City launches drain‑code pilot for 8th Street outlet to tackle chronic stormwater problems

The commission heard a technical briefing on a proposed pilot drainage district for the 8th Street outlet aimed at resolving persistent stormwater conveyance and water‑quality problems near Masonic Avenue and the outfall to East Bay.

Andy Smithz, who was introduced to the commission as the drain commissioner, reviewed the administrative steps under Michigan’s drain code and said the city filed a chapter‑3 application on Nov. 8, 2024 to lay out the drainage district. He said the engineer of record is the Spicer Group and that the engineer's current scope includes field verification, route and design options, and a cost allocation model that would specify shares for municipalities, MDOT and private property owners. "When this effort is concluded, we'll not only have an idea of what to do and where to do it, but how much it's going to cost and what fraction is to be paid by residents, what fraction be paid by MDOT, [and] what fraction be paid by the county, the city, etc.," Smithz said.

Smithz described the technical problem as largely historic infrastructure installed in the 1960s that, combined with a change in slope and a narrowing of pipe diameter toward the outfall, increases flow velocity and causes recurring manhole blowoffs and structural failures. He said the drain‑code process will include boundary verification, surveying, a public hearing before a board of determination if a petition proceeds, and an allocation based on benefits derived rather than taxable value.

Key project facts discussed during the session:

- The chapter‑3 application date: Nov. 8, 2024 (on file). - Consultant/engineer of record: Spicer Group (retained by the drain commissioner). - Current administrative budget for the engineer work: $28,000 (administration/engineering at this stage). - The consultant was reported as moving ahead and expected to mobilize for detailed boundary work and survey work in the coming weeks, with a target to complete chapter‑3 work in summer or early fall so the city can decide whether to proceed to petition.

Commissioners raised questions about how success will be measured; Smithz said obvious metrics include fewer citizen complaints and measurable improvements in water‑quality sampling. Commissioners also pressed who will pay. Smithz explained a two‑tier approach: at‑large municipal assessments (the city, county and road commission are typically assessed a share) and per‑property portionment for beneficiaries inside the district. He noted that some public lands are exempt from assessments unless the entity agrees to be assessed, and that the allocation must be defensible because property owners can appeal during the statutory review period.

Staff and commissioners also flagged the broader legal and permitting context: federal MS4 requirements for urbanized areas overlap with local planning, and litigation such as the 'Bolt' case in Lansing has complicated statutory authority for stormwater utilities. Several commissioners noted that legislative fixes have been proposed over the years but are not yet enacted, which partly explains the decision to use the well‑tested drain‑code process rather than pursue a city‑wide stormwater utility statute.

Next steps identified in the study session included having the Spicer Group finalize boundary verification and the allocation model, local outreach during mobilization (including site visits), and a public‑notice process if a petition is filed; the commission asked staff to return with updates to public comment forums and estimated project costs when available.