At the Livonia City Council Regular Meeting – April 28, 2025, heated discussion took place over the proposed $150 million municipal facilities bond proposal, often referred to as the “downtown Livonia” project. The proposal seeks to modernize police and fire stations, build a new library, and create a central gathering space and bike path. While the measure ultimately passed council approval to appear on the August ballot, significant opposition was voiced by Council President Brandon McCullough, and residents were largely divided on the issue.

Council President’s Opposition

Council President Brandon McCullough voiced several substantial concerns about the proposal before it was approved for the ballot:

Financial Concerns

“When I break down their performative…it shows that out of the $150 million that we’re asking our residents, it’s 96 million—a little over 96 million—would be brick and mortar,” McCullough stated during the meeting. He went on to detail that construction manager fees ($10.18 million) and professional services fees ($11.95 million) would account for nearly 20% of the actual construction costs.

Cost Efficiency

McCullough was particularly troubled by the cost per square foot for the police headquarters, which he calculated at nearly $980 per square foot. He compared this to a similar project he worked on that cost $481 per square foot, stating, “How am I as a subject matter expert supposed to be the leader and look at these numbers and go, ‘What’s going on?’”

Process and Timeline

“The narrative has never been brought forward consistently from the administration,” McCullough argued, outlining a timeline of meetings that began in October 2024 but didn’t include comprehensive layouts until January 2025.

Alternative Proposals

McCullough presented three alternative motions that received no support from fellow council members:

1. Including Noble, Sandberg, and additional pathways throughout the city
2. Moving the vote to the November ballot instead of August
3. Limiting the proposal to only police and fire buildings

Despite his concerns, McCullough ultimately voted to place the issue on the ballot, explaining, “I’m going to vote in favor of putting this language on the ballot because it’s your decision as a taxpayer.”

Community Response

The community’s response during public comment was predominantly cautious or negative, with few voices in strong support.

Supporters

Jenny K.: A 55-year resident who has “supported every single millage” and will support this one, asking only that the city be “fiscally responsible” and not “go for the cheapest bid.”

Robert B.: As a business owner, expressed full support: “Who does not want to see advancement in the city? How about the vision, the plan, and the hope… Look at [Detroit] now. Property values? You can’t get a place down there Friday or Saturday night to eat.”

Ed B.: Supported the proposal as something that would “draw people in” and create “a place of destination.” He noted the importance of public services, especially emergency response.

Opposition

Christopher M.: Called it “the wrong time” economically and “a waste of my tax dollar.”

Barbara G.: Supported only the fire and police portions: “Nobody seems to be maintaining our buildings that we currently have… How do we know you’re going to fix these new buildings when they start getting old?”

Margaret E.: Suggested postponing to November for better voter engagement, noting many “will feel sabotaged that this was on the August primary.”

Julie M.: Questioned the rush and argued council should determine funding directly rather than through a millage vote.

Laura J.: Questioned why the library component was only revealed recently: “I didn’t know anything about it till February… a library that’s connected to a city hall… doesn’t feel safe to me.”

James H.: Raised questions about promotion funding and tax comparisons.

Steve K.: Concerned about the timeline (central gathering place not until 2032) and overall costs, noting “That is death by a thousand cuts.”

Denise M.: Worried about giving up too much acreage: “How are we going to be innovative? Let’s have 10 acres. Let’s have a park.”

Sandra R.: Concerned about lack of community awareness: “Everybody in my subdivision or my neighbors I talk to, nobody knows what I’m talking about.”

Lorraine C.: Objected to the design with “backs of buildings” against Farmington and Five Mile.

Greg R.: Suggested splitting police/fire from other components and questioned August timing.

Bill M.: Disputed the claim it was “community-driven,” citing opposition at the meeting.

Neutral/Process Concerns

Denny B.: Neither for nor against, but requested moving to a later election date for better turnout.

Eileen M.: Questioned ballot wording regarding the library.

What’s Next?

The proposal will appear on the August ballot, allowing Livonia residents to decide whether to approve the $150 million bond for municipal facilities improvements. The administration has announced that a website with detailed information will be available at livonia.org, including a tax calculator for residents to estimate their personal impact.

As Council President McCullough noted in his closing remarks, “The administration…can get this on track. There’s time.”