Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakland County OKs $1.07 million energy study amid calls to spread cost over multiple years
Summary
The Oakland County Board of Commissioners approved a $1,069,640 Energy Study Project after debate over timing and size of the appropriation; supporters said grants cover most funding while at least one commissioner voted no.
Get email alerts on the Energy Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oakland County Board of Commissioners voted to authorize the Oakland County Energy Study Project in the amount of $1,069,640.
Commissioner Gwen Markham, chair of the finance committee, moved the authorization and it was carried after debate. The board adopted the resolution by recorded count: 10 yeas, 5 nays.
The project was presented by the county's facilities management department. Commissioner Spitz said he opposed the measure, repeating an earlier objection that the cost should be spread over several years rather than paid as a single lump sum. "I'd still like to see it dispersed over a few years versus one lump sum of over $1,000,000," he said. Commissioner Gershinson asked that staff connect the incoming sustainability hire with the project in light of a recent staff departure.
Commissioner Markham responded that the resolution includes details on funding sources and that most of the project funding is expected to come from grants. The board did not state a specific grant breakdown during the public discussion on the record.
The measure passed despite the objections and a recorded minority of votes against it.
The authorization directs facilities management to proceed with the Energy Study Project at the amount stated; no implementation dates or contract award details were specified in the discussion at the meeting.
Officials did not provide a detailed timeline for completion at the time the board voted. The resolution text in the packet reportedly describes funding sources as largely grant-supported, but the board did not present a line-item grant schedule during the discussion.
The board moved on to other business after the vote.

