Walled Lake hears petition to form chapter 20 drainage district for wastewater plant

An Oakland County resource engineer told the Walled Lake City Council she has petitioned to form a chapter 20 drainage district to combine oversight of the city’s wastewater treatment plant and the Walled Lake arm with the cities of Novi and a portion of Commerce Township.

The presenter, identified in the meeting as Maryl Krueger of the Oakland County Resource Commission, said much of the plant dates to the 1960s and later additions and that a major capital-improvement plan would be needed. "I project that this would be a total of a $6,000,000 project with your portion being about $2,000,000 over the next 5 or 6 years," Krueger said, and said Walled Lake’s share would be apportioned by flow — roughly one-third of the plant’s influent.

Krueger described several high-cost items in the plan, including lining and repair of the Walled Lake arm piping, replacement or rehabilitation of electric motor control centers and power panels, ventilation upgrades to meet code, and concrete sludge-tank lining and repair. She said the chapter 20 framework would create a drainage district board that would receive regular updates, approve invoices and contracts, and allow participating jurisdictions to spread certain operational and capital costs across the district rather than leaving them entirely on a single city.

Council members and city officials pressed for more detail on legal authority, voting representation and cost allocation. Multiple speakers warned that a drainage district would create another separate government entity with its own board and cautioned the council not to cede leverage without clear protections for Walled Lake. One speaker urged careful design of voting rights, noting a concern that the city could become a minority on decisions. Krueger said the drainage district would be able to pursue commercial users that cause obstructions or blockages (for example, grease or FOG) and that enforcement could be easier as a multi-jurisdictional entity, though she acknowledged legal steps to pursue responsible parties could be complex.

Councilmembers asked whether the plant service could be separated; Krueger replied the plant is a single influent/treatment system and cannot practically be split. She also said the drainage district would set how projects are funded and that members could choose to fund projects as they go instead of issuing a large bond up front. Krueger said documentation of flow allocations is available and that allocations would be based on measured flow.

After discussion, a council member moved to schedule further public discussion and follow-up meetings; Councilmember Casey Ambrose seconded the motion. Council instruction was that staff arrange a workshop meeting and, if appropriate, subsequent public hearings and legal review to explore options and draft terms; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with all members present voting yes.

Next steps recorded during the meeting included: staff to set a workshop date, the city attorney and county legal team to coordinate for clarifying legal questions, and a follow-up meeting to review draft documents prior to any public hearing. Council members said they expect additional meetings before any formal action to form a drainage district or to adopt intergovernmental agreements.