Consultants tell committee Water Street redevelopment will hinge on contamination cleanup, utilities and costs

Consultants presenting to the committee said the Water Street redevelopment will be constrained by historic contamination, deep utilities and variable fill that make some parts of the 37‑acre site costly to build on.

"This is a brownfield site with a complex history," said Scott, a consultant leading the slide presentation. He told the committee the site's 37 acres include roughly 30 acres available for redevelopment after the city retains a 100‑foot river strip of about six to seven acres.

Consultants said subsurface utilities are a major constraint: an existing sewer runs roughly 20 feet below grade across parts of the site, and relocating deep sewer mains would be "extremely expensive," increasing project costs and influencing what uses are feasible.

On contamination, staff and consultants said much of the site has been identified under Michigan environmental statutes as a site of environmental concern (Part 201) or as leaking underground storage tank sites (Part 213). "There are multiple underground storage tanks on several parcels," a consultant said, citing past removals and open investigations on parcels such as parcel 16.

Presenters described a prior cleanup along the city trail that led to a certificate of completion from the state environmental unit (EGLE), noting that the trail was remediated to recreational exposure assumptions. Consultants warned that if significant residential development is built adjacent to formerly remediated areas, regulators may apply residential cleanup criteria that are more stringent.

The group identified localized PCB "hot spots" in a central area and said EPA has signaled openness to risk‑based approaches (for example, capping or engineering controls) in some places rather than full excavation. Consultants advised developers to prepare soil‑management plans, testing regimens and engineering controls such as capping or vapor‑mitigation systems where needed.

Consultants also pointed to geotechnical constraints: maps show substantial fill across the site and pockets that may require deep foundations or pile driving in the southeast, which raises construction costs. The presenters recommended including geotechnical and environmental data in the RFQ so prospective developers can assess costs and feasibility upfront.

The consultants said the presentation data will feed a Phase I environmental site assessment now being prepared; Phase I identifies Recognized Environmental Conditions, Phase II would test extent and materiality, and a baseline environmental assessment would document findings to the state to limit purchaser liability.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about groundwater testing, rail agreements, and the July 2029 deadline tied to an old rail access agreement. Consultants said groundwater sampling in some areas did not detect PCBs but noted further work is required in other media and locations.

The presenters urged the RFQ to require developers with brownfield experience and suggested phased approaches or parcelization to create early, smaller successes that can generate momentum and tax increment financing support for more costly remediation work.