GRATIOT COUNTY — The animal control resolution the Board of Commissioners adopted on Oct. 20 is not on the agenda posted on BoardBook. That agenda lists one item under new business, a conservation district agreement. On the county’s recording, an animal control resolution is named after the chair asks for additions to the agenda (0:46), and the board approves the agenda “as amended” moments later. This report sets out what the recording shows beyond our Oct. 21 report. The words attributed to the administrator and commissioners are as the recording has them.
The agenda
BoardBook lists the meeting as a Regular Full Board Meeting (meeting 770982). Its agenda shows nothing under item E.1, additions and deletions, and lists a single new-business item, K.1, Resolution 26-467 for the Gratiot Conservation District. As of Oct. 23 it shows no animal control item. On the recording, the item is slotted as new business number two, and the agenda is approved as amended. The recording does not show when the resolution was written, or whether commissioners had it before the meeting began. No animal control document is posted with the agenda.
The administrator’s account of the insurance review
County Administrator Timothy Dolehanty introduced the item at about 44 minutes (44:18). He said he and the deputy administrator had met with the county’s liability carrier, the Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA), about animal control officers carrying a sidearm and having a second firearm in the vehicle. He said that meeting, held Monday, Oct. 12, had been arranged before the Sept. 15 board meeting (45:19). He said the sheriff and the animal control director attended with two MMRMA representatives, one of them a former police chief working for the insurer.
He said the officers’ training is similar to what a person receives for a concealed pistol permit, that they qualify at the sheriff’s range, and that they are not certified through the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES). He said officers under the sheriff are also allowed to self-dispatch to law enforcement calls. He said the insurer’s representatives were surprised, and that the insurer’s underwriters concluded the risk was “far greater than what we were currently being charged for.” As of Thursday, Oct. 15, he said, the insurer added an endorsement costing an additional $95,000 a year, plus roughly $8,000 a year in workers’ compensation, “about another 100,000 a year” in all (53:10).
He said the insurer might reduce the endorsement if the board acted but did not guarantee it, and would not say more “until and unless the board says this is what we want to do.” He said waiting until the Nov. 3 meeting would cost more than $5,000, “that’s the price to wait” (56:49).
Two resolutions and a chain of command
He presented two alternatives. One kept Animal Control under the sheriff and directed the sheriff to end officers’ firearms access and law-enforcement response. The other assigned the agency to the administrator’s office, effective immediately, and directed the administrator to do the same. He explained the difference by authority: the sheriff is an elected official and co-employer, so a board direction to him “does not guarantee” compliance and he is “under no obligation to follow your direction.” Of the second option he said: “You direct me to do that, either I do it or I’m history” (55:09). A third provision of the second resolution authorizes the administrator to set policy and operations for the agency, subject to board policies, collective bargaining agreements and state and federal law.
The Dog Law
The administrator said he had planned to tell the board that the county is “not exactly compliant” with the Dog Law of 1919 (50:59). He described two models: hiring animal control officers for two-year terms, or adopting an animal control ordinance. Of the county’s current setup he said, “we just have done it without an ordinance.” The resolution cites Section 29a of the law. The text of that section, MCL 287.289a, says a county board “by ordinance may establish an animal control agency,” that the agency “shall employ at least 1 animal control officer,” and that the board may assign the agency to any existing county department.
The sheriff
The administrator said Sheriff Tom Clark was at a conference in Traverse City and had asked the board to table the matter until the Nov. 3 meeting (56:42). The recording contains no statement from the sheriff or from the animal control director on the resolution.
At the table and the vote
A commissioner said the early-2025 vote to place Animal Control under the sheriff came after an incident in January 2025 left the county without an administrator, a period the commissioner described as “turmoil” (57:27). Another commissioner asked which budget the $5,000 would come from. Commissioner Jan Bunting moved to approve the second resolution, and Commissioner George Bailey supported it. On the roll call as heard on the recording (1:00:43), Bailey, Bunting, Tim Gay, Steve Sopocy and Chair Dave Owens each answered yes. After the vote, a voice at the table said the $95,000 “we saved” could go to the conservation district funding approved earlier in the meeting. No posted record yet shows whether the insurer reduced the endorsement.
A numbering question
The county’s Oct. 6 minutes, approved on the Oct. 20 consent calendar, record Resolution 26-468 as the “Two Seven Oh Grant Agreement.” On Oct. 20 the recording indicates the two animal control alternatives share the number 468, and the chair put the question as 26-468. The posted record does not say which resolution carries that number, or whether the clerk will assign the animal control resolution a different one.
Earlier in the record
The Oct. 6 minutes record, under commissioner reports, that Owens “Did a road trip with Animal Control.” The Sept. 15 meeting, where Animal Control’s director asked for a pay reclassification, is covered in our earlier report.
What the record shows and does not show
The recording shows the stated reasons: an insurer’s cost finding, the Dog Law, and the administrator’s view of who can direct whom. It does not establish why the item was added at the meeting rather than posted in advance, and it establishes no motive beyond the reasons stated. The adopted text, the insurer’s written notice and any reduction of the endorsement are not posted. Official minutes will be the formal record once approved.
Questions that remain
- When was the animal control resolution drafted, and when was it first given to commissioners?
- What does the insurer’s written notice of the roughly $95,000 endorsement say, and has it been reduced or waived?
- Which resolution number was assigned, given that 26-468 appears in the Oct. 6 minutes for a different item?
- Does the county have an animal control ordinance, as MCL 287.289a describes, and if not, which model will it follow?
- What policy will govern the agency now that the administrator is authorized to set it, and when will it be written?
Corrections and responses are welcome.