Eastpointe reviews police/court building plans; parking, fire station and shooting range debated

Eastpointe City Council held a special meeting on April 15, 2025, to review updated plans for a proposed combined police and 38th District Court building on property adjacent to the existing public-safety site. Council, city staff and consultants discussed whether to incorporate a new fire station on the site, options to reduce surface parking (including decks or underground parking), and estimates for building and operating a police shooting range.

The discussion matters because the project must balance space for court operations, vehicle and staff parking, emergency-response access, and construction cost amid rising material prices. Consultants and department leaders told council that design choices made now will affect long-term operations, possible expansion for a second judge and the city’s downtown development character.

AEW representatives presented updated site plans and options for adding square footage (including a possible 1,500-square-foot second-floor addition or a third story in a later phase). An AEW representative said the design team compared earlier (2016–17) drawings with the current site and offered trade-offs; “the longer we wait, the longer the delay material costs are going up,” and the team estimated the building project would take “about 2 years from start to finish.”

City staff and department leaders emphasized parking and operational impacts if a fire station were moved to the new site. The city manager (name not specified) summarized input from police, fire and court staff and said, “We collectively agreed that we feel that the best place right now for the fire station is exactly where they are.” Staff said moving the fire station onto the new site would require a larger turning radius for fire apparatus and would eliminate much of the parking the court and police need.

Police leadership and court staff described how parking counts were derived. The 2025 design (without a fire station) shows 57 public parking spaces and 76 staff spaces. The police explained that staff parking must accommodate: city vehicles (including prisoner van and animal-control vehicles), on-site police vehicles (about 28–29 spaces), shift overlaps (A and B shift overlap windows), court staff and occasional visiting personnel for training or multi-agency operations. The police said peak staffing and vehicle needs could require roughly 69 to 80 staff spaces depending on whether the court adds a second judge.

Cost estimates for parking-structure options and other specialty work were discussed but not finalized. An AEW engineer said underground or structured parking would add “at least a few million dollars” to the project; another council member recalled past projects that estimated roughly $40,000 per parking space for a parking structure. The council and consultants agreed that a parking structure or basement parking would significantly raise project cost compared with surface lots.

The police described costs connected to a potential on-site shooting range and operating expenses. Police leadership (Chief Haynes) said annual ammunition costs for training and qualifications are about $17,000–$20,000 and that deep cleaning to remove lead is on the order of $10,000–$12,000 every three years. A councilmember cited a preliminary construction estimate for an on-site range at about $1,600,000; councilmembers said any range decision should consider whether neighboring departments would use the facility to help defray operating and capital costs.

Councilmembers and consultants also discussed space for judicial expansion. Judge Galen said the new design includes two courtrooms and substantially more space than the 2016 plan, and she indicated the layout could accommodate a second judge and associated staff if the state court administrator's office later authorized an additional judge.

No formal changes to the project were adopted at the meeting. Council discussion repeatedly deferred to department experts about operational needs and to consultants for refined cost estimates. The council asked staff and consultants to provide additional, more detailed cost comparisons (parking-structure versus surface parking; range build and operating costs) and to preserve options for future expansion in the design where feasible.

The meeting included one formal motion (adjournment) at the end of the session; the council voted to adjourn. The special meeting ran from 6:00 p.m. to about 6:50 p.m.