Residents urge Part 307 petition to preserve Fawcett Lake; board adds signature-validity request before filing

Dozens of Livingston County residents urged the County Board of Commissioners to approve a Part 324.307 petition to set a normal lake level and establish a special assessment district (SAD) for Fawcett Lake, arguing the dam is aging, has documented seepage and erosion, and needs a formal financing and maintenance structure.

At the public-comment period, several property owners described the lake’s history and the limits of private maintenance. A resident who chronicled the dam’s condition said an engineering report in 2007 found deficiencies and recommended options including lowering the lake or improving the embankment; residents argued that Part 307 gives lake owners access to county procurement, longer-term financing schedules and insurance mechanisms without requesting county dollars. “Part 307 gives us access to qualified contractors, stable funding through a formal assessment structure, and the ability to finance major repairs over time,” one homeowner said. Several others stressed they were asking for county process and authority, not county funding.

County staff and the consultant who completed a preliminary study told commissioners the study had identified repairs and that a court petition would be the next step toward establishing a SAD and a lake-level order. Staff outlined the sequence: a court determination of lake level, establishment of the SAD, development of plans, bids to determine final costs, and then resident hearings on assessments.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about ownership records and petition signatures after research turned up a quick-claim deed for one parcel (4300 Fawcett Road) that appeared to transfer and then subdivide ownership shortly before petition signatures were submitted. Commissioner Nakagiri said he found quitclaim records indicating the parcel had been split into multiple owners, which raised the question whether the statutory “two-thirds of owners” threshold had been reached legitimately. Board members debated whether that issue would be dispositive and whether the court should resolve it.

To address the concern, Vice Chair Dirk proposed — and the board approved — language amending the petition request so the county attorney would ask the circuit court to also rule on the validity of signatures dated prior to the quitclaim deed (January 24, 2025) and whether those signatures meet the two-thirds owner requirement under MCL 324.30702. The amended resolution then passed in roll-call votes.

County staff and consultants said the likely immediate repair cost ranges from a ‘patch’ (the consultant cited a short-term patch estimate of roughly $250,000) to a more comprehensive rebuilding of the spillway that would carry a longer service life and higher price. Staff also said the State’s dam-safety unit (EGLE) had been engaged earlier and that the dam owner is required to submit inspection reports; if repairs are not done, the state review process could require drawdown or removal.

Next steps outlined by staff: the county attorney would file the petition in circuit court; the court process would determine and enter a lake-level order and establish the SAD if appropriate; then the county would proceed with engineering plans, bidding, and hearings to set apportionments and assessments. The board’s action authorizes the county to proceed to court with that amended petition, recognizing that the court may be asked to resolve ownership-signature issues as part of the petition process.