Citizen Portal
Sign In

Montcalm County board clears Commission on Aging millage language for the ballot

Montcalm County Board of Commissioners · February 24, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a presentation on senior needs and options for ballot language, the board approved resolution language to place a Commission on Aging millage question before voters; commissioners discussed whether to run renewal and increase as one question or two.

The Montcalm County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 23 authorized ballot language for a proposed Commission on Aging (COA) millage measure after hearing a presentation on senior services and demographic trends.

Pam Schock of the Montcalm County Commission on Aging told the board the COA operates on a 0.45-mill levy approved by voters and that the agency is seeking a 0.25-mill increase, which Schock described as raising the rate from 0.45 mills to 0.7 mills. Schock said the COA’s annual operating budget is $1,836,066 with a $625,000 fund balance and that, without millage funding, reserves would cover roughly four months of operations. She listed proposed uses for the increase, including a county-run handyman service for seniors to provide ramps, grab-bar installations, smoke-alarm work, minor home-safety repairs and exterior maintenance.

Commissioners questioned demographic figures and service-usage rates; Schock said current service counts would need to be checked and were not immediately available. Commissioners also discussed ballot strategy and cited Michigan statute MCL 211.24f as governing how renewal and increases may be presented to voters. According to legal advice described in the meeting, the county may submit a single combined proposition that renews and increases the levy if the increase does not exceed 0.5 mills, or it may run two separate propositions — one to renew the existing rate and another to seek the increase.

After debate about the relative risk of running one versus two questions on the ballot, the board moved to approve the millage language as presented (referred to in discussion as resolution 2026-02/202602). The motion carried by voice vote; a roll-call tally was not recorded in the meeting transcript.

Next steps: the approved language will be placed on the ballot for voter consideration; the transcript does not record the precise ballot format the clerk will ultimately print.