Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Mdot Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berrien County commissioners question signing of MDOT support resolution for Saint Joseph project
Summary
Commissioners raised liability, precedent and courthouse access concerns after a committee forwarded a resolution supporting an MDOT project for Saint Joseph. Several commissioners said they will not sign the resolution without answers; the matter is being returned to the full board for consideration.
Berrien County commissioners voiced reservations about signing a resolution of support for a Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) project affecting the Saint Joseph area, saying they need more information about liability, precedent and impacts to county facilities.
The matter came up during the board's administration committee report, when committee materials described a resolution "ending in 280" that would register the county's support for the MDOT project. Committee members said only one committee member had signed the resolution and that further answers were needed before additional signatures would be added.
Commissioner Sharon said she "plans to oppose the bill" unless outstanding questions are answered and cited concerns that the county could face lawsuits or increased workload even if the resolution does not legally shift liability. "I am going to play it safe. I don't need to add additional work to our county road department because they will be fielding calls just because you support it," she said.
Other commissioners expressed similar caution about setting a precedent by formally supporting an MDOT project the county has not previously endorsed. One commissioner said signing could be interpreted by the public as county endorsement and might draw complaints or expectations of county responsibility for project outcomes.
County staff and committee members said they would provide additional information. At one point a commissioner asked whether the document was a simple letter of support or if it carried funding or right-of-way implications; the committee chair said copies of the resolution would be circulated to the full board and suggested clarifying questions could be handled offline.
Sheriff Chuck Heitney addressed the board during public comment and urged county involvement on the project because of public-safety and facility-access concerns. He said the project could affect 24/7 access to the sheriff's sally port and jail and stressed the need for alternative routes during construction. "The county has got to be involved in this," he said.
The administration committee report identified related project locations including US-12 and city streets; committee members said they remain unsure whether signing would create any county obligations. No final board vote on the resolution was recorded during this meeting; several commissioners said they would withhold their signatures until the questions are answered.
The resolution will return to the full board for consideration once committee members circulate the document and staff provide the requested clarifications.
Authorities referenced in the discussion included the resolution described in committee materials (referred to repeatedly as the resolution "ending in 280").
