Leelanau Commissioner Update June 2025
Budget discussions to get underway
Did the egg or the chicken come first?
That’s one of my questions about the budget process that was outlined in a memo received by county commissioners at our June 17 meeting. County administrator James Dyer, who wrote the memo, also requested to meet with commissioners one-on-one to ascertain their priorities about the budget.
The budget, in my estimation, represents the biggest single responsibility for Leelanau’s seven commissioners. Given that five of us were not on the County Board to write the present budget — and that this will be the first budget cycle for Mr. Dyer — it’s important that we get this right.
As commissioners, we need to be respectful of others’ opinions yet be prepared to explain our convictions. Collectively, we’ve been pretty good at holding meaningful conversations halfway into the first year of our four-year terms..
Following is a memo I wrote to Mr. Dyer following our meeting during which I explained my budget priorities:
June 27, 2025
From Alan Campbell
District No. 5
Budget priorities
To Mr. James Dyer, Leelanau County administrator, as a follow-up to our conversation (on budget priorities):
1. Keep the rise in base expenditures at or below cost of living increases
Given that the previous board settled our biggest union contract with a provision increasing the work week from 35 to 40 hours, offsetting higher labor costs may be our biggest challenge. The contract also provided for 10 percent in wage increases over the next three years, and contracts with law enforcement personnel have moved to arbitration.
The Social Security Administration set the COLA increase in 2025 at 2.5 percent. I feel we should strive to hold increases in the General Fund and other non-capital improvement projects to the same rate.
2. Start the path toward to follow our own financial and investment policies.
Policy No. 7.14, revised in 2014, requires the county to maintain a Budget Stabilization Fund at 15 percent of the prior year’s General Fund budget. It also requires the county to establish a contingency account equal to 3 percent of the General Fund, and restricts withdraws from the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund only to prepay principle debt or for projects listed on the capital improvements program. It’s these types of benchmarks that can put structure to our budgeting work. This may take a couple cycles to achieve. County fiscal policy as established by previous boards should be followed and/or tweaked to the satisfaction of the present Board of Commissioners with input from the administrator (who will make recommendations), finance director, treasurer and clerk.
3. Better fund our county parks
Leelanau County has special funds, programs and millages for the old and young — and the parents of children. This is good, as one mission of government is to help those who need helping. But what can we provide to everyone, regardless of need?
Beyond running an efficient government, one answer is our park system. The county Parks and Recreation Commission has many ideas for improvements, most of which will require little if any long-term maintenance cost. We’re lucky to have our parks. We need to enhance the opportunities they provide all residents.
My thoughts on the budget-writing process:
• Did the chicken or egg come first? I would have preferred that the County Board set its priorities before department heads determined their proposed budgets. I also feel that commissioners should hold a discussion during an open meeting at which we can take public input before the budget process advances to the point of having a budget proposal before us. Such an approach puts department heads in a better position to meet our goals and avoid disappointment should cuts be needed later. Something to consider for next year.
After listening to your points, Jim, I better understand your reasoning for the budget calendar we received.
• It’s good to have 10 budget work sessions scheduled. We need to hear from our department heads. Thank you for making the budget process a priority.
• Past county boards have wrapped up the budget to coincide with the Annual Meeting, which is set for Oct. 14. I like the thought of front-loading budget work and finishing earlier. The calendar was moved back because of turnover in the office of county administrator. Now that your position is stabilized, we should re-establish the earlier time line.
Thank you, Jim, for your consideration of these thoughts.
Alan
(End of message)
Commissioners consider new ways to use child millage
Thank you to Commissioner Bunek for opening up this discussion. Mr. Bunek eyed a sizable surplus in the Early Childhood Fund. According to the recently completed county audit, the fund contained nearly $1.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2024. The figure needs some explaining as taxes are collected only once per year, so the fund can be flush with cash one month and drained 11 months later. But with expenses averaging about $800,000 per year, clearly not all of the property tax collected is being utilized.
Two new programs are being considered:
• One is supporting an organization called “United We Smile,:” which provides free dental care for certain groups of people including young people up to 21 years of age. The nonprofit clinic is located in Copper Ridge. Jennifer Kearns, dental clinic manager, discussed the program at the County Board’s regular meeting on June 17, at which the board signaled its willingness to contribute up to $3,000 per month toward dental services. I did not feel comfortable, however, voting for the monthly allocation prior to having before us a contract outlining the responsibilities of a subcontractor. The final decision was delayed until our July meeting.
In particular, I have a problem authorizing “early childhood” funds to programs that serve young persons older than 6-years old. Although Ms. Kearns, who helped write the millage language, assured the board that such a restriction was not included on the ballot, those who promoted the property tax made that pledge. Reading the Leelanau early childhood website, it’s obvious that the intent of the millage was to improve the outcomes of young children.
Supporting statements on the website include: “Only 10% of the total child population in Leelanau County between 0 and 6 (which is over 1,000 kids) currently are being served with Early Childhood services through the Health Department. 90% of our kids and families have no service and only limited services are available through the Parenting Communities program supported by a non-profit corporation. “
Also, “The millage will raise over $700,000 per year for five years to help pay for early childhood (age 0-6) programs and services.”
• The second new program to consider would provide vouchers for child care to working parents. When I talk to residents, many believe that was the intent of the millage. I’m not suggesting that voters were mislead. But I am saying that those who did not study the plan might assume one intent was to help with child care costs, which is badly needed.
Folks far more familiar to the early childhood field are questioning whether demand for child care vouchers would be so great as to swamp programs that are already funded by the millage to provide parental playground time and offer the services of social workers to parents. It’s a valid concern considering that millage funds are finite.
I do like the thought of a needs-based voucher program to help young parents through the most financially difficult times of their lives. But to be honest, there is another reason I like the concept of vouchers. They can empower parents, allowing them — not the government — to decide their family’s best path through life.
As more information comes to the board, I look forward to discussing options to improve the outcomes of property taxes we all pay for early childhood.
Board should release opinion on contract
Probably the issue that received the most attention in June — and offered the least benefit to taxpayers — was the distraction surrounding an election campaign by the county administrator, who sought to win a seat on the Cherryland Electric Co-op Board of Directors.
I was likely the last person to know that Mr. Dyer was running for the seat as it wasn’t announced at a public meeting and, frankly, I don’t do a lot of chit-chatting about such things. Eventually the news came around to me, I met with Mr. Dyer to explain my thoughts as one of seven people considered his employer, then moved on. When implications related to his contract arose, I dug deeper and became of the opinion that the County Board should have been informed and as a best-case scenario given its blessing. The Cherryland position pays $1,000 per meeting, with 12 scheduled during weekdays on an annual basis and more possible in the form of special meetings.
The administrator’s contract states under the heading of “Outside Employment”:
“The. Employee shall not engage in any outside employment or business outside this agreement except as specifically approved in writing by the board and under the following circumstances …”
The contract goes on to prohibit “such activity during the employee’s regularly scheduled working hours,” use of the name Leelanau County as a credential in advertising, and the need to avoid “any possible appearance of conflict of interest.”
This possible variance from contract language was about to fly under the radar until I broached the subject during late commissioner comment, one of the last items on the agenda of the June 10 meeting. A public comment period earlier included voices opposing and supporting Mr. Dyer’s campaign. Commissioners, too, both supported and questioned the campaign during their comment period. Then at the tail of the discussion the County Board chair disclosed that that very morning he had been given a sheet of paper by the administrator containing an opinion from the county attorney that the Cherryland Board position did not meet the level of “employment” contained in the contract, and therefore was likely without County Board approval. The opinion paper was not provided to other commissioners.
After making two requests at public meetings and calling the county attorney, I and all other commissioners were emailed a copy of the opinion eight days later. While I’m required to refrain from releasing the opinion until a vote of the board, I may comment on it as has already been done at a public meeting by a fellow commissioner. My belief is that there are nuances in the opinion that make it less than the black and white description offered.
And yet, none of that matters. Incumbents were the top two vote getters in the Cherryland election.
So why am I still discussing the subject? I feel constituents should know about my beliefs and actions. Now It’s water under the bridge, and we need to move forward without prejudice for the better of Leelanau County.
There is one more issue, though. The topic is set to appear on the July 8 executive committee meeting of the board, which will decide whether to release the attorney’s opinion to the public. I will be voting yes, as I hope fellow commissioners will do. It’s too easy for people in government to think of public information as belonging to them. That’s nonsense. With a few notable exceptions for things like litigation and union negotiations, information available to public officials should also belong to the people who paid for it — you, the taxpayers.
My understanding is that a Freedom of Information Act request that was filed seeking the opinion came with a nearly $300 fee. That’s ridiculous. We should encourage rather than dissuade public involvement.
Klouse with previous owner, per sheriff
By the time you read this, Klouse will be at his new home in Alaska.
The County Board at its meeting earlier this month voted to basically give the dog — for $1 — to its original handler, a former Leelanau County deputy who accepted a law enforcement position in Alaska 1 1/2 years ago.
We held a discussion, somewhat brief, about selling Klouse to the highest bidder. I think I recall a figure of $5,000 discussed. But in the end, we all agreed it would be best to place Klouse with someone he had been close to.
Commissioner Gwenne Allgaier , who I usually sit next to at meetings, led the charge. “I don’t like the headline that we sold a dog for maximum dollars …,” she said. Headline aside, some things transcend money. I agree with her. We wanted to do the right thing.
But soon after, doubts swirled as people signed an online petition seeking to place Klouse with his more recent handler, who quit the Sheriff’s Office to accept a law enforcement position in Traverse City. Commissioners received emails requesting a special meeting to force county Sheriff Mike Borkovich to change his mind.
Administrator Dyer, in a letter penned in our name, succinctly expressed our position and provided that verbiage to inquirers. It read in part, “In an attempt to understand the circumstances, I have spoken to Sheriff Borkovich, and he explained the reasons for his decision. No matter how I might personally evaluate those reasons, in comparison, he has a much longer history with those involved, and more relevant information than I or the County Board members will ever have. I respect that, and will not second guess the decision he made on this.”
After speaking with Undershetiff James Kiessel, I can report that Klouse has arrived at his new home in Alaska. The former deputy who helped train Klouse paid a special delivery service to ensure his safe journey that ended up costing more than the original asking price for a trained police dog.
No offense to feline aficionados, but I’m a dog lover dating back to about 1981 in Leelanau County when I bought my first golden retriever Shooter, who taught me how to enjoy wooded walks and bird hunt. Now I own a pair of English setters. Sheriff Borkovich is also a dog lover, and I believe he would only trust someone who shared that passion with the future of a K-9 canine.
Housing permit fees may be reduced
Commissioners as soon as at our executive meeting set for Tuesday, July 8, will consider reducing or eliminating building permit fees for smaller — what are often described as “affordable” — homes in Leelanau County.
The Building Safety Committee of the County Board met with Building Official Amber Weber — she heads the inspections department — on June 23 to take up the issue. During the meeting, the committee discussed charging a flat fee of $1,000 for all county inspections on homes up to 1,000 square feet. The normal fees would be between $1,500 and $2,000.
I had made the suggestion about two months ago to eliminate inspection fees on smaller homes. The county has no capacity over local zoning in Leelanau, which is often blamed for inflating land prices. That authority lies with local townships and villages, all of which have passed their own zoning ordinances.
But the county does administer building inspections, including electrical and plumbing. And commissioners have authority to set fees.
After feeling the financial brunt of the 2008 recession through budget cuts, the. County Building Safety Department sought to build its fund balance to $1 million — enough to pay department expenses for about one year. That level of savings has been achieved.
I understand the philosophy that charging some amount for inspections helps to establish a relationship between builder and those who oversee construction. So charging a smaller fee than discussed — say $100 — would be appropriate in my view.
Please comment, attend
We’ll see how all this sorts out at the meeting, which I hope you will consider attending to listen and hopefully speak during public comment. It begins at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 8, at the County Building. Please give me a call at 231 492 4972 or email at acampbell@leelanau.gov with questions and suggestions.
Until we meet again, enjoy your Fourth of July. There is no better place to celebrate the founding of our great nation than in Leelanau County.
