Grant County residents, officials divided over plan to privatize local deputy registrar services

A private operator who runs the Morris County deputy registrar's office proposed opening a deputy registrar (DMV) location in Grant County and told the board he could reduce the county's reported annual operating loss by staffing the office with roughly 1 to 1.5 full‑time equivalents. The operator, identified in the meeting only as Drew, said his Morris office handles about $119,000 in annual sales and averages roughly 30–32 transactions per weekday, which he said equates to about four transactions per hour.

The proposal surfaced at a 30‑minute work session at the start of the Grant County Board of Commissioners meeting that began with Tina Riley, clerk of the board, reading a one‑page summary of the plan and setting ground rules that no formal action could be taken during the session. Drew told the group he would procure his own supplies, work with state agencies on testing space and did not expect any equipment from the county. He proposed opening by June 1, 2026.

Why it matters: The deputy registrar office provides licensing, titles and other vehicle‑related services that many residents — particularly older residents and farmers with large equipment — use in person. Opponents said the local presence supports commerce and occasional on‑site help when title or permitting documents require courthouse assistance.

Residents and several commissioners pushed back during more than an hour of public comment. Multiple speakers said they regularly see three to five people waiting in line and questioned whether a single on‑site employee during many hours could reliably handle peak periods or special cases. "We don't want to lose that traffic coming into this county," one resident said, arguing the current office draws people who then spend money locally. Another resident asked how the county would guarantee continuity if a private operator later sold the business.

Drew responded that he has four employees and could bring staff up from Morris as needed, and that private deputy registrar offices commonly operate in similarly sized communities. He acknowledged state approvals — background checks and formal paperwork — would be required for whoever is approved to run a deputy registrar office in the county and suggested contractual contingencies the county could include (for example, a first right of refusal or a non‑sale period) if the board ever agreed to a transition.

The board did not make any decision. The clerk reiterated that the work session was for discussion only and that the board would consider scheduling follow‑up if necessary. No formal motion or vote occurred on the proposal during the meeting.

The next step: The board said it may hold an additional work session to continue the conversation; any transfer of county services to a private operator would require later formal action and likely state approval.