2025.07.25 Motion for Summary Disposition - Marilyn Myers (25-002552-TT) FINAL.pdf

Marilyn Myers, Petitioner V Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, Respondent · 25-002552-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

Page 1 of 9 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER/TONKIN DRAIN 

DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MOAHR DOCKET No. 25-002552-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In Pro Per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorney for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION1 

AND REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Mecosta County Drain Commissioner and Tonkin Drain 

Drainage District, through counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. Respondent also 

respectfully requests the Tribunal to award costs, as explained in more detail below. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 

The Tonkin Drain (the “Drain”) is an intra-county drain under the jurisdiction of the 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner. The Drain was established in 1904. Following a petition 

 

1 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r 792.10225 (Motions), subsection 6, provides that pleadings “on motions shall be limited to the 

motion and a brief in support of the motion.” Respondent’s motion and brief are combined herein for efficiency.

Page 2 of 9 

 

submitted to the Drain Commissioner under Michigan’s Drain Code (Public Act 40 of 1956, as 

amended) for maintenance and improvement of the Drain, a Board of Determination at a properly 

noticed public hearing found the petitioned work to be necessary and conducive to public health, 

convenience, or welfare. The Board of Determination also found that revisions to the Drainage 

District Boundaries are just and equitable. 

Thereafter, a Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries and Review of 

Apportionments (“Day of Review”), open to the public, was held on May 13, 2025. Notice of the 

Day of Review was properly and lawfully provided pursuant to the Drain Code’s requirements. The 

Drain Commissioner also provided a live informal webinar prior to the Day of Review (information 

and instructions for joining the webinar on zoom were provided on the Day of Review Notice, as 

well as a phone number to call-in – and a telephone number for property owners to call with any 

questions at all about the Day of Review). The Day of Review Notice included a Section titled 

“Appeals” that specifically stated: “You may appeal the Drain Commissioner’s decision to revise 

the district boundary to the Mecosta County Circuit Court within ten (10) days. You may appeal 

the Drain Commissioner’s determination of apportionments to the Mecosta County Probate Court 

within ten (10) days.” Appeal information was also provided to landowners at the informational 

webinar and at the Day of Review. 

Following the Day of Review, the assessment roll was signed on May 14, 2025. Appeals 

were filed with the Mecosta County Probate Court, pursuant to the Drain Code, and the Probate 

Court appointed a Board of Review. Landowners within the Drainage District were also mailed a 

letter, dated May 28, 2025, notifying them of the Board of Review. On June 4, 2025, the Board of 

Review revised apportionments under the procedures and process set forth in the Drain Code. 

After numerous, repeated notices about where and when to file any appeals, Petitioner filed 

this appeal with the Tax Tribunal. Michigan law expressly provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Page 3 of 9 

 

over special assessments under property tax laws does not include assessments under the Drain 

Code. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to dismiss this matter. In addition, 

since notice was given to Petitioner on multiple occasions about the proper appeal process; specific 

information was provided to Petitioner that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; and Petitioner has not 

withdrawn this matter (unilaterally or by joint motion to withdraw), Respondent has no other option 

but to request the Tribunal to grant costs. 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 7 of the Drain Code provides for the review of the apportionment of benefits.2 Such 

review is conducted at a public hearing (the Day of Review of Apportionments). A Day of Review 

of Apportionments is an opportunity for property owners to review the percentage of benefit of the 

drain assigned or apportioned to their property. The apportionments are applied to determine the 

assessment amount for each property for costs of drain maintenance and improvement. Relatedly, 

Section 155 of the Drain Code provides the appeal process for a property owner that feels aggrieved 

by the apportionment of benefits. Section 155 requires that an appeal must be made within ten days 

after the Day of Review of Apportionments to the probate court of the relevant county.3 

If an appeal is properly filed under Section 155, Section 156 dictates that the probate court 

shall appoint a board of review and fix the time and place when and where the board of review shall 

meet to review said apportionments.4 Under Section 157, the role of a board of review is to hear the 

proofs and allegations of the parties in respect to the appeal and make changes in the apportionments 

 

2 MCL 280.151-.162. 

3 MCL 280.155 (“The owner of any land in the drainage district . . . which may feel aggrieved by the apportionment of 

benefits so made by the commissioner, may, within 10 days after the day of review of such apportionments, appeal 

therefrom and for such purpose make an application to the probate court of the proper county….”). 

4 MCL 280.156 (“The probate court upon receipt of any such application . . . shall thereupon make an order appointing 

3 disinterested and competent freeholders of such county, not residents of the township or townships affected by said 

drain . . .. The court shall thereupon . . . fix the time and place when and where said board of review shall meet to 

review said apportionments . . ..”).

Page 4 of 9 

 

as the board considers just and equitable.5 

Chapter 8 of the Drain Code provides for the review of drainage district boundaries.6 The 

public hearing is known as a Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries. A Day of Review of 

Drainage District Boundaries is an opportunity for property owners to review any revisions 

proposed to the drainage district boundaries. In certain circumstances, such as when historic 

drainage district boundaries no longer accurately reflect the current watershed of a drain, Drainage 

District Boundaries may require revisions. Accordingly, Section 197 of the Drain Code provides 

the process for a property owner that feels aggrieved by the revisions of the Drainage District 

Boundaries. Further, Section 197 requires that an appeal must be made within ten days after the 

Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries to the circuit court of the county.7 

 

As is relevant to this matter, a petition for the maintenance and improvement of the Drain 

was filed with the Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, and a Board of Determination 

subsequently determined that the proposed maintenance and improvement was necessary on May 

30, 2018. A Day of Review of Apportionments and Review of Drainage District Boundaries was 

then scheduled for May 13, 2025, in Mecosta County (consistent with Sections 154 and 197 of the 

Drain Code). As required by the Drain Code, a Notice of the Day of Review of Apportionments 

and Review of Drainage District Boundaries was mailed via first-class mail to Petitioner on April 

28, 2025.8 The Day of Review of Apportionments and Review of Drainage District Boundaries was 

then held as scheduled on May 13, 2025. 

After the Day of Review of Apportionments and Review of Drainage District Boundaries, 

 

5 MCL 280.157. 

6 MCL 280.191-.201. 

7 MCL 280.197(7) (“The owner of any land in the drainage district . . . that is aggrieved by a 

determination to revise, or not to revise, drainage district boundaries as provided for in this section may, within 10 

days after the order to revise the drainage district boundaries is entered, institute an action in the circuit court for the 

county in which the real property is located….”). 

8 See Exhibit A – Affidavit of Mailing, Posting, and Service.

Page 5 of 9 

 

appeals were filed with the Mecosta County Probate Court challenging the apportionment of 

benefits pursuant to Section 155 of the Drain Code. A board of review was then appointed by the 

Mecosta County Probate Court and a hearing of the board to review said apportionments was 

scheduled for June 4, 2025. As required by the Drain Code, a Notice of Hearing of the Board of 

Review was posted on the Mecosta County Drain Commissioner’s website and at 5 public places 

in both Big Rapids Township and the City of Big Rapids.9 An informational notice letter was also 

mailed to landowners within the Drainage District. The hearing of the board of review was then 

held as scheduled on June 4, 2025, and revisions to the apportionment of benefits were made 

(consistent with Section 157 of the Drain Code). On or about May 22, 2025, Petitioner filed this 

appeal with the Tribunal.10 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

As there is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition, the 

Michigan Court Rules apply.11 

 

MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction on the subject matter. 

Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction 

of the subject matter. “When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), the Tribunal 

must consider any and all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence 

submitted by the parties. In addition, the evidence offered in support of, or in opposition, to a party’s 

motion will ‘only be considered to the extent that the content or substance would be admissible as 

evidence to establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion.’ MCR 2.116(G)(6). A motion under 

MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the [petitioner] has failed to exhaust its administrative 

 

9 See Exhibit B – Proof of Posting Notice of Board of Review Hearing. 

10 See https://taxdocketlookup.apps.lara.state.mi.us/Details.aspx?PK=158241. 

11 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 792.10215 (“Rule 215 . . . If an applicable entire tribunal rule does not exist, MCR 1.101 et 

seq, MCL 24.271 to 24.287, and MCL 24.321 to 24.328, govern.”).

Page 6 of 9 

 

remedies.” Anderson Albion Ethanol LLC v. Michigan Department of Treasury, MTT Case No. 20-

004832 (March 10, 2021). 

ARGUMENT 

 

Dismissal of this appeal is appropriate because Petitioner did not appeal the special 

assessment levied under the Drain Code in the appropriate court; therefore, the Tribunal lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.12 

I. 

Petitioner’s Appeal Was Not Filed in the Appropriate Court. 

The drain special assessment at issue in this case was levied under the Drain Code; therefore, 

the procedures laid out in the Drain Code for appeals are controlling. 

Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC, affirms that “MCL 205.731(a) of the Tax Tribunal Act (“TTA”) 

declares that the MTT has ‘exclusive and original jurisdiction’ over ‘[a] proceeding for direct 

review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to 

assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under the property tax 

laws of this state.’”13 (emphasis added). Thus, a determination must be made as to whether the 

Drain Code is considered a “property tax law.” On this point, the Michigan Legislature has made 

clear that the “property tax laws of this state do "not include the drain code of 1956, 1956 PA 40, 

MCL 280.1 to 280.630.”14 Additionally, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that the phrase 

“property tax laws” found in the TTA “seemingly include[s] every law relating to property taxes 

except those found in the Drain Code.”15 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Court in Ashley Ann Arbor, 

LLC affirms this notion in its holding that “the special assessment arose under the Drain Code, 

 

12 In addition, Petitioner’s case is rendered moot as the board of review, on June 4, 2025, reviewed the apportionment 

of benefits for the drainage project, which included Petitioner’s apportionment, and made certain revisions to the roll 

that it determined to be just and equitable. Therefore, the grounds upon which Petitioner could have properly appealed 

Petitioner’s apportionment have been disposed. 

13 Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Charter Twp., 299 Mich. App. 138, 147-148 (2012) (quoting MCL 205.731(a)). 

14 MCL 205.703; Ashley Ann Arbor, 299 Mich. App. at 149. 

15 Wells Fargo Rail Corp. v Dep’t of Treasury, 344 Mich App 351, 362 (2022).

Page 7 of 9 

 

MCL 280.1 et seq., and was therefore outside of the MTT’s exclusive and original jurisdiction.”16 

The legislature’s intentional exclusion of the Drain Code from the TTA must be strictly construed 

and therefore mean that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. “A court 

which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed further except to dismiss the 

action.” Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243 (1985) (internal 

citations omitted). Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal grant summary disposition in 

Respondent’s favor and enter an order dismissing this appeal pursuant to MCR2.116(C)(4). 

II. 

Respondent’s Request for Costs 

Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 792.10217 regarding costs, the Tribunal “may, upon 

motion or its own initiative, award costs in a contested case, as provided by section 52 of the tax 

tribunal act, MCL 205.752.”17 See also MCL 24.323. “Costs may be awarded in the discretion of 

the tribunal.” MCL 205.752(1). Costs are defined under TTR 792.10203(d) as “costs incurred in 

litigating a contested case before the tribunal including attorney fees.”18 

Respondent acknowledges that costs “are entirely within the Tribunal’s discretion” and that 

the Tribunal is “generally hesitant to award costs,” usually reserving “such action for cases in which 

frivolity or other good cause exists.” Blythefield Country Club v Plainfield Township, 2024 Mich 

Tax LEXIS 3 at *15 (2024). Respondent is likewise hesitant to request costs, especially when 

dealing with matters involving the complexities of the Drain Code. That hesitancy, however, is 

significantly outweighed by the unfairness to the rest of the Drainage District sharing the costs of 

filing this motion after Petitioner has repeatedly been informed about the proper appeal procedures. 

“A claim is frivolous when (1) the party’s primary purpose was to harass, embarrass, or 

injure the prevailing party, or (2) the party had no reasonable basis upon which to believe the 

 

16 Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC at 141. 

17 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 792.10217(1). 

18 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r. 792.10209(1).

Page 8 of 9 

underlying facts were true, or (3) the party’s position was devoid of arguable legal merit.” Cvengros 

v Farm Bureau Ins, 216 Mich App 261, 266-267 (1996). There is no reasonable basis upon which 

Petitioner could believe filing in the Tribunal was the proper avenue for appeal. Petitioner’s 

Tribunal filing is devoid of any arguable legal merit. “[A] claim is devoid of arguable legal merit if 

it is not sufficiently grounded in law or fact, such as when it violates basic, longstanding, and 

unmistakably evidence precedent.” Adamo Demolition Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 303 Mich App 356, 

369 (2013) (internal citations omitted). 

Petitioner has been provided repeated, numerous communications and notices about the 

proper appeal channels and the fact that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not extend to proceedings 

under the Drain Code. The Drain Code specifically indicates that appeals to the determination of 

apportionments must be made to the probate court of the county.19 The Notice of Day of Review of 

Drainage District Boundaries and Review of Apportionments that was mailed to Petitioner on April 

28, 2025, also indicated that the proper avenue for an appeal of the apportionment of benefits is the 

Mecosta County Probate Court.20 In addition, Respondent also caused a similar notice to be 

published in a newspaper of general circulation within Mecosta County, which outlined the proper 

appeal process. Respondent also posted a similar notice on its website and at its principal office, 

and Respondent held an online informational webinar to inform the public about the Drain’s 

maintenance and improvement project, which also included information about the proper appeal 

process.21 

Despite Respondent’s numerous efforts to inform the public about the proper, lawful appeal 

process, Petitioner nonetheless filed this appeal with the Tribunal. After receipt of the Notice of 

Docket Number generated for this appeal, Respondent, through counsel, called Petitioner on July 

19 MCL 280.157. 

20 See Exhibit C – Example Property Owner Notice. 

21 See Exhibit D – Tonkin Drain Webinar Slides Regarding Appeals.

Page 9 of 9 

1, 2025, July 14, 2025, July 22, 2025, and July 24, 2025, leaving a voicemail each time, regarding 

the jurisdictional issue and desire to enter a Joint Motion to Withdraw Appeal.22 In said voicemails,

Respondent offered Petitioner the opportunity to file a Joint Motion to Withdraw Appeal and 

informed Petitioner that Respondent would otherwise be forced to request costs. As of the date of 

this filing, related MTT Dockets 25-001247, 25-001276, 25-001281, 25-001284, 25-002535, 

25-002537, 25-002549, 25-002558, and 25-002618 have been withdrawn by joint motion,

25-002538, 25-002550, 25-002555, 25-002557, 25-002559, 25-002605, and 25-002617 have

been dismissed sua sponte by the Tribunal, and 25-001278, 25-001279, and 25-001280 have 

been withdrawn by Petitioners’ unilateral motion to withdraw with concurrence by Respondent. It 

is not fair to the rest of the Drainage District to incur the costs of needless litigation after multiple 

notices were provided to Petitioner (including an offer to join in a joint motion to withdraw). Good 

cause exists for granting costs in this matter. Since Petitioner continues prosecuting this appeal 

after being apprised of the proper appeal procedures numerous times, Respondent respectfully 

requests the Tribunal to award costs to Respondent. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that this Honorable Tribunal enter an Order: (1) 

Granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition; (2) Dismissing this appeal; and (3) 

awarding costs in Respondent’s favor. 

Dated: July 25, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By: __________________________________ 

 Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

 4151 Okemos Road 

 Okemos, MI 48864 

(517) 381-0100

22 All phone calls made by Respondent, through counsel, to Petitioner were made to (231) 796-8713, which was the 

phone number provided by Petitioner in her Appeal Petition Form submitted with the Michigan Tax Tribunal on or 

about May 22, 2025.

EXHIBIT A

AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING, POSTING AND SERVICE 

NOTICE OF DAY OF REVIEW OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 

AND REVIEW OF APPORTIONMENTS 

TONKIN DRAIN 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

) 

)ss. 

COUNTY OF MECOSTA 

) 

Karla Miller, being first duly sworn, says that she is the Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, and 

that in her capacity as Drain Commissioner, she caused the attached Notice of Day of Review of Drainage 

District Boundaries and Review of Apportionments to be mailed, posted, and served on the relevant entities 

as follows: 

1. 

She caused the attached notices to be mailed, utilizing Reimold Printing Corporation, via first-class 

mail to the property owners within the current and proposed drainage district on April 28, 2025. 

2. 

She caused the attached notice to be posted in the principal office of the Mecosta County Drain 

Commissioner and caused the attached notice to be posted on the Drain Commissioner’s website 

at: https://www.mecostacounty.org/government/drain_commissioner/index.php on April 25, 

2025. 

3. 

She caused the attached notice to be served via certified mail to the Michigan Department of 

Transportation Director, Brad Wieferich, on April 23, 2025, and electronically to Ron McKee 

(McKeeR@michigan.gov) at the Michigan Department of Transportation on April 23, 2025. 

4. 

She caused the following designated entities to be served via certified mail with the attached 

notice: 

Marcee M. Purcell, Mecosta County Clerk 

April 28, 2025 

b. 

John R. Currie, Chairman 

April 28, 2025 

Mecosta County Board of County Road Commissioners 

c. 

Bruce Borkovich, Big Rapids Charter Township Supervisor 

April 28, 2025 

d. 

Karen Manoski, City of Big Rapids Clerk 

April 28,2025 

| 

fal 

Mi 

Karla Miller 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner

EXHIBIT B

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE PROBATE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MECOSTA

In the Matter of: TONKIN DRAIN

HON. TYLER THOMPSON

Case Nos.25-3117.ML

25-3118-ML

25-3119-ML

25-3120-ML

25-3121-ML

25-3122-ML

25-3123-ML

HON. TYLER THOMPSON

/

PROOF OF POSTmG

I hereby swear that on May 30, 2025,1 caused copies of the Notice of Hearing to be posted

at Mecosta County Drain Conamissioner's office, its website, and at the following locations;

Big Rapids Township:

1. Mecosta County Services Building, 14485 Northland Dr., Big Rapids, MI 49307

2. Big Rapids Township Hall, 14212 Northland Dr., Big Rapids, MI 49307

3. Ace Hardware, 14219 Northland Dr., Big Rapids, MI 49307

4. Wesco Gas Station, 21380 Perry Ave., Big Rapids, MI 49307

5. Isabella Bank, 21440 Perry Ave., Big Rapids, MI 49307

City of Big Rapids

1. Post Office, 826 Division St., Big Rapids, MI 49307

2. Post Office, 301 Maple St, Big Rapids, MI 49307

3. City Hall, 226 N. Michigan Ave., Big Rapids, MI 49307

4. Mecosta County Courthouse, 400 Elm St., Big Rapids, MI 49307

5. Public Library, 426 S. Michigan Ave., Big Rapids, MI 49307

^

'Q.T

Karla Miller

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner

EXHIBIT C

^

»-

x<

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER

Karla Miller

14485 Northland Drive

Big Rapids, MI 49307

TONKIN DRAIN

BRITTANY NICHOL/FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES

4151 OKEMOSRD

OKEMOS Ml 48864

Parcel

Number

0

Estimated

Apportionment %

0.00000%

Years of

Assessment

0

Estimated Annual

Assessment*

$-

Estimated Total Assessment*

$-

THIS IS NOT A BILL

*Drain assessments will appear on winter tax statement.

Estimated assessments do not include any potential

interest charges associated with multi-year assessments

NOTICE OF DAY OF REVIEW OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

AND REVIEWOF APPORTIONMENTS

DATE:

TIME:

LOCATION:

QUESTIONS:

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Mecosta County Services Building

Conference Room F

14485 Northland Drive

Big Rapids, MI 49307

(231)216-0433

The Mecosta County Drain Commissioner will hold a Day of Review of Drainage District

Bouiidaries and Apportionments on the above date, time, and location. The Day of Review is ail

opportunity to review the Tonkin Drain Drainage District boundaries and the tentative

apportionment of benefits for each parcel and municipality within the Tonkin Drain Drainage

District. A map of the Drainage District boundaries can be found enclosed with your notice and

on the Drain Commissioner's website at: https://www.iTiecostacounty.org/governinent/

drain commissioner/index.Dhp.

The following is a list of any county, township, city, or village to be assessed: Mecosta County,

Big Rapids Charter Township, and the City of Big Rapids.

At the Day of Review:

No appointment is necessary.

The Drain Commissioner, engineers and/or other staff members will be available to assist

individuals and make revisions where necessary.

The computation of costs for the Drain will be available.

Persons with disabilities needing accommodations for effective participation in the Day of Review

should contact the Drain Commissioner's Office at the number noted above (voice) or through the

Michigan Relay Center at 7-1-1 (TDD) at least 24 hours in advance of the Day of Review to request

mobility, visual, hearing, or other assistance.

Assessments

Drain assessments are collected in the same manner as property taxes and will appear on your

winter tax bill. The total drain assessment is being spread over 15 years. You may pay the

assessment in full with any interest to date at any time to avoid further interest charges.

Comments

Comments on the apportionment of benefits may be submitted in writing or verbally at the Day of

Review. Comments may also be submitted in writing before the Day of Review to:

MAIL: Mecosta County Drain Commissioner

14485 Northland Drive

Big Rapids, MI 49307

EMAIL: draiii@mecostacounty.ors

Comments submitted in advance must be received by the Drain Commissioner prior to the Day of

Review to ensure consideration.

Appeals

You may appeal the Drain Commissioner's decision to revise the district boundary to the Mecosta

County Circuit Court within ten (10) days. You may appeal the Drain Coinmissioner's

determination of apportionments to the Mecosta County Probate Court within ten (10) days.

LIVE INFORMATIONAL WEBINAR

Prior to the Day of Review, an Informational webinar will take place via Zoom on Wednesday,

May 7, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The webinar is intended to provide a general explanation of the Tonkin

Drain petition project and the Day of Review. You can access the webinar online or by phone.

Join Online:

Direct link to join the webinar: Eittps://us02web.zoom.us/j/81587793820.

You can also join the webinar by:

o Going to the website ^vww.zoom.com.

o Click "Join" on the upper right-hand corner.

o Enter the following Webinar/Meeting ID: 815 8779 3820.

You will not need to sign-in to access the webinar. If presented with the option to

sign-in, click "Join Meeting as an Attendee" below the sign-in button.

Join By Phone:

To join the webinar by phone, dial f309) 205-3325 ftoll free)

Webinar/Meeting ID: 815 8779 3820

NOTICE OF BID LETTING

A bid letting is a public meeting where the Drain Commissioner receives and opens bids from

contractors to perfonn work on the drain. The following additional information can be found on

the Notice of Bid Letting on the Drain Commissioner's website at: https://www.

]Tiecostacounty.ors/govemment/drain_commissionei7index.php:

A description of the lands constituting the drainage district;

Number and length of sections, the average width of each section, and if the drain will be

closed, the amount and specifications of all tile or pipe required;

Location, number, type, and size of culverts or bridges to be installed, if any; and

Conditions upon which the contract will be awarded.

•

Karla Miller

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner

EXHIBIT D

Appeals

Appeal of Determination of Drainage 

District Boundaries 

Appeal of Apportionments

Appeal Types

MCL 280.197

File appeal in circuit court in county where 

property is located

Mecosta County Circuit Court

Appeal must be filed within 10 days of Day of 

Review of Drainage District Boundaries 

How to Appeal – Drainage District 

Boundaries

MCL 280.155

File appeal in probate court in county where 

property is located

Mecosta County Probate Court (Not Tax 

Tribunal)

Bond amount as required by the Court

Appeal must be filed within 10 days of Day of 

Review of Apportionments

How to Appeal – Apportionments

Consult your legal 

counsel for 

additional questions 

or information 

re: how to appeal

How to Appeal

← View full record