Could an impending legal scuffle between Grand Traverse County and Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) put Leelanau County in a tough spot? That question was top-of-mind for members of the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners at a special meeting last week. BATA recently vowed to sue Grand Traverse County over what it alleges to be a violation of the interlocal agreement it has with the county. But Leelanau County is also part of that contract, raising questions about whether the county might have any legal exposure – and if commissioners should hire legal counsel to find out.

BATA and Grand Traverse County have been at odds for the better part of a year, ever since BATA attempted last spring to expand its own board of directors from seven members to nine. Since 1999, BATA’s board structure has called for four representatives appointed by the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners, two appointed by the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners, and one “at-large” member appointed by BATA’s board. Last March, BATA board members voted to expand the board by adding two more at-large seats. Grand Traverse County commissioners opposed the move, accusing BATA of trying to dilute the county’s oversight of the transportation authority. After a heated back-and-forth, BATA agreed to keep the size and composition of the board the same.

Now the two entities are embroiled in yet another conflict, and this one appears headed for the courtroom. Beyond reaffirming the seven-member structure of the board, the most recent interlocal agreement between BATA, Grand Traverse County, and Leelanau states that each county will appoint “a county commissioner to serve as a member of the BATA board” – an ex-officio member who will serve a term concurrent with their commission term – and the remaining three seats will be community appointments for three-year terms.

Late last year, an ad hoc committee of Grand Traverse County commissioners signaled their intent to nominate one commissioner to serve in the commission representative role – Scott Sieffert – and another commissioner, Vice Chair Brad Jewett, to serve in a citizen appointment role. Richard Cochrun, who chairs the BATA board as one of Grand Traverse County’s appointees, pushed back, arguing that appointing two commissioners violates the agreement and amounts to a political power grab by the county.

Despite threats of a lawsuit by BATA, Grand Traverse County commissioners voted 5-4 at a January 17 meeting to proceed with appointing both Sieffert and Jewett to the BATA board. Immediately following that meeting, Cochrun told the Traverse City Ticker that BATA would “proceed with legal action, because they’re violating our agreement.”

With a lawsuit now likely, Leelanau County Commissioner Jamie Kramer – who serves on the BATA board as the county commission’s ex-officio appointee – is advising that the county hire legal counsel.

“I think we need legal representation because we are on the initial contract,” Kramer said at a special meeting of commissioners last Wednesday. Kramer admitted numerous times in the meeting that she is “not a legal expert” and isn’t sure what Leelanau County’s exposure – if any – might be. Still, Kramer argued that Leelanau County’s status as a party to the interlocal agreement – the contract that will be the crux of the legal dispute – is enough by itself to justify seeking legal counsel.

Not every commissioner agreed. Chair Ty Wessell argued that Leelanau County is “not in disagreement with either one of them” (BATA or Grand Traverse County) and should tread carefully to maintain neutrality. “I don’t think we want to jump into a legal suit against Grand Traverse County, and I haven’t received any request from anybody to do that,” he said.

Commissioners Melinda Lautner and James O’Rourke also questioned the wisdom of getting involved. “What is our purpose?” Lautner asked. “This could cost a whole lot of money, and to what end exactly?” O’Rourke concurred, saying, “We don’t need to get into this” and questioning how Leelanau County could possibly have any exposure in someone else’s dispute. “It’s their lawsuit,” he said. “There’s a county line.”

“I don’t want to jump into the fight,” Kramer clarified. “I just want to make sure that we’re covered. I am just concerned that we are on that original document, and that is what is going to be disputed… I don’t even think we need to throw down anything yet; just have someone available and on standby if this [lawsuit] does happen.”

Commissioners ultimately voted 5-2 (with Lautner and O’Rourke opposed) to give County Administrator Deb Allen the green light to research and pursue legal representation but to do so, for now, at no cost to the county. Leading into the vote, Allen said that the board giving her permission to seek legal counsel would make it easier for the county to pick and hire a lawyer if/when the BATA matter demands it.

“This allows us to forgo the bid process,” Allen explained. 

More lead time to find a lawyer could be doubly important, given that Leelanau County likely won’t be able to hire a local attorney for this matter: Allen told commissioners that her preliminary conversations with local lawyers indicated that most have conflicts of interest with either BATA or Grand Traverse County. “So, I’ve now gone down to the Grand Rapids area,” Allen said.