Ann Arbor agrees to $187K contract with county for weapons screening at new municipal center
The Ann Arbor City Council voted 10-0 Monday night to approve a $187,000 contract with Washtenaw County for weapons screening services at the new Ann Arbor Municipal Center.
When the 15th District Court relocates from the Washtenaw County Courthouse to the new police-courts building on Jan. 14, the court will lose weapons screening services currently provided in the County Courthouse by the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office.
Court Administrator Keith Zeisloft said the Sheriff's Office maintains a staff of trained and experienced court security officers who provide weapons screening services. He said the court has determined it's best for the safety of the public, parties to litigation, judges, the magistrate and court staff to conduct weapons screening at the public entrance.
The new Ann Arbor Municipal Center, a.k.a. the police-courts building, at the corner of Fifth and Huron in downtown Ann Arbor.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"The funds are there," Zeisloft told council members, noting that funds for the contract have been included in the court's current year budget and will be in next year's as well.
The contract approved by the City Council provides for security officers from the Sheriff's Office to perform weapons screening and corridor and stairwell checks during court business hours at a cost of $25.25 per hour per security officer.
Zeisloft said it's estimated that three security officers will be assigned per day to the court on staggered schedules to accommodate the ebb and flow of court business. Because the proposed contract is a per-hour arrangement, he said the total daily or weekly number of hours worked may be fine-tuned to match visitor volume.
The city is spending $47.4 million to construct the five-story addition to city hall commonly known as the police-courts building. That cost includes renovations to city hall.
The building was designed to house the police department, the courts, and the city's information technology department.
City Administrator Roger Fraser said most of the police employees are now in the building, and the remainder of police and courts staff should be in by the end of this month. He said the probation department moved in last week.
Fraser said renovation work remains ongoing inside the existing 1963-era city hall adjacent to the new building on the corner of Fifth and Huron downtown. The second floor — which is home to the council chambers and the city clerk's office — is being cleaned of asbestos, he said.
The City Council has approved several extra costs in recent months that weren't in the project budget, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for audio-visual equipment, telecommunications equipment, furniture and electrical circuits.
Another of the more controversial items was the approval of a $553,320 contract in November for fabrication and installation of a water-based art installation in front of the new building. That followed a $111,400 contract for design of the sculpture.
Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, acknowledged Monday night that many residents have asked questions about whether some of the extra expenses should have been covered in the original $47.4 million project budget.
"This is exactly the type of item that should not have been included in the project building budget, and I wanted just to point that out," she said of the weapons screening agreement. "This is a service contract."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
godsbreath64
Fri, Jan 7, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.
@roadman I liked your comment. But I distinctly remember my hometown north of Detroit installing electro-shakdowns from nothing more than local court order some 5-7 years before the towers falling. They simply exempted themselves from the fourth ammendmant and their charge not to. No one can point to any pattern of charging the courthouse for violence. Like you point out, many uniforms are there to solve any threats that may arrive. Always have, always could. In the twenty years you highlight, the ALL government overreach of authority coupled with its palpable indifference to the constitution charged, have fomented rather profoundly. Guv is afraid to The People. Unfortunately paranoia is an irrational fear. There's is definitely grounded in the blow-back their daily misconduct warrants. Walk down the halls of any court address and you won't be able to ignore it. Unless, that is you are the guv.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 6, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
I can tell you that there twenty years ago very Michigan few courts had security screening for public entering the courthouses. The turning point was 9/11. Now only a handful of courts in the Metro Detroit area have no screening. Outstate there are some courts so small that having any security personnel would be almost ludicrous. I can recall being in a county probate court a few years back in the Thumb area and the entire probate court had only four employees - a judge, a probate register, and two clerks. Never aware of any problems in that court even though no court security screening existed. Having the county sheriff in the same building probably was enough of a deterrent. If you have armed deputies or court officers in the courtrooms it should likewisebe enough of a deterrent.
godsbreath64
Thu, Jan 6, 2011 : 10:56 a.m.
The People don't want to wait for the National Federation of Lawyers Who Show They Must Return To a Law School, to release their findings. Courthouses can be protected absent 4th Amendment violate. But then such would have to remain germane to the juridical economies.
Steve Borgsdorf
Wed, Jan 5, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
Were you planning to raise a militia from among the jury pool?
Ian
Wed, Jan 5, 2011 : 8:12 a.m.
Please no groping and cancer causing full body radiation chambers. Court house in Texas was caught storing the images (40,000 of them). The Feds told us saving images were not possible. I cannot believe the public is willingly putting up with such crap. "if you give up liberty for temporary security, you deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
jondhall
Wed, Jan 5, 2011 : 6:46 a.m.
Damn good question alpha alpha : Let me add are those Union jobs? We have a right to know this, what a farce no screening at the old building. Who are they protecting?
AlphaAlpha
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 10:23 p.m.
Also, Mr. Stanton, which people, i.e., which job titles, will be 'exempt' from screening? Surely judges will not need to 'submit' to screening? What about lawyers? Court clerks? Court employees? Court building custodians? IT people? Thank you.
Bones
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.
@Ryan. I am curious. So you or anyone else have the figures for the operational costs of the old building vs the new one? 300K for utilities a year coupled with all of the hidden costs on top of the actual projected cost. Seems a wee bit hard to swallow. I am curious as to how this is a plus for the city.
KeepingItReal
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 7:07 p.m.
Sabra. Was this comment really necessary? We know the difference between a project budget and what it cost to operate a facility once it has been constructed. As taxpayers, we should have been provided with this information up front even if it had to be projected. Please do not use your position as a councilperson to make us think that you are smarter than us.
bugjuice
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
Ah, more cost overruns and off bid items to finish the "Rog Mahal". Did we really expect anything different after Hieftje sold us this pig in a poke?
Steve Borgsdorf
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 5 p.m.
That may be the most hideous comment I've seen on this site. Yuck. Please grow some morals.
xmo
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Is the cost of $187,000 for security at the new Police-Courts building over priced? What will they protect? Some judges, clerks etc... with 10% plus unemployment maybe it would be cheaper simply to replace them as needed with the unemployed. Its not warm and fuzzy but are these people really worth that much money?
godsbreath64
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.
In the constitutionally moored society, the requisite integrity in the jurisprudence protected the courthouse, not metal detectors. Ah, the memories. What this story does not address is the scofflaws from the bench who provoke weapons to be brought to settle contra-judicial scores. Hence, the showcasing of benefactors. The guv doesn't trust The People so they trade certitude for rectitude on the innocent public's tab. The quality of the jurisprudence PLUMETS when they rely on shakedowns ab initio without probable/lucid cause. They keep the phones out to complete the crimes at that address, not deter them. Call me a strict constitutionalist, if you must.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 3 p.m.
@Vivienne It does seem there are costs that were not factored into the financial figures that the city presented when it was making the case for the project a couple of years ago (at least, it appears that way from all the documents I've seen). I found out a while back that it appears utilities alone for the new building could come in at close to $300,000 a year.
Vivienne Armentrout
Tue, Jan 4, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
Yes, this is not part of a building budget. But it is part of the balance sheet on the decision to build a new building. If the city could have reached an accommodation with the county to keep the 15th District court in the County Courthouse, the security service for the entire facility would have continued. In making that financial decision, many projected savings were identified. Were they adequately paired off with increased costs?