Posted on June 13, 2018
By Jim Kasuba, News-Herald
In one of the more controversial votes members have cast over the past several years, the Wyandotte City Council has opted to put the brakes on a planned transient marina.
During its June 4 meeting, Leo Stevenson, a member of the city’s Marina Committee, made what many on the council said was a convincing argument as to why a marina should be built at Bishop Park, but it was a letter from City Attorney William Look that helped seal its doom.
City Engineer Mark Kowalewski, who also is a member of the committee, explained to the council during its Jan. 22 meeting that dredging will not be completed in time to meet the requirements of a $1,170,500 grant the city received for the transient marina project.
The funding would have come through the Great Lakes Legacy Act, with the hope that the companies that caused the pollution would pay for part of the cleanup costs. The dredging project would have been overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The council opted to refer the city engineer’s letter to the Bishop Park Marina Committee for comments and observations.
At that time, city officials were in general agreement that the marina project could not begin until after the affected portion of the Detroit River had been dredged.
The Marina Committee met on Feb. 1, and then again on May 16, where Stevenson presented a motion, approved by the committee, requesting the City Council approve a new marina location because it would not require dredging.
At the June 4 council meeting, he told city officials that the Marina Committee was formed four years ago and during that time has extensively researched the topic.
They looked at construction and operating costs of the marina, potential marina usage and its value to the community.
“The committee had dozens of meetings over the past four year with the EPA, DNR, Michigan Department of Fisheries, Detroit Port Authority, engineering firms, construction firms, marina operators, Wayne County officials, business owners and citizens,” Stevenson said.
Still viable, some argue
First and foremost, Stevenson said, the committee determined the city could still build the transient marina within its budgeted amount, including money set aside by the city’s Tax Increment Finance Authority.
The second issue members determined was that if a marina were to be built, it definitely would be used. The committee hired a marketing firm that surveyed a number of boaters 30 miles south of the city, as well as those residing 30 miles north of the city, all with incomes in excess of $200,000. Of those who responded to the survey, 98 percent said they would use the marina consistently and for multiple nights.
The committee also believes that if built, there are plenty of business people who would be willing to run it on the city’s behalf.
As for liability to the city during construction, Stevenson said after conferring with an EPA employee, it is the committee’s belief that environmental concerns would be addressed in the permitting process.
“We’re not putting Wyandotte in financial jeopardy by going down this path,” he said.
In answer to the city’s major concern over the need to dredge contamination prior to constructing the marina, Stevenson said because the federal government has delayed the dredging for several years down the road, the area where the marina was going to be constructed is no longer viable.
“It’s not viable because the grant expires in one year,” Stevenson said. “We wanted the marina to be near the American Legion, leading up to Oak Street. But we needed the dredging there to allow the yachts and larger vessels to come in because water depths are not sufficient.”
Stevenson said that by moving the marina an additional 340 feet south from the original site, starting at the base of Oak Street, proceeding to Elm Street, no dredging would be required.
He acknowledged that some people have said views of people sitting in their cars looking at the river will be blocked, but said an argument could be made that their views will actually be enhanced by looking at “vessels worth several hundred thousand dollars.”
The last item they looked at would be a marina’s impact on Wyandotte.
“The marina will make Wyandotte a destination point,” Stevenson said. “It will transform Bishop Park into a more upscale venue. We really feel this is a game changer after looking at all the issues.”
Councilman Leonard Sabuda, who has been the most vocal advocate of a marina for the last 17 or 18 years, asked the council to reconsider Councilman Robert DeSana’s motion to concur with Kowalewski’s recommendation to withdraw the city’s grant application with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boating Infrastructure Program, essentially turning down the $1,170,500 grant.
DeSana and his colleagues agreed with Kowalewski that the marina will not be able to be built by April 2019 when the grant expires. DeSana said he also has issues with the new location where the committee said it would like to place the marina.
Kowalewski told the council that the city can re-apply for the grant and, for a number of reasons, believes Wyandotte would be high on the list to win a new grant.
Although the government has pushed back the dredging schedule more than once, city officials said they believe it probably will take place in 2021.
Too much liability
The overriding reason the council cited for withdrawing from the grant application and waiting for the EPA to conduct dredging was because of the legal opinion expressed by the city attorney.
“If the city constructs a marina over a contaminated site in the Detroit River, the city becomes legally responsible for any release of contaminants now or in the future from this site under strict liability pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),” Look said in his recommendation.
Look reminded the council that the city’s Department of Municipal Service is under scrutiny, pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act, for possible contribution of contaminants to the Detroit River. He said the department is paying an environmental consultant and an attorney to protect its interests.
“At a conference on Jan. 15, 2014, the speakers from the EPA noted the Upper Trenton Channel may be the most contaminated area of the Detroit River and they noted it is a fast-moving channel which can cause issues with construction or clean up,” Look said.
Previous environmental reports showed mercury, PCB and PAH (example: coal) in the river. Look said if pilings are going to be driven into the riverbed, the potential exists for the release of existing contaminants.
“The city would be liable if any exacerbation occurred during the construction or afterwards,” he said. “Exacerbation occurs when an activity by the owner of property causes an existing contaminant to migrate beyond the property boundaries.”
In the resolution, the council instructed Kowalewski to monitor the progress of the EPA’s Great Lakes Legacy Dredging Program and to report back to the council when an agreement has been signed with industry partners to fund the required 50 percent matching portion of the dredging project.
The resolution states that at the time of notification, the council will reconsider the marina project and may reapply for grant funds.
Source: News-Herald
