[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6491376,"mediaKeyId","5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2","parentId",5498020,"title","Livingston County health advisory panel urges caution on masks and COVID shots as county faces funding shortfall","audioSeconds",428,"startMs",940000,"endMs",1368000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2&start=940&end=1368","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2/thumbnail_940000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6491376/Livingston-County/Michigan/Livingston-County-health-advisory-panel-urges-caution-on-masks-and-COVID-shots-as-county-faces-funding-shortfall","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6491376-27b16264218b898d94f551d97d2aacd2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770600838&Signature=Xmo9zCVHHPwZiU8-4sQcWnVfpMZ7pKLxWfAARZmJiugETWpxO-RdsdfRzLLscXisomrLxnrpTxfC4VU9YcOkIzc6SlJYkmPWtoSkgDB-CLVKzJdd7YMjYp3xZl4-14G90KXZqSU24v4Zp~i~6E7DDh6~9~dQwrz-PNeCCL1EQ-SD4zE7zoA2ZXzjTaaZPp28AaDUXSIg55nq0FufiMN6cLwxFppm-P5OQPRvt7TvuVUVz9NlgZjf3tnWIKLY3y4dEG7-pa4ptLeI5llDNHlK31euItsToAeK0Vl1ePbjkqs7RTzeYgLENJxSVP99ZyApJiX58ty59~-HapfAgyx1dA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Livingston County","date","2025-07-29T19:00:00Z","article","The Livingston County Health Advisory Committee delivered its annual report to the Board of Commissioners on July 28, urging the county to prioritize public outreach and describing several position statements the panel has adopted.

Doctor Holly Austin, representing the committee, told commissioners the group found no evidence to support population-level masking for respiratory viruses and said the panel ‘‘does not recommend COVID‑19 vaccines for healthy populations, including infants and young children, adolescents, pregnant women [and] otherwise healthy adults without underlying risk factors.’’ Austin said the committee’s analyses drew on systematic reviews and the Pfizer document releases and that the panel considers long‑term safety data limited.

The committee also reviewed portable HEPA filtration, concluding filter units may be supportive but are not recommended as a primary infrastructure intervention to contain respiratory viruses. Committee members reported they advised local officials on Michigan Senate bills 875, 876 and 877 and that Livingston County was the only county to submit a formal resolution opposing those bills, which the committee said would have added vaccines to the state childhood schedule and created administrative burdens; Austin said the bills were stalled in committee.

Austin said the committee is gathering data and preparing outreach on community concerns about large solar farms in Cahokia and Conway townships, citing potential noise (inverters droning up to ‘‘about 55 decibels’’ in rural areas), visual/land use effects, soil impacts and long‑term decommissioning questions. The committee said it will present more information to the county’s General Government Committee on Aug. 4 and collect survey responses from township residents.

County health director Matt Bolling briefed the board on the department’s finances and staffing: he said the department has lost federal COVID‑era funding and is projecting budget shortfalls that require adjustments. Bolling brought a proposed new fee schedule that he said would recover additional costs after a decade with no fee increases; staff estimated the change could yield roughly $290,000 annually (an estimate that depends on future permit volume) and that the schedule included a 2026 automatic annual CPI adjustment. Commissioners debated the fee proposal at length and ultimately voted 8–1 to postpone final action and move further review into the county’s upcoming budget process so fiscal staff and commissioners can review detailed spreadsheets and statutory criteria.

Separately, the board approved a resolution to reduce and reorganize some positions in the health department to align staffing with the reduced funding; that workforce‑reduction resolution passed by roll call. Director Bolling said some positions are funded historically by temporary federal grants that are no longer available and that eliminating roles is necessary to balance the department budget.

Public commenters at the meeting disputed the advisory committee’s positions and raised concerns about some committee statements and assertions on masks and vaccines. The health advisory committee and the county health department said they will continue outreach to local service providers, transitional housing organizations and county stakeholders. Commissioners and staff noted a planned presentation and additional materials for the August budget cycle and asked for written documentation of the fee calculations and the legal standard the county should apply when setting local health fees.

The board also approved, by voice vote, acceptance of a Trinity Health “Investing in Our Communities” grant to support a Community Connections bus route intended to help clients of local transitional living homes (La Casa, Connection Youth Services, Bethel Suites and Kensington Inn) access health, job‑training and other services; that resolution passed 9–0. Public commenters earlier in the meeting specifically urged the board to support the Trinity grant, noting the grant leverages additional federal and state transportation dollars.

What’s next: county staff will provide the board with the fee‑setting spreadsheets, clarify which state statutory guidance applies, and continue the budget process in August. The health advisory committee will present additional findings on solar farms on Aug. 4 to the General Government Committee and will roll out its provider survey about the state’s non‑opioid directive.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Livingston County Board of Commissioners Meeting – July 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Livingston County Health Advisory Committee told the Board of Commissioners it does not recommend population‑level masking and recommended against COVID‑19 vaccination for healthy populations as the county’s health department described lost federal grant funding and proposed fee increases and staff reductions to close budget gaps.","taxTitle","Livingston County, Michigan","taxId",13479,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6491369,"Commissioners amend courthouse concrete contract to include higher bonding cost after statute review",320,7940000,8260000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2&start=7940&end=8260","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2/thumbnail_7940000.jpg","/articles/6491369/Livingston-County/Michigan/Commissioners-amend-courthouse-concrete-contract-to-include-higher-bonding-cost-after-statute-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6491369-cfbb2c0f1d078c2ccf5dfe34375c8548/orig.mp4?Expires=1770600838&Signature=K59N32oCuI6C94MCX0GLnfKtGDxi1nfV1srx~j2mQY0LDHTDwsHHf3z4NxtXFXkZjxaEKz~-Yjqxh~XTY6mu-sJgvedxE~-HyyPHus62Nj1gbO9DS0iHjo9KKADasHRTGCDdtXeroo4K3tt3eyaQ3XUwJAzENisaFHQkC0Q1X~kjYI10PxAKEohJaBJilbAGwymYU42gMGFoDcbWWlMWI4u~lzxvRs1lZK60vNymigFS1kezDmk4Jv4QkAVm56ktbaab6jMuMsNwLf033jkiwOwGXZXrncyeTA9GAFvpT7s7h01d~s3rOCsYYidL63QVvtlv6z86GTw4IE9ZJrYDew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston County Board of Commissioners amended and approved a resolution July 28 to add bonding costs for the historic courthouse administration concrete work after legal review found statutory bonding requirements applied.

County facility services and the county attorney briefed commissioners: contractors and surety markets were reported to demand a 100% performance bond for the vendor selected for the courthouse concrete construction. The vendor’s required bond amount—$6,002 (as presented in the updated resolution language)—was not included in the earlier signed contract language, and county counsel said statute requires at least a 25% bond for projects of this type. Facility services recommended adding the bond cost to the construction base price rather than drawing further on the project contingency (which had already been reduced).

Commissioners moved to amend the resolution to include the revised construction total and to add the $6,002 bonding amount into the project base. The amendment passed and the final resolution passed by roll call.

What’s next: facility services will finalize the contract amendment and fund accounting to reflect the added bond cost and adjusted project totals; staff said they will provide updated project accounting and record documents to the clerk’s office.","After counsel advised bonding requirements, the board amended a facility‑services resolution to include a $6,002 bonding cost and recalculated project totals to comply with statutory bonding rules; county staff recommended adding the bond cost to the project base price.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6491371,"Commissioners approve Brighton No. 4 drain bonds after debate over full faith and credit pledge",543,2937000,3480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2&start=2937&end=3480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5498020-2732649689656f813f6ba9590d5855b2/thumbnail_2937000.jpg","/articles/6491371/Livingston-County/Michigan/Commissioners-approve-Brighton-No-4-drain-bonds-after-debate-over-full-faith-and-credit-pledge","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6491371-e4e305f12098fddf5f83d2eef4b7b312/orig.mp4?Expires=1770600838&Signature=YxS0PBBkSoKkkKE4FQpac5HzjE-wD23NqfqDl4gkY1WHx3MmQFhoCmu~c2KjT2JEIGYXnY1qjuVkjJrw2paQ-wJ4cSV3KUCNgpIyr~7kO6i153KU7U80kXKH3uG8lYBxxvEocnUaRJhZ83ZLd6mP6Q6G8--0JoP1JdflcxNorLzMUqO2RDo6ALR9plAO9mqnP6keLrH-6ZVN7GmIwA1cudm08fVGl~NTNPjGQloOPADOje0rYV50APXCx9aJdV2VIJuQ~CbQZeSa7NV5xWKLk3yPFHYUnP5VuVbeflK2HfzvKsuELQKSFGn9sy9QYF8f-uiGNtAGVbEJtuS7jsO8VA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston County Board of Commissioners voted 8–1 on July 28 to approve a resolution authorizing issuance of bonds for the Brighton No. 4 drain improvement project, after an extended discussion about whether the county should pledge its full faith and credit to the borrowing.

Commissioner Nakagiri spoke at length against pledging county full faith and credit for the drain bonds, saying financial advisers and bond counsel had not adequately explained their assumptions and interest‑rate scenarios. Nakagiri asked whether bond counsel represented the board or the drain district and whether alternatives such as bond insurance could reduce risk to taxpayers outside the drain district; he said he would not support a county general obligation pledge without clearer information.

Ken Recker, representing the drain office and county staff, told the board he had obtained numbers from the county’s financial adviser showing a larger interest spread for non‑pledged debt (citing figures provided that morning), and he said community practice and potential buyer preferences made the full faith and credit pledge the more practical option for securing bidders. Drain office history was cited: county drain financing in earlier decades had not required invoking a county pledge for debt service.

In roll‑call voting, Commissioner Nakagiri cast the lone dissent; the motion carried after other commissioners expressed confidence in the project’s assessment structure and in historic performance of drain district financing. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the adviser and counsel roles and requested written calculations of potential interest differences, bond‑insurance costs and alternative structures for future proposals.

What’s next: the drain district assessment process proceeds; Brighton Township had already prepaid part of its assessment. County staff said they will follow up with written analyses on interest‑rate scenarios, bond‑insurance options and a clearer statement of counsel’s client role for the record.","The board approved bonds for the Brighton No. 4 drain project despite objections from Commissioner Nakagiri about using county full faith and credit and questions about advisers' disclosures and bond‑insurance alternatives.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Livingston County health advisory panel urges caution on masks and COVID shots as county faces funding shortfall

Commissioners amend courthouse concrete contract to include higher bonding cost after statute review

Commissioners approve Brighton No. 4 drain bonds after debate over full faith and credit pledge