Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press Wolverine Lake to move sewer off private land; council says condemnation process underway

Wolverine Lake Village Council · May 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents urged the village to move a sewer line off private property rather than pursue lengthy condemnation; council members said condemnation procedures are being followed and the Water Resource Commissioner has been servicing drains in the area.

Residents at the village's second public‑comment period urged the council to resolve a long‑running sewer location dispute, saying the pipe sits on private property and asking the village to move it into the right‑of‑way.

At the meeting a resident who identified a parcel by address asked repeatedly for a timetable and said people hired to work on the sewer had been on his property. The council responded that it is following condemnation procedures and that the legal process constrains what it can disclose and do immediately.

Chief Solvik (the chief referenced on the record) said the Water Resource Commissioner’s Office (WRC) had been servicing drain work in the area and that WRC provides countywide services; he clarified that those crews do not work for the village but for Oakland County. The exchange focused on who is responsible for on‑site work and what the village can authorize while condemnation proceedings continue.

William Berndorf, a longtime resident, urged the council to take direct action to relocate the sewer using public crews and equipment rather than spending on condemnation. “Just move it,” Berndorf said, arguing that moving the sewer to the right‑of‑way would be a straightforward fix and less costly than a prolonged condemnation process.

Council members acknowledged the resident frustrations and said they could not give a definitive timeline; staff and counsel were cited as the channels for legal questions. The council directed follow‑up through staff and said the issue would remain a prioritized, monitored matter.

The discussion did not produce a final resolution at the meeting; the council instructed staff and counsel to continue working through the condemnation process and to report back to the resident and the council when there is substantive movement.