Lake Improvement Board: Powers and Challenges

The process of altering, replacing or even eliminating the Lake Improvement Board turns out to be more complicated than one might think.  While the two townships and the village do have some influence with the LIB (as they each appoint a representative), their powers are limited by three other members (a member of the Manistee County Board of Commissioners, the Manistee County Drain Commissioner and a riparian/lakefront owner) and the rules that govern the LIB.

The Lake Improvement Board's operations are dictated by state law and its own bylaws, and can continue indefinitely, unless several conditions are met.  Michigan state law, specifically Public Act 451, Part 309, does not include any kind of expiration date, sunset clause or renewal requirement, as an earlier version of our report suggested.  The "every 5 year" statement actually pertains to the tasks of discussion and budget planning.

This first task, discussion of the LIB, does fall to the three governmental units, which pledged to meet jointly every five years for this purpose.

The LIB's existence doesn't hinge on these meetings.  Even if all three entities were to unanimously decide at such a meeting that the LIB should be disbanded, several more steps would remain.  Otherwise, the LIB would continue its work.  Here is Pleasanton Township's pledge, contained in Resolution 1-2007 (which helped to establish the LIB):

In theory, this pledge for a joint meeting could even be broken (since the pledge was made in the form of a resolution, which states an intention or an opinion, rather than a law), and the LIB would still go on.  As it happens, the three municipalities honored their 2007 pledge, and met jointly this March.  According to the minutes of the meeting (in full, below) there was "discussion by all present," but no action was taken.

The second task to be addressed every 5 years, that of budget planning, falls to the LIB itself.  It has to decide what further study and treatment is required (including costs for each) over the next five years, and how to assess lakefront owners in order to pay for that work.  The LIB has scheduled two public hearing sessions (one for each topic) for Thursday, July 19.  


In the meantime, the LIB has asked for a renewed endoresement from the municipalities and has requested another joint meeting in 2017.  The Village of Bear Lake passed such a resolution recently.  Bear Lake Township considered the resolution and decided against it, but may reconsider.  Pleasanton Township has not taken any action on the resolution.  Though the LIB does seek this approval, its existence does not depend on it.

Supervisor Merrill's alternative to the LIB could not replace the current LIB without undergoing the same process originally followed five years ago.  In addition, the current LIB would have to be dissolved first, which is only possible if four conditions are met (according to the last portion of Public Act 451, Part 309, article 324.20929, below).  In short, each municipality would have to hold a public hearing on the specific topic of dissolving the LIB; any remaining LIB expenses must be paid; any excess monies collected from the special assessment district (lakefront owners, in this case) must be refunded; and the LIB's own members would have to take formal action to disband.