GRATIOT COUNTY — The Gratiot County Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 on Oct. 20 to fund the Gratiot Conservation District at up to $90,000 under Resolution 26-467, after a motion for the district’s full request of $134,187.04 did not pass, 2–3, on a recorded roll call. The board had tabled the request on Oct. 6 so a commissioner could “dive into the finances,” according to the county’s Oct. 6 minutes.
What the district asked for
The resolution packet posted on BoardBook would approve an agreement for “performance-based stewardship services at a total cost not to exceed $134,187.04.” The agreement runs from about Oct. 21, 2026 through Sept. 30, 2027, either side may end it on 60 days’ written notice, and the district must deliver quarterly written progress reports to the county administrator. District staff are district employees, not county employees. The agreement refers to an Appendix A describing the services; the posted packet does not include it.
District board chair Kevin Craig described the plan to commissioners (21:53): a sediment-reduction and water-quality project in the Bad River watershed run by a full-time watershed technician or manager, septic-system education, continued scrap-tire collection, a possible hazardous-waste and household-composting program, public outreach including a bus tour, and a pool of money to match grants. He said a full-time position at 40 hours a week and $26 an hour “would be $64,000” with benefits, that adding a part-time person at about $25,000 brought the two positions to “almost $90,000,” and that a $25,000 match request brought the total to about $134,000 (28:20). A county official said the money would have to come from the fund balance (32:18).
The debate
The administrator told the board it could fund all of the plan or one or two of its three parts: land and water stewardship, community waste and blight reduction (the tire collection, household hazardous and electronic waste, and composting), and the public information campaign (33:01). A commissioner said the county should not be funding a position at another organization and asked why the state does not. Craig said the state provides about $3 million statewide for conservation districts. A commissioner said the district had gone roughly 10 years without funding. Commissioner Steve Sopocy, who asked whether a second motion was allowed and proposed funding the full-time position, said the district should have been part of the agricultural millage voters just approved, that it cannot be added now, and that “we have to do something in interim”; he then moved the amendment. Residents who spoke in favor included a farmer who cited about 1,400 tires collected in roughly four hours, and a county Community Development employee, speaking as a resident, who said the district had very little help running the tire events despite their success.
The votes
Roll-call answers below are as called on the recording; the chair’s answer on the first roll call is quiet, and we re-listened to it. The official minutes will be the formal record once approved.
- Take the resolution off the table (39:00): moved by Bunting, supported by Bailey; the board proceeded to the resolution.
- Adopt at $134,187.04 (40:32): moved by Bunting, supported by Sopocy. Yes: Sopocy, Bunting. No: Gay, Bailey, Owens. Did not pass, 2–3.
- Amend and approve at up to $90,000 (42:55): moved by Sopocy, supported by Bunting, to fund “your full-time position” and benefits for the watershed program “as well as the matching funds portion of the grant.” Yes: Sopocy, Bunting, Owens. No: Bailey, Gay. Approved 3–2.
What the record does not show
The posted packet holds the original resolution at $134,187.04 with the vote lines blank, not the amended version. The record does not show whether $90,000 is a not-to-exceed amount in a revised agreement, what happens to the part-time outreach position and the septic and composting work the district described, or what budget amendment accompanies the fund-balance spending. The amounts stated aloud do not add to the $134,187.04 total, and the Appendix A budget that would reconcile them is not posted.
Questions that remain
- What is the text of Resolution 26-467 as amended, and the signed agreement?
- Which parts of the district’s plan will the $90,000 pay for?
- Which fund pays, and what amendment to the budget was prepared?
- What does Appendix A to the agreement say?
Corrections and responses are welcome.