The meeting began with technical difficulties. Audio is unavailable on the meeting’s recording for the majority of the Action Item portion, picking up during the discussion of this year’s equalized values.

The next Action Item was to consider the Classification & Compensation Study done by Baker Tilly and the resulting amended recommendation to adjust positions, pay grades, and the wage scale to maintain a competitive position in the marketplace.

Additionally, the commissioners were to determine an amendment to authorize the County Administrator to make individual wage adjustments as warranted.

• Baker Tilly Senior Manager Sarah Towne explained that the study examined 237 positions and compiled data from ten public peer organizations. The results show the County to be roughly two percent above average with starting and midpoint wages, but 0.3 percent below average for top-of-pay-scale wages.

• If Baker Tilly’s recommendations are implemented, the adjustments to wages and positions would cost the County an additional $1.2 million each year.

• Commissioner Jordan Jorritsma asked whether an analysis had been done on the cost of the increase under the County’s current system versus the new system. Towne replied that it had not.

• Commissioner Sylvia Rhodea clarified that the recommendation is for all non-union and non-sworn employees. County Administrator Patrick Waterman added that union employees will have negotiations through collective bargaining agents at the end of this year.

• Waterman explained that the amendment being considered would give him latitude to make discretionary decisions on wage adjustments, within reason, without needing to bring to the Board every appeal.

• Rhodea said she’d be more comfortable with the amendment if it was capped at $50,000 or $100,000, which might allow Waterman to change ten positions without needing to come to the Board. Including a cap also would keep the adjustments from throwing off the Contingency Fund. Commenting on the importance of transparency and accountability, Rhodea added that she’d also like to see a report of positions that are adjusted.

• Waterman was agreeable to both the cap and the report, saying if he needed more he always could come back to the Board.

Rhodea moved to amend the motion to include a $100,000 cap for the Administrator with an ongoing report to the Board on adjustments. The motion was a tie and therefore failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Doug Zylstra, Jim Barry, and Sylvia Rhodea.

Those voting no: Phil Kuyers, Jordan Jorritsma, John Teeples.

Commissioner Jacob Bonnema was absent.

The Board then voted to approve the amendment authorizing the County Administrator to make individual wage adjustments as warranted.

• Rhodea said she would be voting no, as she believes accountability and transparency are important.

• Waterman assured Rhodea that regardless of the amendment, he will commit to provide the report and appreciated the guardrails Rhodea had given him for the dollar amount

The motion passed, with all but Rhodea voting yes.

The final vote was to approve and forward to the Board of Commissioners the amended recommendation for Ottawa County to adjust positions, pay grades, and the wage scale, as recommended, to maintain a competitive position in the marketplace, and to authorize the County Administrator to make individual wage adjustments, as warranted.

The motion passed unanimously with the Commissioners present.

April 14, 2026 Ottawa County Board of Commissioners Finance & Administration Committee meeting.

Parks & Recreation Director Jason Shamblin presented on the Open Space Millage Proposal and took questions from the commissioners.

• The Parks Commission had approved the plan for the .53 increase (adding .2 to the current .33 millage).

• Shamblin shared that over 10,000 residents participated in several surveys. Revisions have been made to the proposal based on feedback.

• One thing that resonated overwhelmingly with residents is that Ottawa County is losing roughly 4000 acres per year to development, losing not only natural resources but agricultural land. So, the millage team built in a feasibility study to evaluate a program for protecting land—not through acquisition but through conservation easements, buying development rights.

• Commissioner Allison Miedema had Shamblin clarify that even if money isn’t spent on the projects listed, it will stay within Parks’ budget.

• Rhodea pointed out how heavy the park investment has been along the lakeshore in comparison to the east side of the county. Residents on the east side have been investing in the lakeshore parks, but it’s harder for them to get there and use them as much. Given that the addition of .2 to the millage would be heavily invested in the lakeshore, Rhodea wasn’t convinced it was needed and suggested a .1 percent increase instead.

• Shamblin explained that since the Parks Commission was formed in 1987, all of the acquisitions and investments have been along the county’s greenways, building regional parks as opposed to neighborhood parks. The Commission has tried to be sensitive to look at the distribution of the investment.

• Attorney Doug Van Essen broke down the options for what the Board could put on the ballot—explaining that a millage is an authorization to spend; it’s not spending. He furthered that there are three questions to ask the voters. The first question is if they want to renew the .31, which is really the .33 rolled back. The second is whether the voters not only want to renew the .31 but restore the Headlee rollback up to .33. The third question is whether voters want to increase the rate by .2, which would bring it to a .53 millage.

• Van Essen next explained that the three questions can be split however the Board decides. All three questions could be on the August ballot or two could appear on the August ballot and one on the November ballot.

• Commissioner Joe Moss pointed out that the CMH millage in August will be labeled “renew and restore,” and it would be good messaging from the County perspective if the Parks millage were done in the same way. Then the increase could be asked for in November.

• Rhodea agreed, saying she was more comfortable asking for the increase in November when more residents come to the polls. That way it would feel like a broad, community-wide decision.

April 14, 2026 Ottawa County Board of Commissioners Work Session.

The Committee considered a motion to include Grand Valley State University as an Authority member within the Kent Ottawa Muskegon Foreign Trade Zone Authority. Currently, GVSU functions in an administrative role with no voting rights. Waterman explained that this could be considered a housekeeping item, and that Muskegon and Kent Counties already had approved the change.

• In her research, Miedema had found that GVSU has been a part of this Authority since the 1990’s, but never as a voting member. She pointed out that GVSU is not elected, and that she had concerns regarding public accountability—though she would support the university remaining in an advisory role. Miedema added that this wasn’t a “housekeeping” matter as presented but rather a “pretty big change.”

• Jorritsma agreed, saying Miedema made a reasonable point. Additionally, he was confused as to why GVSU would want voting power.

• While Van Essen admitted not knowing the reason for GVSU’s request, he surmised that maybe it was because the university had been the administrators for so long and now felt entitled to a seat at the actual board.

• Commissioner Phil Kuyers didn’t see any negative to giving GVSU voting rights.

• Jorritsma said that given that the Authority might encounter the potentially political hot topic of tariffs, it would be wiser to leave the voting in the hands of the counties.

Miedema moved to table the item, saying that if the GVSU members wanted to come back with a different resolution, they could. But she thought it was contingent on them.

The motion to table passed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners John Teeples, Phil Kuyers, Kendra Wenzel, Allison Miedema, Jordan Jorritsma, Jim Barry.

Commissioner Jacob Bonnema was absent.

Waterman shared that the State passed a statue a few years ago that allows counties to impose fees that are associated with the costs for handling waste in their jurisdictions. Ottawa County currently doesn’t have that sort of mechanism but rather an agreement with Republic and Waste Management based on two percent of gross annual revenue.

If implemented, the user fee would be paid by waste haulers, not landfills. With roughly 70% of the trash comes from outside of Ottawa County, the fee would be administered to the people actually generating trash and putting it into the landfills. Waterman added that the hope is, with the amount of trash currently coming in, the County could generate about a million dollars a year from this fee. The money accrued would cover the anticipated capital costs.

Van Essen added Waste Management is threatening to sue if the County implements a fee.

• Jorritsma said the 1991 contract with Waste Management (WM) makes it clear that if the County adds a fee over and above what WM agreed to (two percent), WM can sue and seek damages for every dollar paid up until now.

• Van Essen said that WM is looking for the fee to be capped at two percent, and that the covenant not to sue is worthless.

• Jorritsma wondered if it would be possible to split the trucks—those carrying trash in from outside the county would incur the fee, those carrying trash from inside the county would not.

• Van Essen thought it would be complicated since trucks pick up from more than one county, adding it would be “legally problematic and practically problematic.” He then explained the urgency he felt. He claimed the fee issue has been “languishing” for years, and meanwhile the County has pressing goals. To Van Essen, a fee would be an equitable distribution of costs among those using the landfills as opposed to covering the cost with the General Fund of Ottawa County tax dollars.

• Commissioner John Teeples interjected that the Board has the responsibility to protect the community’s resources, and this Ordinance would do that. He recommended sending the issue to a work session for more discussion.

The commissioners present voted unanimously to forward the Solid Waste Financing Ordinance to the Board of Commissioners for further discussion.

Next, the commissioners reviewed a Work Remote Policy for a second and third reading.

• Miedema suggested additionally requiring department heads to submit a report to Administration for the Board of Commissioners to review each year showing the number of hours worked remotely by department in order to assist with tracking and accountability.

• Teeples countered, asking questions such as: “Why?” and “What’s the point?”

• Miedema reflected on productivity studies showing those who come to the workplace produce more for society. She thought the Board has a responsibility to provide oversight if more and more people are working remotely.

• Jorritsma agreed that there is merit to a report in the sense that the department heads would be putting their stamp of approval on the work getting done.

• Commissioner Jim Barry didn’t think a report was necessary and that it felt like micromanaging. Kuyers agreed. But Barry did agree that people are more effective in the office.

• Waterman clarified that remote work is any work not done at a County facility, which would include field work.

Miedema amended the motion to include requiring department heads to submit a report to Administration for the Board to review each year showing the number of hours worked remotely in their department. The motion was tied and therefore failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Kendra Wenzel, Allison Miedema, and Jordan Jorritsma.

Those voting no: Commissioners Phil Kuyers, John Teeples, and Jim Barry.

Commissioner Jacob Bonnema was absent.

The Committee then voted and approved the original motion to approve and forward to the Board the new Remote Work Policy for a first and second reading.

Both the Health and Human Services and Veterans Services updates were postponed.

Waterman shared that Consumers Energy was unable to give their planned presentation due to time restraints, but that the representatives did commit to a recommendation for a public hearing. EPA and EGLE would like to host the hearing.

• Miedema suggested and Waterman committed to preparing a simple resolution for a public hearing for the Board to consider at the April 30 meeting.

• Teeples and Jorritsma didn’t think the Board should be “wading into these waters.” Jorritsma said the Board essentially has no control over this process and shouldn’t be engaging in topics on which the Federal Government and State have clear purview.

• Barry commented that Consumers Energy has a prudent, sensible plan, and that he likes the process of using of the byproduct from the burnt coal, diluting it, and putting it back into Lake Michigan. The problem is that the community hasn’t been fully brought up to speed. He added that Campbell is a point of high interest, as is groundwater and Lake Michigan. Though he agreed with Jorritsma that there are areas in which the Board should be very gentle or discriminate about getting involved, concerning the Campbell he said, “I can see we have a voice in this.”

April 14, 2026 Ottawa County Board of Commissioners Planning & Policy Committee meeting.

Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
Finance & Administration and Planning & Policy Committees
April 14, 2026

Ottawa County Administration Building
12220 Fillmore Street
West Olive, MI 49460