Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Lighting Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects MDOT gateway lighting agreement after questions about timing and lighting quality
Summary
The Battle Creek City Commission voted down a proposed $92,700 contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation for gateway lighting and aesthetic signing after commissioners questioned lighting quality on a previous project and the future of the overpass in MDOT's long-term plan.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Lighting Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Battle Creek City Commission voted down Resolution 48, a proposed contract authorizing the city manager to execute contract No. 24-5384 with the Michigan Department of Transportation for a gateway lighting and aesthetic signing project totaling $92,700.
The item was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion by Commissioner Simmons, who said lighting installed on the Capitol Avenue bridge over I-94 is poorly diffused at night and urged the city to ask MDOT to correct that earlier work before approving new projects. Simmons also said MDOT has discussed demolishing the bridge and converting the corridor to an at-grade boulevard in future years, and she questioned spending money on an element that might be removed in a decade.
The interim city manager and Steve Skalski, director of public works, responded that the proposed lighting for the gateway is similar to the existing treatment on Capitol Avenue and that the Pell study and any boulevard conversion remain at least 10 years out unless additional funding is secured. Skalski said the project had been bid previously but was rebid after earlier bids exceeded budget; MDOT is bidding it again now.
The manager's office added that the funds tied to the agreement are restricted to roadway projects and cannot simply be reallocated to other municipal priorities. Several members of the public had urged the commission to prioritize fire protection and other essential services over aesthetic signage.
A motion to approve Resolution 48 was moved and supported; after discussion Commissioner Simmons said she would vote no. The clerk announced that the resolution failed. The transcript does not record a roll-call breakdown of the vote or the mover and seconder by name for this motion.

