about, however, if they continue on this path of logic, we will becoome another Allen Park.
May 26th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
vinnie it’s like the police department is dumb enough to go out & spend a sizeable amount for a dodge charger, then put out written orders to the officers on how to use it, but not park within the public view, don’t even park it at a crime scene. great logic in uniform officers being able to do their jobs. no wonder this city does these dumb ass deals with inept leadership of mccheese oreally ! and his incompetent appointed puppets.
May 26th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
right again vinnie, but honestly how can bluto listen to any adviser. he is an arrogant ignorant fool who listens to no one, but is the very first to blame anyone for a mistake. our great inept leader.
May 26th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
New city hall, pay raises for department heads, splash park in the plans, new train station being built, a convention center pipe dream…not to mention the numerous law suits. There is no leadership here. The rank and file employees who have not had pay raises in years are facing pay cuts to balance the budget but the money this city supposedly doesn’t have is being spent on things that do nothing to actually help the city. Why are recall petitions not being circulated to force recall elections for the mayor and the fab five on council that are firmly in his pocket?
May 27th, 2012 at 6:31 am
To Diogenese,
There is NO contingency in this sale. He bought the new building without selling the old building. He CLAIMS he has someone interested in it but then again he CLAIMED Dearborn Public Schools was interested in sharing the building and that turned out to be a lie.
May 27th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
When are the residents in this City going to realize you can’t believe a thing O’Reilly says? Unfortunately we have a pathological liar in office Diogenese. Get rid of the bum.
May 28th, 2012 at 6:44 am
Let’s not forget it was O’Donnell and Bazzy who voted not to put the police and fire minimum manning on the ballot. Bazzy claims he is a business man, but any good business man would understand what portion of the budget is bankrupting this city. He is the mayors bobble head and is full of him self. Really?? Hope you both enjoyed your one and only term as the mayors council persons. Hey O’Donnell the building cost less than police and fire. Did your buddy Tafelski tell you how to vote again? And, Bazzy, nobody cares about your business, which way you drive to work or how you look.
May 28th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
the charger was a gift to the police from it’s chief’s former employer!
May 29th, 2012 at 7:15 am
In the land of Ford Motor Company and it was allowed? Last time a gift of an non- Ford was given to the department Ford put pressure on the city and it was given back to the donor. Looks like Ford Motor Co is even giving up on the city…
May 29th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Okay. what do we need to do? does anyone know how to get the recall started on Oreilly and Tafelski, and some of these incompetent buffoons? We could plan to meet somewhere. If anyone is interested in getting signatures. I am. I have had it up to my eyeballs. and yes, they are Bullies whoever, got it right. I am willing to do whatever it takes to help.
May 29th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Purplepalace: I don’t think it was Walling’s advice to keep Christian missionaries off public sidewalks…that was a political move. I am sure the Mayor demanded some kind of story to use as justification, but it had to be his knuckling under to Muslim pressure that caused the illegal actions. If you look at the newspaper articles from 2009, the Muslim spokeswoman stated that they went to City Hall demanding the Christians be removed from the festival. The Mayor does not seem to have learned from his past mistakes, though. He recently attended a meeting supporting honor killings because his Muslim handlers told him he should…
May 29th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
I think you have hit on something, Enoughisenough! Plenty of parking, and the City Hall workers will help support the restaurants. There sure aren’t any restaurants within walking distance of the building under discussion, are there?
May 29th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
hey norwood how can you blab on the blog without kissing up to bluto ? he only manufactured your job to keep your silence because you also are an incompent appoint that this arrogant bully surroiunds himself with.
May 30th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Let me shed some reality on some some of the false comments here. The current City Hall is very unefficient to heat and cool beside needing a tremendous amount of repairs. Artspace is going to gut the place for living and working quarters anyway, so it makes sense to them. Hopefully it will be a break-even scenario for the City at worst.
The general employees (non-police and fire) have not had raises in years and now pay 20% of their medical while being asked to do much more with less.
Even with the (temporary) millage increases, Dearborn residents pay less taxes than a few years ago.
No one ever brings up the vote to have the minimum staffing for public safety repealed. Public Safety is nearly 2/3 of the budget. There are plenty of cops to sit at corners to ticket residents rolling through stop signs. Has this helped reduce crime since it was adopted?
May 30th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
The city needs to be more transparent with the purchase of the ADP building. The information that the city has provided so far is insufficient for anyone to determine if this is a worthy endeavor or not. The city’s poor track record with real estate deals should make every resident demand complete disclosure.
There are two empty parking decks in West Dearborn that are testament to the adage “if it sounds to good to be true it probably is”. That great deal is costing us at least $600k per year for debt service, utilities, maintenance, staffing and legal fees.
What is the total project cost for the replacement of city hall? The city website makes no mention of the new building purchase cost or expected ancillary costs. What is provided is a marketing flyer. The local paper says it‘s going to cost $3.7M. Add in moving costs, telephone setup, electrical reworking and purchase of modular furniture and the total project costs can and will be significantly higher. Has the city prepared a total project estimate to share with residents?
There is no mention of the anticipated funds from the sale of the old city hall to artspace. Was a formal appraisal done to determine the marketable value of the building or the land? (I’m thinking of the Montgomery Ward site where the city paid twice the value of the property). I’d expect at least a mention on the website that the funds for the purchase of the new city hall are expected to be largely offset by the funds from the sale of the old city hall. Does the lack of such information indicate that the city is “gifting” the site to artspace?
Does the city have a contingency plan if artspace is unable to acquire federal low income housing credits in a timely manner? If not, we can add the city hall to our inventory of empty facilities. What percent of proposed artspace projects failed to move forward because of delays or inability to acquire federal funds? What percent of artspace projects failed after construction and opening?
I am a little suspect on the $23.50 per sq ft cost in operating costs for the old city hall. There’s not enough information provided to determine if the $7.50 number for the new building is truly comparable.
Who is the broker handling the transactions? This should be made public record.
Is artspace a worthy project? Maybe. However, I think the city is chasing a potential buyer in haste and we’re going to be paying the cost.
May 30th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
While I’m sure the current City Hall is not the most efficient of buildings, I don’t think the problem is with condition of the current City Hall. It’s an iconic building in Dearborn, a decent structure, centrally located, and, yes, it probably needs a healty amount of investment. Nor is the problem with the the proposed City Hall building. It’s an anonymous design (to be generous), probably in good condition, and easily accessible.
No, I think the core concern that we all have is with the City’s leadership. Over the past two decades, the City – regardless of who occupies the Mayor’s Office or who is on the Council – cannot navigate their way through a real estate development deal.
We have not forgotten the ten year span when the only thing on the Superblock was a Christmas tree during the holidays. We drive by the Burton-Katzman block which hasn’t had an upper floor tenant since it was opened (and shall we touch on the vacant parcel between the two useless parking decks?). Oh, and let’s not forget the beautiful (and I truly mean that) but woefully underused community center that came in obscenely over budget. Meanwhile, the City’s leadership continues to follow merrily along after developers who promise the sun, the moon, and the stars but can never deliver (Roark’s definition of a Developer: anyone who will build anything, anywhere, at any time…using someone else’s money).
So now the City says “trust us, we know what we’re doing”. And they are really going to top themselves this time. They have managed to find a deal that promises to ream the residents of Dearborn twice – once on the purchase and renovation of the new building, and once on the sale of the old building.
First, the new digs: we all know that the ADP building is not in “move-in” condition, right? So what’s the over/under for how much they spend on the building to “bring it up to standard”? Figure that building is, say, 80,000 square feet, and they spend $40 per square foot to renovate. That’s $3,200,000 right there – as much as the purchase price! Suddenly that $5.7 to renovate the current City Hall is looking pretty good.
And the $525,000 that is “set aside” – it will probably get new carpeting, new ceilings, and perhaps HVAC improvements but won’t begin to address reconfiguring walls, build a new council chambers, nor upgrade the electrical and technology in the building. And the City – or more specifically, Dearborn Residents – are going to have to pony up to pay the difference for this new boondoggle. (Yeah, I had the same thought as well…but I don’t think Council will want to have all those parking meters right behind their posh new crib.)
Secondly, there is the sale of the old building. Now I’m not a slick politician, but what is it about the combination of “non-profit developer” (there’s that “D” word again) and “low-income artists” that leads me to think that the City is pretty much giving away our City Hall? We probably ought not to count on using the proceeds from the sale of the old place to fund the improvements at the new place.
Screwed twice on one deal.
What I can’t figure out is who is behind this initiative. I suspect that some interest is working very effectively behind the scenes, whispering to City Leadership about the wonderful benefits of this move. The old line goes something like “follow the money”. Well, I suppose we just have to watch for who makes a bundle off of this move to find who’s behind it.
May 30th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Mr. Reality,
Yes, we pay less in taxes because our property is worth a LOT less. That is NOT something to brag about. My house is worth half the money it use to be!
We are also getting a LOT less in City services like less libraries, less pools, less City services and on and on and on.
May 30th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Since this first surfaced a few months ago, I’ve learned a little about Artspace. Its primary funders are the Kresge and Ford Foundations, and they appear to have a very solid record. So the sale just might be a win-win if . . . the administration makes an effort to leverage the capabilities of the new campus to upgrade technology, communication, core competence in delivery of services – and then reduce body count by 25%.
Because the administration refuses to stop overpaying itself, our (the citizens) only recourse is to demand that concession from them (the entitled) – reduce staffing across the board to drastically cut costs.
If the Mayor cannot justify the acquisition with proven financial benefits – really big payroll reductions – forget about it.
By the way, whoever suggested moving this down to Burton Katzmannville had a real good alternative – maybe this mess should be moved into the old Hallmark, Tenny Roadhouse, the Phat Burger Building and Mesa Computers and be done with it. Nah, that’s all reserved for our preferred developer’s expertise.
May 31st, 2012 at 9:28 am
Mr. Reality, they could use the millions that they are spending for this building to do repairs on the City Hall. And if the employees have been downsized, then they dont need any extra room. In times of financial hardship a good business person knows to hold on to the money, and try to get along with what we have. And once again the city is allowing ruination of our historical, unique building sites. And who are these people who are going to live in that building. Are they hippies, I dont get the concept here.
I am sorry,but our counsel and mayor are a major losers, who kiss but to certain groups and political correctness. It seems they do not treat all citizens equally, especially Christians. We have so much crime in this city. Soon it will scare visitors away from even going to our Greenfield village. Doing nothing as far as city hall, and waiting, and actually putting a little thought into the process. Here we have libararies closing, second had stores opening, closing pools, dumpy buildings, yet the most important thing is to buy a building. And even that building will need renovations. the only recourse we have is to get out and vote!
May 31st, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Ask if the Detective offices have gotten a make over from Ford yet? I think they noticed the Dodge, all the police markings have been removed also.
June 1st, 2012 at 6:16 am
Thank you for posting this Howard.
June 1st, 2012 at 10:44 am
the only recourse we have is to get out and vote? or maybe just to get out?
June 1st, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Yes, Chris. getting out is a another option.
I was wondering if the city hall could be considered an Historical building?
Could it be made “historical”?
June 4th, 2012 at 5:35 am
Maybe they should fefurbish the parking decks for the idiots in city hall :). Nice to own two city halls. Allen Park has a movie studio and we have two city halls!!! Way to go McCheese!
June 11th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Hopefully if Artspace purchases the building the new owners will seek to have the building declared a historical site. This is what we did with Fordson High School so that the design and the beauty of the building is maintained with future rennovations.
June 11th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I agree. My home is worth a fraction of what it used to be, so when I look at what I pay in taxes as a percentage of the value of my investment (my home) it is quite high. And if property values ever do recover, my taxes will increase significantly. If the city wants more tax revenue they should get to work on improving the neighborhoods and getting property values back up. Getting back to the topic, the new City Hall, I’m very disappointed with this decision. The emphasis should be on cleaning up the neighborhoods, enforcing ordinances and attracting businesses to the downtown district.