Leelanau Commissioner Update July 2025
Searching for Efficient Use of Early Childhood Funds
August 1st, 2025
Leelanau has a problem other counties would love. We have more money in our early child development fund than services to offer.
According to our most recent and the previous two audits, the monetary balance in the county “early childhood fund” has increased annually from $325,576 to $425,021 as of Dec. 31, 2023, and then to $648,771 as of Dec. 31, 2024.
The major reason for growth in unspent funds is increased property tax revenue, which jumped a whopping 15 percent last year. Still, voters were asked by the previous board in 2024 to increase the maximum millage allowed for the early child development cause to .2530 mill. Currently .,20 mill is being levied. The County Board will determine at its Sept. 19 meeting how much of that millage allotment to levy.
(Senior Services was a rare department in county government that spent more than budgeted in 2024. Consequently, its fund balance slipped from $830,932 to $746,299.)
But what to do with excess early childhood revenue? Of course, one option would be to reduce the property tax rate to maintain or drain down the excess. That option has not been discussed, possibly because a commissioner who suggested such a move years ago was recalled.
Commissioners instead supported two programs that will cost $36,000 each to give away car seats and provide free child dental care at a clinic in the Copper Ridge medical complex. Also approved was a program to provide prenatal care to women.
I and other commissioners, however, opposed a plan to allocate $20,000 for an “unmet needs” program. When I go back to look at wording on the millage ballot and talk to constituents who voted for and against the measure, I find that residents were looking to create targeted missions as opposed to a general handout of money to parents. Many thought they were helping to pay for child care.
One problem with approving the unmet needs program was that commissioners had not voted at their executive committee meeting (July 8) to move the issue to their regular meeting one week later, as our rules require. We were given a last-minute handout at the executive meeting that included an outline of what an unmet need might be that was general in nature, stating that the need “may include” three items along with a caveat to include “other supports needed for the wellbeing of the child.” No vote was taken that day. The last-minute background sheet was not included in our original packet, was placed at our seats as the meeting began, and none of the commissioners (including and especially me) apparently recalled the parameters provided a week earlier during the discussion on July 15. Commissioner Gwenne Allguire recalled and brought up the documentation as the meeting was closing, but the vote had been taken long before. I apologize for not also recalling the document and speaking as though one did not exist.
Honestly, though, I doubt if it mattered in deciding my vote. I will naturally look skeptically at an unmet needs program without strict definitions of eligible requests.
During discussion on July 15 two other bits of information came out:
- We learned from administrator Jim Dyer that the concept of providing child care vouchers, as was originally brought up by commissioner Will Bunek as a way to use excess child care funds, has been discussed internally. He said such a program would cost $350,000 and require increasing the child care millage to its maximum level.
I hold a different vision with a scaled-down voucher system costing about one-third of that amount. Total cost to the county could be lowered by reducing the allocation per child or family. The voucher proposal had been rolled into an unmet needs program.
I stated at the meeting that I don’t want to expand young child development programs with a limited reach to the point that the current millage rate won’t support a child care voucher program. I continue to hold that belief.
I’m certain the issue will come before us again, as the cost of parenting is not going away.
Four-month evaluation can build foundation with administrator
August 1st, 2025
I probably shouldn’t have been surprised to receive a phone call from a friend in the county asking why I was trying to fire the recently hired county administrator.
But I was surprised. What a ridiculous goal that would be.
After nearly 30 years of closely watching Leelanau County government, I think James Dyer’s skills offer him the opportunity to be one of our best administrators ever — even though he isn’t Polish. (A nod here to retired administrator Chet Janik, who served 11 years guiding county government and has no lack of pride in his family’s heritage.)
As commissioners and Mr. Dyer have gotten to know ourselves, three controversies have arisen in four months. I’m not one to bury conflict; that rarely provides a solution. I’m a stickler for government following its own laws and policies and try my best to do the same. So I’ve spoken out at meetings.
Following are my views on issues that became topics of public discussion and occupied (too) much of our time:
• A question arose pertaining to Mr. Dyer’s personal contract with Leelanau County when he ran for the Board of Directors of Cherryland Electric Co-op. The Cherryland position paid lucratively, in my estimation, with compensation set at $1,0000 per monthly meeting, each of which occupy most of a workday. A handful of special meetings are typically called as well, I’ve been told, which increases compensation.
Section 6 of the administrator’s employment contract prohibits “employment or business outside this agreement except as specifically approved in writing by the Board …” One might expect that being paid to attend meetings would rise to such a level, and Mr. Dyer had not informed the board of his intentions. The section also prohibits “use (of) the name of the Board of Commissioners or Leelanau County as a credential in advertising …” In his campaign flyer, Mr. Dyer used his title as county administrator to promote his election bid.
A few minutes before our June 10 meeting the County Board chair was handed an attorney’s opinion that dealt only with the definition of “employment,” and not all provisions in the administrator’s contract. It opined that holding a seat on the Cherryland Board did not constitute the legal definition of “employment.” The opinion within its scope had been requested by Mr. Dyer.
The County Board at its July 8 meeting voted unanimously to release the opinion. All commissioners voted yes, which I was glad to see. The opinion was paid for by taxpayer funds; it should be available to constituents. I have posted it under “reports” on the Leelanaucommissioner.com website.
• Controversy No. 2 dealt with Mr. Dyer representing Northport Village in a court case held earlier this month. The case was conducted via Zoom, and he argued for Northport online from his office in the county building. He lists the county building as the address on his attorney’s license. Two residents of District No. 5 spoke passionately against the county administrator providing legal representation to another government. I was critical and said commissioners should have been informed; other commissioners defended the practice as part of verbal permission apparently given by the previous board to tie up loose ends from his previous employment as Northhport Village administrator. Such a provision is not part of his written contract. Mr. Dyer has told other commissioners that he was working pro bono.
• And lastly, a Suttons Bay Township trustee laid out what seemed like a logical case that conflicts of interest arose when Mr. Dyer participated in proceedings before the county Land Bank and Brownfield boards brought by Leelanau Peninsula Housing. Mr. Dyer is one of four members of Peninsula Housing’s Board of Directors. County policies require those with possible conflicts to declare those conflicts, then exclude themselves from proceedings. Mr. Dyer declared his conflicts, but continued to participate.
However, an opinion from the county’s legal counsel stated that no conflicts existed because Mr. Dyer represented Northport Village on the Peninsula Housing Board. (I have queried the county attorney with questions about the opinion.)
To me, that’s a problem, and not with our county administrator. If our ethics policies don’t preclude members of boards representing Leelanau County from advocating for corporations on which they hold seats, then they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. (Full disclosure: Peninsula Housing is a non-profit corporation, but the county attorney’s opinion did not differentiate between for-profit and non-profit entities.)
* * *
What do the three controversies mean in terms of the relationships between commissioners and administrator Dyer? I’m thinking they are emblematic of a rocky start, and not representative of what we can accomplish in the future. By state law, the seven commissioners are the bosses of the administrator. In reality, we all have to work together to get things done. Commission chair Steve Yoder has called for a four-month evaluation of the work of the administrator. The process will take everyone’s temperature and, hopefully, lead to an open discussion about how we can work closer and avoid these kinds of controversies in the future.
Quick dive into county Finances, per audit
August 1st, 2025
Insomnia a problem?
I’ve got a solution. Read on because if a story about the county audit doesn’t put you to sleep than not much will.
The longest agenda item — or did it just seem that way? — at our July 15 meeting was a presentation by Stephen Peacock, Certified Public Accountant for Rehman Robson, LLC, out of Traverse City. Not that Mr. Peacock is a bore. He just didn’t have much entertainment material in an 138-page audit.
Please don’t take my attempt at levity for a lack of attention for the financial story told by the audit for the 2024 calendar year. Next to our budget, it’s the most important document for the county Board of Commissioners. The two are so closely related that it’s difficult to talk about them separately.
Following are some thoughts on audit results.
Summations on the positive side:
• There must have been some high fives in the county Finance Department, which got off to a slow start after a County Board in October 2021 abruptly usurped financial responsibility from the county Clerk’s office.
It was a clean audit, and by all accounts the three-person Finance Department headed by Cathy Hartesvelt continues moving in a positive direction.
• Mr. Peacock said the financial state of Leelanau stands above all other counties he deals with. It’s not just our high property values. Another factor is that so much of our housing stock, especially homes lining our pristine lakes, is owned by out-of-county people who use few county services. That puts the county in an enviable financial position. (Not sure that statement can be found directly in the audit, but I’m reading between the lines.)
• The county had only minor “findings” reported. In essence, our funds were spent properly and our accounting system worked as designed.
More summations:
• Property tax revenue for the General Fund was $11,299,100 in 2023. It increased to $13,280,716 in 2024 — a 14.9 percent jump. It was an unbelievable increase that won’t occur every year.
• Mention was made that the county finished 2024 with an unassigned fund balance of $9,749,779, an increase of nearly $558,000. That’s a solid position. But a dig into the previous two audits, which I retained, shows a decline relative to spending. The unassigned fund balance as of Dec. 31, 2024, represents 48 percent of general fund expenditures. The fund balance as of Dec. 31, 2023, was 51 percent of expenses. And the fund balance on Dec. 31, 2022, was 57% of that year’s expenses.
What does that mean? Revenue, which has been plentiful, is having difficulty keeping up with spending. The county spent more than $19 million in 2024, compared to $17.4 million in 2023 and $15.0 million in 2022,.
• Also of note: While the $9.8 million in fund balance looks impressive, keep in mind that property tax invoices don’t go out to homeowners until July and most aren’t paid until September. So that money in the bank has to help get the county through nine months of bills.
• The figures above account for only the General Fund, which handles typical expenditures one might expect the county to inc ur — from paying for sheriff’s patrols to building maintenance. The county holds separate funds for Early Childhood and Senior Services, which are paid through separate property taxes approved by voters.
Final thought:
Leelanau County is in a solid but slowly weakening financial situation. With increased salaries to Teamster’s Union members offered by the previous board and union contracts with law enforcement now undergoing binding arbitration, budget pressure seems certain to increase in the years ahead unless more attention is given to spending increases.