Committee presses administration for clarity after city splits demolition contracts to rent fencing separately

The Detroit City Council Public Health and Safety Standing Committee on Monday asked the administration for clearer cost and operational detail after the city separated fencing from demolition and backfill work and put the fencing work out for rental contracts.

The change, presented by Alwine Counts, group executive of construction and building operations, removes fencing and site backfill from the single contractor responsibility that traditionally covered knockdown, loadout and site finalization. “When we made the decision to pull the backfill portion out … we had this gap on the fencing side of things,” Counts said. She explained the city plans to rent fencing and control its use across multiple emergency-demolition sites rather than purchase and store large quantities of materials.

Committee members said the split caused confusion about which budget lines will pay for fencing, whether blight funds are being used for short-term safety fencing, and how the city will avoid duplicative costs. “I think the first thing I'm trying to understand … is the use of blight funding for fencing, in particular for commercial property. And why are we fencing commercial property?” Council Member Mary Waters said. Counts responded the fencing is “solely for the purposes of performing the demolition” and not for long-term site security.

Counts told the committee the change was operationally driven: the city lacks storage and workforce capacity to hold and install fencing for every emergency demolition and that renting would let the city put fencing in place quickly and then remove it for the next site. “It made more safety sense as well as cost saving wise for us to be able to have access to a fencing contractor so that we could control that individually,” she said.

Members pressed for written cost breakdowns and for the administration to show how the new approach preserves safety while remaining cost-effective. Member Scott Benson asked if the city had time to answer outstanding questions; the administration said it can continue current work in the near term while refining the process. Waters asked that, instead of separate contracts, future filings itemize fencing and related line items within each demolition contract so the council can see the full per-project cost.

The committee voted without objection to bring items 5.1 and 5.5 back in one week for further discussion and follow-up meetings with the group executive. Related emergency-demolition items (5.2 and 5.4) were scheduled to return in two weeks; notifications of other demolition contracts were also carried forward for confirmation of property details and utility clearances. One emergency-demolition item (contract 3082977, 13652 Steel) that had already been demolished was approved and sent to formal with recommendation to approve.

The committee emphasized the issue as one of health, safety and operational clarity. Members asked the administration for: itemized budgets showing where fencing costs are charged, the expected lifespan or rental cadence for fencing material, and documentation of how the split will affect timelines for emergency demolitions.

The committee will reconvene on the fencing contracts after the administration provides the requested cost detail and a follow-up meeting is scheduled for later this week.