Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drain Code Korando topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commissioners to back Drain Code changes after Korando Drain dispute
Summary
Hagar Township residents urged the Berrien County Board to support four House Bills to change the Drain Code and pressed for audits and clearer notification after the contested Korando Drain assessment. The board was told it lacks authority to force audits of independent drain districts.
Chair R. McKinley Elliott opened the July 16 meeting of the Berrien County Board of Commissioners as several Hagar Township residents pressed the board to act on concerns about the Korando Drain.
Commissioner Chokwe Pitchford asked the board to consider supporting four House Bills aimed at amending the Drain Code of 1956: HB 5691 would change the timeframe landowners have to appeal apportionment or assessment costs; HB 5692 would require preliminary cost estimates and allow landowners to withdraw support within 21 days; HB 5693 would authorize or require performance audits of Drain Commissioners' offices; and HB 5694 would change notice procedures for drain projects. Pitchford asked that the bills be shared with the Drain Commissioner and Corporate Counsel for review.
Multiple Hagar Township residents told the commissioners they wanted audits and clearer notice of assessments. Izzy DiMaggio asked the Board and Corporate Counsel to “please review the Drain Code and look for the specific language that prevents the Commissioners from requesting an audit of a Drain Assessment” and asked whether there is a schedule and funding for repairs on a primary east–west road through Hagar, Coloma and Watervliet.
Other residents described concerns about procurement and project timelines. Thomas Goodwin said he never received mailed notification of an assessment and asked whether other notification methods are allowed. Kazinierz Maturlak said, “I feel the drain assessment is a financial burden” and asked whether petitioning could pause work until questions are answered.
Corporate Counsel told the board — as summarized in committee reports — that each drainage district is a separate corporate body and that the Board of Commissioners does not have authority over the books or records of a drainage district, nor direct control over the Drain Commissioner’s activities. Commissioners discussed sharing Pitchford’s bill information with the Drain Commissioner and Corporate Counsel before any Board resolution.
No formal resolution was adopted at the meeting to endorse the bills or to compel audits. Commissioners Alex Ott and others said they would support preparing a resolution for the board to consider; Interim Administrator Mike Sepic and Corporate Counsel were asked to coordinate reviews with the Drain Commissioner. The board took no immediate action to halt work on the Korando Drain.
