County board approves Vasa Trailhead grant application, backs broadband letters and signs jail boarding contracts

In a bundle of votes covering parks, broadband and corrections, the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners authorized staff to apply for a $400,000 Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant to fund Vasa (Vassa) Trailhead Park improvements and agreed to commit a county match of $300,000 (including $125,000 already in the 2025 capital plan and a proposed $175,000 in the 2026 CIP).

Director John Chase described the Vasa property as a 40‑acre trailhead with existing grooming and trail infrastructure, and said the project would address stormwater, regrade and asphalt the entry and parking area (increasing estimated capacity from about 42 informal gravel spaces to roughly 57 marked stalls with wider 10‑ft spaces), add ADA access around the warming hut, provide bike repair/tuning stations and improved wayfinding, and construct bioswales and a stormwater basin. Chase said the county will file the MNRTF application by April 1 and, if awarded, could begin construction after typical funding timelines.

“Should this grant be awarded,” Chase said, “we would be able to put a shovel in the ground as soon as the ground thaws and we’d be ready to go.”

The board also voted to send letters of support for two BEAD‑eligible rural fiber proposals from the presenter’s company; the projects would deliver fiber‑to‑the‑home (baseline 1 Gbps, symmetrical, upgradable) to several underserved rural passings, with roughly 300 passings inside Grand Traverse County among about 4,000 total in the service area. The developer, Corey Compagner, said the company typically offers a popular 500 Mbps symmetrical plan at $49.95 and that the builds require grant support in lower‑density areas. Commissioners asked whether county support would preclude other providers (it will not) and about timing; the company said awarded projects must be completed within up to three years.

Sheriff Mike Shea presented three boarding contracts to memorialize an existing practice of sending inmates to neighboring counties when capacity issues arise. Commissioners discussed medical care, transport costs and family visitation impacts; the per‑bed rate and emergency health care reimbursements were explained by the sheriff. The board approved the contracts.

Several items carried by voice vote; for matters that involved budgets or contract authorization the board asked staff for follow‑up documentation on exact tax capture and match sources and noted that some endorsements commit the county to future CIP allocations if grants are awarded.