Skip to main content



WHEREAS, the location of state offices and facilities can profoundly effect economic development, investment activity, accessibility to government services, traffic flow, and development patterns;

WHEREAS, the location of state offices and facilities financially impacts communities, including costs associated with roads, sewers, water, utilities, and other government services;

WHEREAS, locating state government offices and facilities on greenfield sites or open space can result in a more costly pattern of development for state and local governments;

WHEREAS, locating state offices and facilities in downtowns, town centers, and central business districts can stimulate revitalization and investment, make optimum use of existing infrastructure, facilitate access to government services, and decrease sprawl;

WHEREAS, prudent location of state offices minimizes the long-term public costs of state activities, advances the long-term interests of Michigan communities, and represents an important step in preserving Michigan’s open spaces;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of the State of Michigan, in accordance with powers vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, direct:

  1. Departments and autonomous agencies whenever reasonably possible shall avoid constructing state offices or facilities, or leasing space for state offices or facilities, on greenfield sites or other non-central locations that require the construction of new infrastructure to service the office or facility, except in limited circumstances when the constituency served or programs supported require the use of a non-central or open space location.
  2. State departments and autonomous agencies shall encourage public investment in Michigan’s downtowns, town centers, and central business districts (“Urban Areas”) by encouraging the location of federal, local, and other government offices and facilities in Urban Areas.
  3. Departments and autonomous agencies shall, whenever reasonably possible, locate state offices or facilities at locations consistent with local planning and zoning, and compatible with existing land uses.
  4. In selecting a site for a state office or facility, departments and autonomous agencies shall give priority to locations in Urban Areas, whenever reasonably possible and consistent with state law. In making location decisions, departments and autonomous agencies shall also give consideration to the following:
    1. Use of existing space in state-owned facilities in Urban Areas.
    2. Consolidation of operations into single facilities in an Urban Area.
    3. Adaptive use or rehabilitation of historic buildings or reuse of other buildings within an Urban Area.
    4. Use of vacant buildings in an Urban Area.
    5. Use of vacant land in an Urban Area.
    6. Use and rehabilitation of brownfield areas.
  5. If suitable space for a state office or facility is not available in an Urban Area, or if such space is programmatically unacceptable, the department or agency, when applying for approval or renewal of an office or facility location, shall submit to the Department of Management and Budget a statement signed by the department director or autonomous agency head explaining the department or agency’s preference for a non-central location. All proposed locations must be consistent with the following goals:
    1. Improvement of the fiscal capability and economic resources of developed areas, particularly those experiencing fiscal and economic deterioration.
    2. Preservation of agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas.
    3. Encouragement of the conservation and revitalization of neighborhoods.
    4. Consistency with local or regional planning and zoning.
  6. In determining whether the state’s best interests are served by locating state offices or facilities within an Urban Area, the following factors shall be considered, consistent with Michigan law:
    1. The nature of the operations performed or to be performed at the location.
    2. Whether operations proposed for the site are consistent with surrounding land uses, the character of the geographic area, and existing public services and infrastructure.
    3. Whether modifications in department or agency space requirements, such as the number and location of parking spaces, design of floor plans, and the consolidation of functions, have been considered to facilitate the location of the office or facility within an Urban Area.
    4. The broad, comprehensive, and long-term costs among alternative locations.
    5. The programmatic and physical accessibility of the location to persons served by the office or facility.
    6. Whether the location of the office or facility contributes to the attainment of the goals outlined in this Directive.
  7. Executive Directive 1980-1 is rescinded in its entirety.

This Directive is effective immediately.

The assistance of department and agencies in implementing this Directive and the continued hard work of state employees are appreciated.

Given under my hand this 18th day of November, 2003.

Jennifer M. Granholm