Grand Traverse County commissioners are honing in on a new ethics policy that could more clearly define expectations for how county employees, appointees, and elected officials – including commissioners – should behave and establish a process for addressing violations. In other county news, commissioners recently green-lit a new county septic ordinance – which will next go to a public hearing process for input – and heard an update Wednesday on the county’s ongoing lawsuit with BATA.

Ethics Policy
After discussion at multiple meetings and several rounds of revisions, commissioners are nearing a final draft of a new ethics policy that would outline clearer standards for expected behavior and handling conflicts of interest for all county representatives. Several commissioners have expressed dissatisfaction with the county’s existing ethics policy, believing that it’s missing key provisions – including an enforcement mechanism to investigate violations not only by employees or appointees but also elected officials.

The county’s attorney, Matt Nordfjord of Cohl, Stoker & Toskey, presented the latest policy draft to commissioners Wednesday. It identifies a “centralized reporting structure” for ethical complaints, with the county’s administrator and/or HR director serving as the first point of contact, according to Nordfjord. Those individuals would conduct initial reviews to determine if complaints are credible, with the expectation most complaints will either be resolved internally or referred to corporate counsel if needed. However, if the complaint involves the administrator, HR director, or elected officials or county appointees, it would be referred to an ethics panel for investigation.

Commissioners debated Wednesday whether that panel should be a standing panel – one established ahead of time that could potentially involve community members as appointees – or be appointed as-needed when a complaint arises. As outlined in the draft, a three-person ethics panel would be appointed by the commission chair – or vice chair, if the chair is the subject of the complaint – and could include other commissioners, employees, or at-large appointees. Some commissioners felt a standing committee could avoid making “heat-of-the-moment” appointments during a controversy, while others expected that an ethics panel will rarely be needed and should be formed only as required. Nordfjord was asked to present two draft options when commissioners next review the policy that would allow them to choose between a standing or as-needed ethics panel. Commissioners agreed that any panel should ideally include a cross-section of backgrounds to avoid being politicized in any particular direction during an investigation.

The policy outlines basic standards on a range of issues including harassment, use of county assets, expression of personal views, personal or financial conflicts of interest, the accepting of gifts, and more. Nordfjord said the goal is to have a “uniform and clear set of expectations” countywide. He emphasized the importance of transparency and “erring on the side of disclosure” when it comes to potential conflicts of interest under such a policy. Commissioners asked Nordfjord to add language to the draft that would provide notification and appeals options for those accused of violations. The board is expected to revisit and potentially vote on the new policy at an upcoming meeting.

Septic Ordinance
Commissioners have green-lit a new septic ordinance for Grand Traverse County, which will now go to a public hearing phase to allow residents to give feedback before the ordinance is finalized and takes effect. The ordinance has a targeted effective date of January 1, 2026.

The new rules would require septic system inspections whenever properties within 300 feet of surface water (measured from the closest part of the dwelling to the surface water) are sold or transferred in Grand Traverse County. That is expected to affect between 200 and 400 properties annually, according to county estimates. Private inspectors are expected to complete those inspections, though the Grand Traverse County Health Department is budgeting just under $180,000 for equipment and a full-time employee to review the inspection reports, run the regulation program, and assist the public with navigating the new rules.

Before the ordinance can take effect, the county must set a public hearing and give notice to the community of that hearing at least 10 days in advance. The hearing must also be held at least 20 days before the ordinance’s formal adoption. The county has not yet set a hearing date, but it is expected to take place at a future regular meeting of the county commission. County leaders see the new ordinance as the first step toward better regulating local septic systems, with the program to potentially expand in the future as staffing capacity allows. Several commissioners said they’d also like to see the county start working on getting updated septic records for properties that are currently missing them, with thousands estimated to be missing countywide.

BATA Lawsuit
An ongoing case involving the Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) – which sued the county last year for allegedly violating an interlocal agreement by appointing two county commissioners to the BATA board – is not likely to be resolved anytime soon, commissioners learned Wednesday. Vice Chair TJ Andrews said a settlement conference last week between the parties was unsuccessful, with the planned next step to be a trial starting next week. However, BATA has indicated it wants to file a motion to have Judge Charles Hamlyn – who rejected some of BATA’s proposed exhibits for trial – reconsider his decision on that evidence. If he still declines to allow the evidence after reconsideration, BATA plans to file an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Andrews said the rapidly approaching trial date would not allow enough time for BATA to go through the reconsideration process. Accordingly, Hamlyn pushed back the trial date to allow BATA to pursue reconsideration, Andrews said. She noted that Hamlyn stated he didn’t think he’d made the wrong decision regarding the evidence, meaning the request is likely headed to an appeal – all of which will will add time to the lawsuit. “The case is getting...longer, not shorter,” Andrews said.