Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Ecology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 10‑year Fish Pass maintenance agreement with contingency planning
Summary
The commission authorized a 10‑year post-construction memorandum of agreement (MOA) for Fish Pass, outlining operation and maintenance responsibilities; commissioners pressed staff about long‑term decommissioning, annual costs and timing.
Traverse City voted to authorize execution of a 10‑year post‑construction memorandum of agreement for Fish Pass, a selective fish-passage research and infrastructure project at the Boardman River dam site.
Why it matters: the MOA sets roles and responsibilities for operation and maintenance after construction. Commissioners asked detailed questions about long-term ownership, decommissioning options, annual maintenance costs and whether the city would face open-ended obligations if the research concludes.
The commission authorized the mayor and city clerk to execute the MOA; the Grand Traverse Band had already signed the agreement and other partners were prepared to sign. The motion was made by Commissioner Stanley and seconded by Commissioner Treadwell. Roll-call vote was 6 in favor, 1 opposed (Commissioner Anderson).
Public‑works and partner presentations: Frank Deterrier, Director of Public Services, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission representatives described the MOA as including an asset-management approach and contingency funding to handle long‑term modifications or removal. Great Lakes Fishery Commission lead engineer said the signatories had developed estimates for annual operations and preliminary engineering for potential future modifications, including converting a research channel to a traditional fishway or removing portions of the facility if research ends.
Commissioner Anderson asked what a decommissioning scenario would look like and whether the city could face lifetime obligations for a constructed channel. Staff said final configurations will depend on research outcomes and technology advances; the MOA and asset-management plan include estimated costs and funds to cover potential future modifications. The city’s Public Services director said earlier maintenance has included regular debris removal and gate operations, but the post‑construction operating profile would likely change and was accounted for in the plan.
Cost and timing: staff said an in‑kind estimate of the city’s routine maintenance responsibility had been calculated (the packet included an estimated in‑kind value that staff described around $27,000 per year), but they acknowledged uncertainties and said some tasks may be contracted while warranty periods will cover certain items (for example, the green roof warranty covers initial years). Construction and the research schedule reported in staff comments forecast dam construction completing in 2026 and non‑research site elements in 2027.
Commissioners debated whether the city should postpone approval for additional study. Supporters said partner expertise, available contingency funds and prior multi‑board review argued for moving forward; opponents asked for clearer high‑/low cost ranges and more staff analysis. The commission approved the MOA so partners could finalize post‑construction readiness and responsibilities.
What’s next: the mayor and clerk will execute the MOA, and staff will monitor operations, report maintenance costs and bring material changes back to the commission.
