Commissioners table $300,000 Marion–Genoa drain advance after legal, equity disputes

The Livingston County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 22 voted to table consideration of a proposed $300,000 advance from the county's delinquent tax revolving fund to the Marion and Genoa Drainage District, postponing action until Oct. 20 after a lengthy debate over who should pay for improvements linked to a proposed racetrack and bypass road in the City of Howell.

The board's decision followed disagreement between county legal staff and the drain commission's office over whether the proposed resolution's language would improperly restrict the drain commissioner's statutory authority under Michigan's drain code. Drain Commissioner John Keir told the board the amendment circulated at the meeting —which would have limited the use of county revolving funds for project-related work—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Keir said the proposed amendment —added at the meeting—would ———contravene the whole idea of benefit derived listed under the drain code—and that his office's engineers must follow sections governing assessment and apportionment. ——————————————————————————————————————————————

Commissioner Wes Nakagiri said the board has discretionary authority over the delinquent tax revolving fund and argued the county should not use that fund to advance money that could result in longtime, unrelated district residents being assessed for improvements tied to private development.

"The board of commissioners has limited authority in this whole ... the expenditure or use of surplus delinquent tax revolving funds proceeds ... is solely within the discretionary authority of the board of commissioners," Nakagiri said, summarizing legal advice he had discussed with county counsel.

County counsel Rich McNulty told commissioners they have discretion to place conditions on the county's loan because the board controls how the revolving fund is used. McNulty said that discretion does not remove the drain commissioner's ability to apportion benefit under the drain code, but it does allow the county to set lending conditions.

Commissioner John Gross moved to table the resolution while legal staff and the drain office meet to resolve the conflicting views; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (table: 7, no: 2). The motion directs counsel to meet with the drain office and return a revised resolution for the board's Oct. 20 meeting.

The resolution on the table would have authorized an advance to pay preliminary engineering and related costs for drain work tied to development and a proposed bypass road; the board was told the $300,000 figure would repay an earlier note and fund further engineering to prepare for potential bond issuance. Drain staff said some project elements within Howell would be paid by the city or developer, but the scope and routing were not finalized.

Opponents of the amendment argued it could shield property owners from assessments they otherwise might legally incur under the drain code; proponents said county dollars should not be used where private developers or the city will receive most of the benefit. Keir said the drain office could pursue outside financing if the board's conditions made a county advance impractical.

For now, work on financing and the legal language will continue outside the public meeting; the board will revisit the matter Oct. 20.

Ending: The board took no loan action on Sept. 22; commissioners asked county counsel to meet with the drain office and return to the board with agreed language and any alternatives before the Oct. 20 meeting.