At a discussion-only meeting Oct. 23, the East Lansing City Council reviewed current plans and partner proposals for the project.

Essentially, three district courts — 54-A in Lansing, 54-B in East Lansing and 55 in Mason — would all move into one new specially-constructed building. Included in the 54-B District Court building is East Lansing City Hall, which could also move into the new building.

City Manager George Lahanas said there has been talk of constructing the building near the southern end of Michigan State University’s campus, though it was announced during the meeting the proposed property may no longer be available.

Each district housed within the new facility would receive the same services currently available at the separate district courthouses.

Some reasons for the proposed move are conditions in East Lansing and Ingham County jails, which have been described as outdated and too small.

Lahanas said in a presentation to the council that consolidating courts and jails would increase efficiency and decrease costs, specifically when it comes to transporting detained persons from jail to court.

It would also cut down on staff, though no one would be laid off. Lahanas said when employees retired or quit their responsibilities would be absorbed into another position.

Lahanas said he expects to be out of the exploratory stages and into more concrete planning in roughly three months, if all goes as planned.

In order for plans to move forward, the council would need to support state legislation allowing district court consolidation to move forward. The joint court staffs of East Lansing, Lansing and Ingham County would need to develop a model of how the consolidated county court would function before council could take formal action.

Judge Andrea Larkin of the 54-B District Court came out as a strong critic of the consolidation plans. According to Larkin, East Lansing’s unique demographics led to the separation of 54-B from 54-A in 1971, when the Legislature “realized issues that occur in a college town are simply different from those than those that occur in the city.”

She also criticized the plan as easing the load of other entities at East Lansing’s expense.

“Many of the projected cost savings are not savings to East Lansing, they’re savings to the state of Michigan, savings to the county and savings to the city of Lansing,” she said.

Distance was another problem for the judge. Larkin felt city workers and residents from all over the county coming to a new court would make the situation clumsy, adding “costs and inconvenience ... to the citizens who need to travel to the newly located court and conduct their business,” she said.

Councilmember Aaron Stephens was also concerned about distance.

“We have a large student population here that maybe within their first year might be dealing with courts,” Stephens said. “Making sure students have accessibility and residents who don’t have transportation have accessibility is a big priority.”

The discussion ended with much for the council to consider over the next year, after which the legislation authorizing the consolidation will expire without city approval. Mayor Mark Meadows said it was at least worth the effort for the city to explore consolidation.

“We’re going to get to the bottom of this,” Meadows said. “If we don’t work it out, we’re right where we were. I don’t think there’s any damage if we do that.”