Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council gives direction to negotiate use of water-plant land for MDOT bridge contractor staging
Summary
Brighton staff briefed council on a proposal from the MDOT bridge contractor (CA Hull) to stage equipment at the city's water-plant property during a two-year bridge reconstruction project; council supported beginning formal negotiations with conditions to prohibit hazardous materials and require site restoration.
City staff presented a proposal on Feb. 11 to allow CA Hull (the MDOT contractor for the I-96 diverging-diamond interchange bridge rehabilitation) to use a portion of the Brighton water-plant property as a staging and storage yard for construction materials.
Why it matters: The staging site would help the contractor stage steel forms, sheet piling, trailers and other construction material less than a mile from the work zone, which staff said could reduce truck travel on public roads while providing the city some passive rental income and improvement work to the plant site.
What staff described
- Use and materials: Staff said the contractor would store non-hazardous construction items such as concrete forms, steel pilings, shipping containers for specialty formwork, a water tanker, a crane and associated rigging, and 53-foot trailers. The contractor told staff it would not store fuel barrels or hazardous chemicals on site, and excavation spoil would not be dumped on the property (presentation at 2833.01–3000.52).
- Site access and security: The water-plant site is fenced and camera-monitored; staff said that was a factor in the contractor’s site preference. The staging area would be constrained away from the wells and retention basins and would use an existing entrance and gated access, with delineation to keep vehicles out of protected zones (3191.135–3288.9302).
- Timing and traffic: Staff said the staging use would be for the duration of the bridge project (projected as a two-year construction window into 2026). Most truck movements would occur during morning and evening periods, not continuous daily traffic, though the contractor will work some night shifts during certain closure stages (3362.185–3601.065). The site is less than one mile from the bridge work, on Chalice Road.
Council direction and conditions
Council members raised concerns about potential contamination at a wellhead-protection site and roadway wear at the plant entrance. City staff and council recommended several contract protections: an explicit prohibition on fuels or hazardous-material storage, contractor responsibility for any cleanup, site restoration at project end, and the inclusion of compensation terms for passive rental of the land. Attorney Gabis would lead negotiations and draft a proposed agreement to return to council for approval (2912.685–2973.9; 3915.0352–3922.155).
Outcome
Council signaled consensus to move forward with negotiations and directed staff to work with the city attorney to produce a draft agreement for future council consideration. Staff said any specific rental amount and final environmental or traffic protections would be negotiated and returned to council for approval.
