GT County To Consider Recommitting To Senior Center Rebuild
Grand Traverse County commissioners will vote Wednesday on a resolution to reaffirm the county’s commitment to collaborate with the City of Traverse City on building a new senior center on East Front Street. Commission Chair Rob Hentschel says he requested the resolution be placed on the agenda to make it clear the county supports a rebuild project, with the county potentially committing up to $100,000 as part of the resolution to hire a consultant to lead community fundraising efforts for construction. Hentschel and other county commissioners oppose using a county millage to rebuild the city-owned building – resistance that delayed the project in 2020 – but Hentschel believes the rebuild could “absolutely be funded” through a community capital campaign.
Wednesday’s resolution reaffirms Grand Traverse County’s commitment to “work cooperatively with the City of Traverse City on a capital campaign to cultivate financial support for the construction of a new senior center building at the 801 East Front Street location.” That site, home of the current Traverse City Senior Center, is owned by the city but leased by the county for senior programming through the county’s Senior Center Network. Built in 1969, the facility has the same original plumbing, electrical, walls, floors, and interiors as when it first opened. Discussions on remodeling the building to serve the needs of a growing regional senior population date back to at least 2000. In 2018, county and city commissioners agreed that the best path forward was to rebuild the facility.
Since that time, however, county and city leaders have been at odds over fundraising and lease options for the facility. With cost estimates for a new building climbing into the millions, Senior Center supporters asked the county last year to put a millage request on the ballot to fund reconstruction. County commissioners balked, both because they didn’t believe county taxpayers should foot the bill to rebuild a city-owned facility and because the county didn’t have a long-term lease agreement for the building. Because the Senior Center is on city parkland, entering a long-term agreement – considered a form of property transfer or divestment – would require the approval of city voters. City commissioners expressed support for putting a millage on the ballot and were willing to put a long-term lease agreement on the ballot, but could not reach an agreement with county leaders by last year’s ballot deadline. County commissioners, meanwhile, expressed support for using “private fundraising” to pay for reconstruction instead.
Hentschel notes that most current county commissioners weren’t on the board in 2018 when the city and county expressed joint support for a rebuild. Wednesday’s resolution, therefore, would allow the current commission to express its commitment to a rebuild. “I think there’s support (among the other commissioners), but we’ll find out and let the public know this where the county commission stands,” Hentschel says. He remains opposed to putting a millage on the ballot, even if it would ultimately be up to taxpayers to decide whether they wanted to fund a rebuild, because of potential confusion of residents thinking they were supporting a county-owned building. But Hentschel is proposing allocating $25,000 in county funds annually over the next four years to hire a consulting firm that could lead a joint fundraising campaign between the county and city.
“I think if we look at other community projects in this area, our community has proven time and time again that if there’s something to care about they’ll (step up),” Hentschel says. “A properly run campaign might take a couple years, but it could absolutely be funded by the community.”
Both county and city leaders have stated that seniors have overwhelmingly expressed support to them for keeping senior programming at the East Front Street location. The county’s Parks and Recreation Commission has been exploring other possible location options over the last year, including consolidating different senior services – such as the Senior Center Network, Veterans Affairs, and the Commission on Aging – into one building on the LaFranier Road campus. That could still be an option in the future, according to County Administrator Nate Alger, even if the county continues to offer programming and services on East Front Street as a Traverse City “outreach” location. “There is a lot of efficiency there, so I do think there will be movement for that,” Alger says.
In the meantime, the county and city must resolve a more time-sensitive issue related to the Senior Center. The county’s lease for the facility expires at the end of 2021, so city and county administrators have been working on the terms of a lease extension. City Manager Marty Colburn was out of the office Monday and could not be reached for comment, but Alger says he has exchanged draft agreements with Colburn and believes the two entities are close to approving a short-term agreement to continue county operations on East Front Street for at least another year or two while working on a rebuild strategy. Alger says that commission approval of Wednesday’s resolution could “bode very well” for a continued county-city partnership on the East Front Street property.
“To that end, we will commit to providing Senior Center services regardless of who owns the building as long as that is welcome by the city. The county will provide those services,” Alger says. He notes that Wednesday’s resolution echoes the original language and intention of the county-city agreement in 2018 to pursue a rebuild through a joint capital campaign. “It could look like the city owning the building, the county providing some funding, and the Senior Center Friends working on the capital campaign,” he says. “That’s what the original resolution said, to engage in this capital campaign.”