Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Canal Repairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Huron council hears calls to halt canal repairs as costs and funding shortfalls grow
Summary
Residents urged the city to stop spending on Black River Canal repairs after township partners declined to contribute. City Manager James Fried said bids came in far over estimate, the canal gate fabrication would take more than 20 months, and most repair costs are for bank armoring rather than the gate itself.
Port Huron — Residents pressed the City of Port Huron to halt work and curb accumulating debt on Black River Canal repairs at the council’s February meeting, saying township neighbors who also use the waterway should share costs.
“Taxpayer dollars from the citizens of the city of Port Huron should not be allocated to cover the cost of repairs and maintenance for the Black River Canal,” said Marcus Middleton, a city resident.
Why it matters: The canal is a visible city asset and a driver of tourism; repair estimates and who must pay have become a central point of dispute. City staff told the council the price and schedule of repairs differ sharply from earlier expectations.
City Manager James Fried told the council he had been optimistic about opening the canal this year “until we opened up the bids.” Fried said the second phase of work came in more than $600,000 over budget and that fabricating the canal gate alone would take “more than 20 months.” He added townships contacted about cost-sharing were not in a position to contribute.
Fried described the project’s cost breakdown to the council: of roughly $4.5 million in estimated repairs, about $1.4 million is for the gate and roughly $3 million would pay for armoring and stabilizing the canal banks along both sides. He said the insurance company would not fully cover a century-old piece of concrete: “The insurance company would only insure a hundred year old piece of concrete for a hundred grand.”
Several residents tied the canal debate to broader concerns about infrastructure and pollution. One speaker raised recent notices about two local businesses and said they appeared to be discharging material that exceeded PFAS levels; the mayor and staff said the city issues notices and monitors discharges and that required prevention programs are in place.
Council action and next steps: No vote to change the repair plan occurred at the meeting. Several residents called for stopping further work and exploring a referendum under the city charter; Marcus Middleton cited sections of the charter and said he would pursue a citizens’ initiative if the council did not act.
What the city said: Fried told the council the higher bid amounts, the long fabrication timeline for the gate, and the townships’ unwillingness to fund repairs had changed the project timeline and the city’s ability to proceed this season. He said much of the expense is bank armoring rather than the gate itself and confirmed that the townships contacted had declined to fund the work.
Community reaction: Speakers repeatedly asked that the city halt design and spending until a funding agreement is reached with surrounding jurisdictions or a clearer plan is presented to residents. Others asked about insurance coverage and whether the city had options to reduce costs.
Looking ahead: Council members did not adopt a new canal funding plan at the meeting. Fried indicated the city would continue to evaluate bids and funding options; residents who spoke said they would pursue formal referendums or other citizen-driven measures if the council moves ahead without broader cost-sharing.
