Maplewood reviews police facility options; study estimates $10.6 million renovation or $17 million new build, bond could raise debt levy

City Council on April 22 received a feasibility study and bond analysis showing two paths to address long-flagged police facility deficiencies: renovate and expand the existing City Hall/Police Department building, or construct a new standalone police facility.

The feasibility study presented by Joe Switzer of Navigate Building Solutions said the department’s operational needs include a sally port, booking/processing space, dedicated evidence storage and upgraded holding areas. The study said the existing building’s shell is in sound condition but interior space is constrained; the police department operates without dedicated spaces for many routine functions. Switzer said the renovation option is substantially less expensive than a new standalone facility: “we would target an appropriate budget being something like $10,600,000 to renovate,” while a separate 18,000-square-foot new police facility was estimated at about $17,000,000 using the same program assumptions.

Why it matters: council members and staff tied the facility issue to public safety operations, accreditation standards and recruitment. The study noted that current holding space is inadequate (Maplewood currently partners with Richmond Heights for detentions), that vehicle protection is limited, and that site constraints such as a Metropolitan Sewer District bioswale and steep inclines restrict expansion options on the existing property.

Key details from the study: the consultant identified a potential 2,400-square-foot horizontal addition able to house a sally port and vehicle-protected processing; recommended program elements include processing/holding cells, interview spaces, expanded evidence storage and circulation improvements. The study flagged ADA considerations (no full ADA audit was done) and recommended structural review for any rooftop photovoltaic installation. Switzer said construction on an existing site would likely require temporary space solutions during renovation — for example, rented trailers or interim leased space — and that project contingencies and escalation were included in the conceptual budgets.

Following Navigate, Reagan Holiday, the city’s municipal advisor from UMB Bank, outlined financing options and constraints. Holiday said general obligation (G.O.) bonds are a common municipal route but require voter approval; certificates of participation (COPs) avoid a vote but require a dedicated revenue stream the city does not have. Holiday noted statutory limits on debt (generally tied to assessed valuation) and reviewed the city’s outstanding debt from 2015 and 2024.

Using conservative assumptions and preliminary 2025 assessed valuation data, Holiday’s illustrative example showed a $10,000,000 G.O. bond issued around 2026 could raise the city’s debt service levy from roughly 0.28 to about 0.50 (expressed as a debt service rate), assuming an approximate true interest cost in the mid‑4% range and a 20‑year term; Holiday cautioned market rates and valuations are variable. She said the analysis assumed no assessed valuation growth beyond the preliminary 2025 figure and included a one‑year debt service fund buffer.

No vote or decision was required or taken. Council members asked about ADA compliance, recruitment and retention impacts, and operational disruption during construction. Switzer confirmed the study was conceptual and not a schematic design: “This is a concept. At some point the city will hire architects, engineers and a full project team to take this past a concept and turn it into a real design.”

Next steps discussed by staff and the consultant included continued review during upcoming budget work sessions, further design work if council directs it, and possible bond authorization discussions in the next budget cycle; the consultant estimated a realistic bidding window around 2027 if the city proceeds.

Speakers quoted or cited in this report spoke during the presentation and Q&A: Joe Switzer (Navigate Building Solutions); Katie Aholt (Navigate, colleague); Amber (city staff, presentation lead); Reagan Holiday (municipal advisor, UMB Bank); and multiple council members who questioned the presenters.

Ending: The presentations were informational. Council members and staff said they will use the study and financing analysis as the foundation for further evaluation during budget sessions; no formal authorization or bond request was made at the April 22 meeting.