Finance committee backs forwarding $2.92 million Dean Lake assessment and bond to full board amid resident cost concerns

The Kent County Finance Committee voted to forward to the full Kent County Board of Commissioners a recommendation to approve the Dean Lake Lake Level Special Assessment District assessment roll and authorize issuance of bonds not to exceed $2,915,588.32 to fund lake-level improvements and an outlet system.

Residents who live on Dean Lake urged the committee to pause and provide more analysis after project costs rose from the roughly $1.1 million estimate used in earlier proceedings to the $2.915 million computation of cost the drain commission presented. Brian Walters, president of the Dean Lake Association, told the committee the jump in the estimate means an assessment that residents have calculated could reach nearly $24,000 per household and asked the county for a “deeper dive” before moving forward.

The recommendation before the committee would authorize the county to pledge limited-tax full faith and credit as backup security for a Dean Lake Lake Level Special Assessment District bond series 2025 and to execute related financing documents. The drain commissioner presented the computation of cost and staff and consultants described project scope, permitting and schedule constraints that county staff said create a compressed timeline for awarding construction contracts.

Why it matters: The county is the delegated authority for maintaining court-established lake levels under Part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. The circuit court previously established the normal lake level for Dean Lake by order dated Oct. 27, 2022. Because the county may be asked to pledge credit on bonds and because special assessments are charged to property owners, commissioners said the decision requires careful review but also must respect statutory timelines and bid holds.

What residents told commissioners: Several property owners said the project’s cost escalation is unexplained and that they have received only high-level detail from the drain office. Brian Walters, president of the Dean Lake Association, asked for additional analysis and time, saying, “Are there any alternatives available to manage the cost of this?” Other residents said they support a fix to reduce flooding but objected to the scale of the assessments.

County and consultant explanation: The drain commissioner and consultants told the committee the difference between the early estimate and the current computation of cost reflects multiple factors: scope changes identified during detailed design, sections of the required outlet pipe that must be installed under roadway pavement rather than outside the pavement (which requires road replacement), permitting and downstream drainage improvements, and construction-market inflation. Kevin Gooders, project manager for consulting engineer Prynne and Neuhof, said preliminary assumptions had allowed the pipe to be placed outside pavement but detailed utility and right-of-way findings required in-road installation for portions of the route. He also said design and controls work were refined to ensure downstream protection.

On inflation and equipment, Gooders said, “I’ll say again, I know there’s disagreement about this, but inflation is the major one. We’ve seen, especially with pump station projects like this for municipal-type stations, 15 to 20% a year inflation.” The drain district attorney, Stacy Hisong of Fahey Schultz Bersick Rhodes, summarized the legal framework that governs lake levels and assessment roles and explained that the circuit court decides which parcels are included in the district while the county board approves project costs and financing.

Parcel counts and costs: Commissioners and staff discussed the number of parcels in the assessment district. Speakers gave slightly different counts during the discussion as splits and parcel changes were being finalized; the committee discussed a figure in the range of roughly 124–134 parcels. The drain commissioner presented a computation of cost of $2,915,588.32. County staff and bond counsel said bonds would be sold to cover construction and that property owners would have the option to prepay to avoid interest if they chose.

Schedule and risk: County staff and bond counsel told the committee that bids taken for construction were on 90-day bid holds, a common practice contractors now use to limit price exposure amid volatile material markets. Committee members were told that delaying action until a later meeting likely would push construction into a later season, increase costs and risk losing current bid prices; in some cases, future permitting decisions by EGLE could make similar permitting harder to obtain.

Committee vote and next steps: Vice Chair McLeod moved and Commissioner Oliver King supported forwarding the recommendation to the full Board of Commissioners. The committee vote passed; the item will appear on the full board agenda next week for final decision. Commissioners and staff agreed to offer detailed invoice- and line-item information to interested property owners and to coordinate a meeting with association leadership.

Appeals and legal process: Staff reminded the committee that property owners retain administrative and legal remedies. The statute provides for appeals and the transcript and consultants flagged that dissatisfied property owners may raise appeals in a court of competent jurisdiction, where assessments and certain aspects of the process can be reviewed.

What remains: If the full board approves the assessment roll and authorizes bonds, staff will proceed with financing and construction per the bid and permit schedule. If the board declines or property owners successfully appeal, the county may face additional costs and delay, and staff cautioned the permit environment and market conditions could make the same project more expensive or more difficult to permit in the future.

For now, the committee’s vote advances the assessment roll and the bond authorization to the full Kent County Board of Commissioners for final action.