During the February 25, 2025, Ottawa County Board of Commissioner meeting, commissioners passed a motion to (1:00:25) “authorize legal action for a court ruling on the validity of the agreement for the care, management, and maintenance of land located at Crockery Lake. Also known as the Crockery Lake Agreement.” Board Chair John Teeples explained that the board had received a legal opinion from the county’s litigation attorneys Plunkett Cooney, and they did not believe the contract was valid.
Crockery Lake is a small (2.5 mile circumference) inland Ottawa County Lake that is home to farmers, homeowners, and a park. Local residents have been concerned with and studying the lake’s water quality for several years. On December 10, 2024, the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners (OCBOC) agreed to give $563,000 to Chester Township for the purpose of restoring the lake. The restoration project will be designed and implemented by Restorative Lake Sciences under the direction of Dr. Jennifer L. Jermalowicz-Jones. The community revitalization effort will include work to rehabilitate Crockery Lake, provide funding for oversight and management of the operations, and is expected to result in increasing tax revenue.
Community Concerns
On December 10, and on December 3, 2024, when the proposed agreement regarding environmental cleanup of Crockery Lake (p. 130) was discussed during an Ottawa County Finance and Administration meeting, local residents raised numerous concerns. They were concerned that execution of the contract involves an unproven technology, and that the county has assumed liability. They had concerns over the lack of competitive bidding, and about paying $563,000 up front. They highlighted that the project does not address the root causes of the problem, and that potential solutions to prevent further pollution are voluntary by property owners. They asked if the plan was legal and about the legal differences between public and private lakes under Michigan law. Residents noted that Ottawa County has approximately 109 inland lakes and asked why Crockery Lake was selected. There will always be more needs than money, and funding the environmental cleanup effort of a single lake sets a dangerous precedent. In fact, funding for Lake Macatawa, Pigeon Creek, and other waterways was requested during public comment. Residents suggested that entering into the agreement was reckless as the county lacks both a big-picture plan and a detailed plan for cleaning Crockery Lake. Some even accused commissioners of funding a pet project, and a lack of transparency by placing the item on the agenda at the last minute.
Local resident Ken Willison, (5:40) explained how the solution does not address root causes, during his public comment on December 3, 2024. “The largest input problems at Crockery Lake are runoff from farming and residential, and seepage from aging septic. The current discussion addresses those problems with several best management practices (BMP), but from shoreline landscape restrictions to changes in farming techniques, to mandatory septic inspection/replacement programs, all the BMPs being discussed are voluntary. So, it would be impossible to make watershed property owners implement them. That would require changes to state law.”
Crockery Lake Contract
Under the contract (p. 130), the township will not be required to complete the project should funds run out, and shall be entitled to retain administrative fees in the amount of two percent. The county will pay for the township’s legal and personnel fees associated with drafting the contract, and the county will hold the liability. In the contract it states, “the Township shall not, and will not, incur any contractual financial liabilities in the carrying out of the Project in an amount in excess of the total amount of the Lake Restoration Funds provided to the Township by the County. As such, the Township has no obligation – financial or otherwise – to ensure that the Project is completed if the Lake Restoration Funds have been completely depleted under the terms of this Agreement before the Project has been completed.” It also states, “The County shall, at its own expense, and to the extent permitted by law, protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Township, and its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents from all claims, damages, costs, law suits and expenses, including, but not limited to, all costs from administrative proceedings, court costs and attorney fees that they may incur as a result of any acts, omissions or negligence of the County or any of its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors which may arise out of this Agreement.”
Commissioner Discussion when Passing Resolution
During the December 10, 2024, OCBOC meeting, although the resolution passed, several commissioners shared similar concerns to the residents. Commissioner Doug Zylstra asked why the agreement was between Ottawa County and Chester Township, and not directly with the lake board or Restorative Lake Sciences, the company expected to perform the work. Interim County Administrator Benjamin Wetmore explained, (1:05:45) “This has been the product of months of discussions and negotiations, and the township has been very involved with meetings with the county.” He added (1:08:45) “The township is part of the county,” implying that gave the county some amount of oversight over the project, but Zylstra argued that the county did not have any recourse should an issue arise.
Dr. Jones (1:18:50) addressed Zylstra’s concerns explaining, “We are going to be giving quarterly reports to the county on the progress of the project.”
Commissioner Christian Kleinjans, (1:12:58) explained that the contract spans a period of roughly four years, and success depends largely on voluntary changes made by property owners. “We are going to spend four years cleaning a lake and continue cleaning, regardless of the fact that the points of pollution that are causing the problem haven’t been fixed.” [] “We are just giving money with trust because there is no data in this packet that confirms that what this is going to do are going to happen.” “There is no plan in this packet, so I don’t know how we can actually support it.”
Commissioner Jacob Bonnema thought funding milestones should be added to the contract, and also noted the lack of clear objectives. He explained, (1:18:10) “For example, once permits are issued, that would release the next amount of funding; once this task is completed, it would release the next amount of funding,” and then later asked about the goal of the project. (1:25:10) “Is there a purification of the water or a clarity amount that says this is the finish line?”
Dr. Jones explained, (1:25:20) “What we will be doing, the very first thing, is having a visioning session with the community to come up with the objectives and goals; many of which have already been selected by the Crockery Lake Association, but we want to make sure that the public also supports those. And then we’re setting goals and metrics, and as we collect more data, we can see if the implemented technologies and BMPs are following those metrics, and improving them. And that’s what we will be reporting to the county.”
Commissioner Bonnema was also greatly concerned with potential liability to the county as a result of the agreement. He explained (1:20:20) “The liability for anything that might go awry falls back on the county.” [] “If we’re putting together a contract where we are the funding agent of it, we should have indemnities built into it.”
Interim Administrator Wetmore responded. (1:22:27) “Those liabilities come with risk, and that risk gets priced into the contract. So, part of the discussion was about containing the price of the contract, and the percentage of the fee that would go to the township, and minimizing that by having the county retain the risk; because the risk profile for this project is relatively low. Right. It saves the county funds by not transferring that risk to the township.” The exchange continued with Commissioner Bonnema asking, (1:22:48) “Why would we not transfer that risk to the agency that is doing the work?” and Wetmore responded, “Because we would have to pay them to hold the risk.”
Another point of discussion involved the experimental technology. While some commissioners were concerned about it potentially not working or creating liability, others were excited by its potential. Commissioner Gretchen Cosby said (1:23:40) “We want to see this project be successful, and it’s an opportunity for other fresh waterways here and inland lakes as well. Just give it an opportunity commissioner.”
Board Chair Joe Moss stated, (1:35:00) “I’ve heard we need this proven before we do it. Well part of the project is to work on a merit-results, data-oriented process, and strengthening a partnership with a local unit of government.” Later in the meeting Moss added (2:00:03), “It’s an excellent project. [] This is an opportunity to do something that’s a little bit new; a little bit different; and to test this out.”
Commissioner Allison Mediema explained her view. (1:41:06) “There is a lot of new technology around all things water without harming the environment. One of the reasons they [Crockery Lake Association] wanted to go with Dr. Jennifer Jones was due to wanting to pursue this innovative technology. They have seen mucky swampy water, for example, turn into clear, clean drinking water; an innovative technology that will one day be used to a wide extent to filter much of the Earth’s water. [] It’s only a matter of time until this technology will be filtering many bodies of water. [] They [Crockery Lake Association] are excited to be on the cutting edge of this new technology.”
Throughout the discussions in various meetings, the topic of ARPA funding was brought up several times as a way to justify the Crockery Lake Agreement.
Commissioner Discussion to Request a Legal Review of the Contract
During the February 25, 2025, OCBOC meeting, Board Chair John Teeples read a lengthy statement regarding the Crockery Lake Agreement (1:00:25). He explained that attorneys Plunkett Cooney reviewed the contract, had concerns regarding its legality, provided a history of discussions related to approving the agreement, and reiterated the concerns raised by commissioners in previous meetings. First, he emphasized, (1:01:20), “His [Plunkett Cooney attorney] legal opinion states very clearly, that the Crockery Lake Agreement, is invalid as a matter of law and not enforceable.”
Teeples then gave his personal opinion. (1:06:57)
“When I saw the draft agreement before the December 10, 2024 board meeting, I thought it had to be a mistake. I thought there was no way the county and the township intended for the county to assume the risk of nonperformance of the cleanup and hand over $563,000, pay the township a fee for handling the funds, pay the township’s attorney fees, and also indemnify the township. It had to be a mistake. However, after now having read through email communications between the parties and their attorneys and representatives, I have come to the understanding that there is no mistake. This agreement was knowingly and intentionally negotiated as it is written and signed.”
“I’ve been an environmental attorney for over 30 years beginning with Dickenson-Wright back in 1991. As an attorney for the City of Grand Rapids, I was in charge of environmental site assessment for land where the VanAndel Arena now sits. I did the same thing for the DeVos Place along the riverfront. I completed a full environmental analysis of the Gerald R Ford airport.” []
(1:08:50) “Through my experience, I have come to know that there is no such thing as a routine environmental cleanup. Environmental projects seem to always exceed budgets, and rarely, if ever, are completed within anticipated time frames, and that the cleanup standards are often a changing and moving target depending on who is the governor of Michigan, further exacerbating the ultimate cost of cleanup. I have never seen where a non-liable party such as Ottawa County here, voluntarily agrees to assume an environmental cleanup it did not cause.” []
(1:11:10) “Additionally, Ottawa County is supposed to pay Chester Township an administrative fee for holding the monies we are giving for the benefit of their residents for free.” [] “Under the contract, Ottawa County has agreed to pay the township’s attorney fees for having negotiated this agreement.”
(1:16:05) “It doesn’t make any difference if it’s a dollar. It doesn’t make any difference if it’s twenty-five percent, or one-hundred percent. If the contract is invalid because the county can’t enter into these kind of contracts, then it makes no difference what the dollar amount of the contract is.”
Commissioner Joe Moss did not agree with Teeple’s assessment. He stated, (1:17:58) “My understanding is that the agreement falls within the county’s authority under Michigan Law. [] MCL 124.2 on intergovernmental contracts and MCL 124.504 for joint public powers explicitly authorizes counties to enter into these types of agreements for jointly managing property.” He soon added, (1:30:00) “I think trying to take this to court is a method by which you can try to nuke a decision by the previous board.”
Commissioner Mediema agreed, (1:32:37) “You are basically asking for the judge to side with you, based on decisions you did not make in December, and that is something that concerns me for any board turnover that happens. That is a political game.”
Chair Teeples countered (1:33:55), “This is not political. This is prudent.”
Conclusion
Regardless of anyone’s opinion on environmental cleanup, exploring cutting edge technologies, taking on liability, and setting new precedent, it will now be up to a judge to determine if the contract is legal. If it is, Ottawa County will have to abide by the agreement, and if it is not, the effect will be reversing a decision of a previous board.