Hillsdale county commissioners decline to put $15.5 million Lifeways bond before voters
Loading...
Summary
After public comment raised questions about wording and ballot placement, the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners defeated a resolution to submit a referendum authorizing up to $15.5 million in bonds for a new Lifeways community mental health facility, voting 2–3.
The Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners on the record described and debated a proposed bond referendum to finance a new Lifeways community mental health facility and voted 2–3 to reject sending the question to the ballot.
The resolution, read into the record by a board member (resolution sponsor) and numbered 26-028, would have authorized the county to borrow and issue municipal securities in an amount not to exceed $15,500,000 to finance acquisition, design, construction, renovation and equipping of a Lifeways community mental health facility and related site work. The resolution described a process for publishing notice and submitting the question to county electors at the August 4 primary election.
Why it mattered: Members of the public urged the board for clarity before any vote. Mary Mintz told commissioners she objected to the resolution’s wording, saying the facility is a Jackson Hillsdale Community Mental Health Authority facility—not a “county community mental health facility”—and asked the board to clarify which ballot question would be used before approving it. Josephine Eaton also warned the project could serve out-of-area clients and raised concerns the facility might operate in a way that does not primarily benefit local taxpayers.
Board debate focused on procedure and scope. Some commissioners said the petition that led to the referendum did not meet signature thresholds and that the board could address the matter directly without referring it to voters; others argued that the size of the request — described in the resolution as up to $15.5 million — justified placing the question before electors. The sponsor noted the resolution and the draft referendum repeatedly stated the question would appear on the August 4, 2026, primary ballot.
Vote and outcome: The roll call produced these recorded votes: Commissioner Benzie — Yes; Commissioner Langdon — No; Commissioner Ingalls — Yes; Commissioner Collins — No; Commissioner Wagner — No. The motion failed on a 2–3 vote and the board did not approve the referendum submission.
What’s next: A board member stated an intention to bring a motion at the next meeting to rescind a related earlier resolution (25-095); the board did not adopt the Lifeways submission. The transcript does not record a follow-up schedule or any change to Lifeways’ project planning beyond the failed motion.
Authorities and references cited in discussion included Act 34 (Public Acts of Michigan 2001, as referenced in the resolution language) and MCL citations raised during public comment regarding records retention. The transcript did not provide additional statutory citations beyond what is referenced in the resolution language and public-comment readings.
Speakers quoted or central to this item appear in the meeting record and are cited above. The resolution language and vote counts come from the board’s reading and roll call during the meeting.
