The Board of Commissioners opened the Public Hearing and received fifteen comments in total on the Community Mental Health (CMH) and Parks & Open Space proposed millages. Following the hearing, the commissioners discussed the resolution to approve the ballot language for each millage.

For the August 4, 2026 ballot, if approved, both CMH and Parks & Open Space would be asking for a ten-year renewal and restoration dedicated millage. CMH’s millage would be for 0.30 mill and Parks & Open Space’s would be for 0.33 mill.

For the November 3, 2026 ballot, if approved, Parks & Open Space would ask for a ten-year, 0.2 mill increase dedicated millage.

• Commissioner Phil Kuyers praised the way Parks and Recreation Director Jason Shamblin had separated the Parks’ millages after some commissioners had raised concerns about both requests being on the August ballot. Commissioners wanted to give those who only vote in November an opportunity to weigh in.

• Commissioner Joe Moss initially moved to divide the vote into two, one vote for the August millages and one for the millage going on the November ballot. After Commissioner Allison Miedema suggested a friendly amendment, Moss changed his motion to divide the vote into three, one vote per millage.

• In favor of Moss’ motion, Commissioner Sylvia Rhodea thought there was fairly large support of the August millages, and the Board might not obtain a unanimous vote if the November millage, which was asking for an increase, weren’t separated out. She added that where there is Board agreement, it would be good to demonstrate it to the community. Commissioners John Teeples and Allison Miedema agreed.

• Though comfortable with the ballot language as it was, Commissioner Jim Barry said he, too, would prefer to get as close to a unanimous vote on the issues as they could.

The motion to divide the vote on the millages into three passed.

Those voting yes: Jacob Bonnema, John Teeples, Allison Miedema, Kendra Wenzel, Jim Barry, Sylvia Rhodea, Joe Moss, and Phil Kuyers.

Those voting no: Jordan Jorritsma, Doug Zylstra, and Josh Brugger.

Discussion on the three proposals followed.

• Moss pointed out that maintaining the current millage would help with stability as CMH converts from a department to a separate authority.

• Miedema questioned how to guard against service gaps if a millage vote occurs in November rather than August. Rhodea responded that rather than through ballot language, there could be an adjustment to the pacing of fund expenditures. Interim Corporate Counsel Ron Bultje confirmed that budgeting and planning would manage a service gap.

• Rhodea said that the needs in the community have changed from when the millage passed ten years ago, and that there are “new, beautiful, and effective services.” With the rigorous accountability and utilization data that CMH had begun to require and utilize, Rhodea was in support of the millage.

• Teeples and Chair Brugger expressed their support, referencing trust in the CMH board and commending those who’d advocated for CMH during the Public Hearing.

The motion to adopt a resolution approving the ballot language to place the renewal and restoration millage for CMH on the August 4, 2026 ballot passed unanimously

The motion to adopt a resolution approving the ballot language to place the renewal and restoration millage for Parks and Open Space on the August 4, 2026 ballot passed unanimously.

• Kuyers was in support of placing the increase on the November ballot because it would put the decision in the hands of the voters.

• Though she loves the county parks, Rhodea was concerned about continuing to burden citizens with taxes. She particularly was concerned about young people being able to find affordable housing and the elderly not being able to afford to downsize because their property tax would increase. Also, there are critical services that are essential that are funded through millages. She concluded that it seems people are at their limit of what they can afford. Wenzel agreed.

• Barry’s view was that property taxes are the only tax voters get to vote on and the only tax revenue that stays local, a direct benefit to the taxpayers. He questioned why there isn’t interest instead in rolling back the sales tax or the gas tax. He supported putting the increase on the ballot, and Zylstra and Bonnema agreed.

• As a frequent user of the parks and former teacher of a nature-based preschool, Miedema had wrestled with whether to support the increase. She ultimately decided that it is the role of the Board to look at budgets and know what budgets are coming. Commissioners often have a broader purview and understanding of what is happening in the county. Whereas residents, who are only able to see a couple of requests on a ballot at a time, may not have what’s needed to cast an informed vote. Miedema added that if Ottawa County isn’t an affordable place to live, even with great parks, people will no longer want to move here.

• Teeple disagreed, saying that the government is not here to fix everything and it’s not the Board’s job to do that. He said his job is to watch the County budget and set policies on safety and other issues. “We have to understand where our lane is,” he said.

• Moss noted the Board’s unanimous support for the millage renewal. But as for adding an increase, he said that the government is taxing too much, and that at the state level, Democrats are looking at tax increases. He encouraged the Board to vote no and revisit the increase the following year.

• Brugger agreed with Teeples, saying that the Board is “essentially a pass-through entity.” He supported letting the voters decide on the increase.

The motion to adopt a resolution approving the ballot language to place the increase millage for Parks and Open Space on the November 3, 2026 ballot passed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Doug Zylstra, John Teeples, Jordan Jorritsma, Phil Kuyers, Jim Barry, Jacob Bonnema, and Josh Brugger.

Those voting no: Commissioners Allison Miedema, Sylvia Rhodea, Joe Moss, and Kendra Wenzel.

Miedema asked to have Contract 2970 removed and voted on separately from the Contract Ratification list. Her reason was that the contract, regarding medical marijuana act awareness training, mentions Public Health going into five schools. Anytime Public Health enters a school, she believes the Board needs to understand the purpose and intent.

The motion to separate the contract for a separate vote failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Kendra Wenzel, Joe Moss, Doug Zylstra, Sylvia Rhodea, and Allison Miedema.

Those voting no: Commissioners Phil Kuyers, Jordan Jorritsma, John Teeples, Jacob Bonnema, Jim Barry, and Josh Brugger.

After the motion was made to approve the first reading of the Remote Work Policy, Miedema made a motion to add a requirement for department heads to submit an annual report showing each hour worked remotely in their department, emphasizing the importance of having accountability.

• Teeples again wanted to know, “What is our role as a board?” and how much micromanaging was the Board going to do?

• Moss said the policy is new and could add a level of coverage for the Administrator, allowing him to request it from HR, for example, and then do his due diligence—with it coming directly from the Board and not from him. It is a simple, high-level Board policy and a better position for the Administrator.

• Jorritsma agreed that it would be in the purview of the Board, pointing out that Bonnema frequently says actions need to be relatable, repeatable, and measurable. This would be measurable and a benefit for the Administrator.

• County Administrator Patrick Waterman responded that he doesn’t like to write work assignments into policy as it creates an administrative burden. He preferred the motion as written, without Miedema’s addition of a report.

The motion to add the requirement of a report to the Remote Work Policy failed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners Joe Moss, Sylvia Rhodea, Kendra Wenzel, Allison Miedema, and Jordan Jorritsma.

Those voting no: Commissioners Phil Kuyers, Jim Barry, Jacob Bonnema, Doug Zylstra, John Teeples, and Josh Brugger.

The Board was asked to approve the recommendation for Ottawa County to adjust positions, pay grades, and the wage scale based on a recently completed wage study. Additionally, the motion asked for the authorization of the Administrator to make individual wage adjustments as warranted.

• Rhodea proposed a work session to further discuss the wage study citing concerns from Judges Van Allsburg and Judge Dahlman. Miedema agreed.

• Regarding the judges’ concerns, Human Resources Director Scott Hawkes stated that although he’s not a lawyer, he is a labor relations professional, and there is no legal issue with the wage study.

• Barry thought the matter needed to “percolate a little bit longer” before a vote.

• Moss didn’t think a work session was necessary but did agree the administration needed more time to answer lingering questions.

Moss made a motion to table the matter; the motion passed.

Those voting yes: Commissioners John Teeples, Jim Barry, Joe Moss, Sylvia Rhodea, Allison Miedema, Jacob Bonnema, and Kendra Wenzel.

Those voting no: Commissioners Doug Zylstra, Phil Kuyers, Jordan Jorritsma, and Josh Brugger.

In response to the decision to table, Waterman voiced frustration. He recapped how he had been working on the wage study since he was hired. He was prepared to answer questions, but none were asked. Now the issue would be stalled for another month with employees anxious for the implementation. Waterman added that he wouldn’t have presented the wage study had he felt it wasn’t well done.

At the beginning of the meeting, Miedema had made a motion to add a Discussion Item regarding the Water Resources Commissioner and Treasurer’s additional compensation. The motion passed and was the final discussion of the meeting.

Miedema began by saying she was “disappointed, and to be frank, frustrated and somewhat angry” to learn from a constituent that additional wages had been given to the Treasurer and Water Resource Commissioner. The issue had circulated through social media, accusing the Board of not being transparent. She added that Attorney Doug Van Essen had told a constituent that the added compensation was an “internal decision that the Board approved in May.” Miedema said that she didn’t know which May Van Essen was referring to and that the Board certainly didn’t have this conversation a year ago.

While Miedema wasn’t arguing that the Treasurer and Water Resource Commissioner didn’t deserve to make a fair salary, the discrepancy was that the Board had believed there wasn’t anything in the statute that would allow the issue to be handled in a different way. If there had been, the commissioners would have welcomed a conversation by the full Board.

Concluding, Miedema said the news has made her wonder what other officials or commissioners are being paid more money than the full Board is aware of.

• Rhodea explained how the Officers Compensation Commission had made a number of decisions outside of the legally allotted time frame. In addition to the salaries for Treasurer and Water Resource Commissioner, the Commission had designated a higher rate for the Board of Commissioners which was found to be null and void due to being outside the date parameters. Which means, Rhodea said, there was some picking and choosing of which decisions the Board liked and will enforce and which ones it didn’t, essentially establishing new authority over how those decisions are made and applied. She added that this is why it’s important to follow the law and proper process and provide clarity and transparency, otherwise it raises questions.

• Waterman walked through each step he had taken and concluded by assuring the Board that everything he’d done was legal.

• Attorney Doug Van Essen clarified that while Kallman Law Group had been “absolutely correct” that the Commission’s decision had to be made within 45 days, the law doesn’t describe how that decision has to be memorialized.

• Zylstra summed up Rhodea and Miedema’s central question as, “Under what authority was that action taken?” Van Essen responded that it was under the Insurance Authority, which is a separate entity. Miedema interjected, asking Van Essen, “Who gave you the authority to give the Insurance Authority that authority?” Van Essen answered that the Board of Commissioners had. Miedema denied Van Essen’s claim.

• Rhodea requested copies of the Commission’s affidavits that were believed to have justified the decisions, stating that when the matter had been brought to the Board before, the evidence didn’t appear to support the raises. And now, based on whatever information had been received, the conclusion had been reached that money is owed to the two officials.

April 30, 2026 Ottawa County Board of Commissioners meeting.

Ottawa County Board of Commissioners
Regular Session
April 30, 2026

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