10.11.2026 - October Council Meeting Agenda for 10.12.2026 @ 6pm - Updated 10.15.2026

𝗖𝗢𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗩𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗘𝗪

Monday, October 12, 2026 | 6:00 PM
City Hall, 289 Danforth Street

Our next City Council meeting is Monday evening. We have several items to discuss, including water infrastructure improvements, the continued closure of our former wastewater treatment plant, employee benefits, and other City business.

I wanted to share a preview of what Council will be considering so residents can stay informed and share any questions or concerns.

As always, I am sharing this from my perspective as an individual City Council member, not on behalf of the entire Council. These items are on the agenda for consideration and have not yet been approved.

𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟱: 𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗟𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗦

5.A. Annual City Audit: Eric Van Dop from Brickley DeLong will present the City's financial audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026.

The draft audit received an unmodified (clean) opinion, meaning the auditors found the City's financial statements were fairly presented in all material respects.

Overall, the City's financial position showed several positive indicators. The General Fund balance increased to approximately $4.74 million, and the Water Fund reported positive operating income. The Sewer Fund reported an operating loss as the City continues transitioning to the regional wastewater system.

5.B. Ottawa County Updates: County Commissioner Allison Miedema will provide updates on county activities and issues.

𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟴: 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

8.A. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀

With our wastewater now being sent to Muskegon County through the Southeast Regional Force Main (SERFM), we need less contracted operator support.

The City still maintains sewer infrastructure and has regulatory responsibilities. Council will consider an agreement with Infrastructure Alternatives for approximately 12 hours of oversight per week at $66,944 annually. This would also help train City employees to assume additional responsibilities.

8.B. 𝟲𝟴𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻, $4,967,688

Council will consider awarding the first phase of a new 20-inch water transmission main to McCormick Sand, the lowest of nine bidders.

The $4.97 million proposal includes an accelerated construction schedule targeting July 2027.

Where is the money coming from?

The City received a $17 million grant from the State of Michigan for water infrastructure improvements, including the transmission main and planned water storage improvements. The construction cost for this phase is expected to be covered by that state grant funding.

The project will improve water capacity and reliability while supporting future development, including Fairlife's expansion. The new infrastructure will also serve the broader community.

8.C. 𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁

Council will consider appointing Natalie Marshall, co-owner of Coopersville Creamery, to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Board.

She would fill a vacancy for a term ending in July 2029.

8.D. 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲, $67,571

As part of closing our former wastewater treatment plant, Council will consider spending $67,571 to remove approximately 220 aerators from the second treatment pond.

Similar work was approved for the first pond last month. Additional closure work, including biosolids removal, is still needed.

8.E. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝟭-𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗚𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗧𝗮𝗻𝗸

Council will continue discussing a proposed elevated water tank intended to improve water pressure, firefighting capacity, and system reliability.

The estimated cost is $8 million, with a preliminary funding plan of $1.5 million in state funding, $3.5 million from the City's Water Fund, and a proposed $3 million federal grant.

The federal grant has not been awarded, so other financing may be necessary.

This is a discussion item, not a vote to begin construction.

8.F. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀

Council will consider changes to the City's paid time off (PTO) schedule.

The proposal would allow employees to earn additional PTO sooner in their careers, with a maximum of 200 hours annually after 20 years.

The goal is to improve employee retention and recruitment. The financial impact will also need to be considered.

8.G. 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗿𝘀

Leaks were identified in an existing underground structure at the Main Lift Station.

Two contractors submitted repair proposals of $15,198 and $15,525.

Council will consider repairing the affected areas. More extensive interior coating options were also quoted at approximately $53,000–$55,000.

8.H. 𝗔𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁

Following the earlier presentation, Council will consider formally receiving and filing the City's annual financial audit.

The audit provides an independent assessment of the City's financial statements and helps Council evaluate our financial position as we plan future projects.

8.I. 𝗙𝗢𝗜𝗔 𝗙𝗲𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁

Council will consider waiving an $83.22 fee for 278 pages of public records relating to odor complaints and communications involving Continental Dairy and Fairlife.

The requester intends to review and share information about the City's response to these complaints.

Council will consider whether the request qualifies for a full or partial fee waiver based on public-interest considerations and applicable law.

This agenda item concerns public access to records, not a decision on the odor complaints themselves.

8.J. 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗹, $29,783.43

Council will consider a four-year renewal with HydroCorp for $29,783.43.

The company conducts commercial and non-residential inspections to help prevent contaminated water from flowing backward into the public drinking water system. City employees would continue handling residential inspections.

𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗢𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦?

Water and wastewater infrastructure continues to be a major focus for Coopersville. These investments are important, but so is understanding their costs, funding sources, and long-term benefits to residents.

If you have questions or concerns about any of these items, please reach out. I appreciate hearing your perspectives before Council makes decisions.

You're also welcome to attend Monday's meeting at 6:00 PM at City Hall, where opportunities for public comment are available.

Peter Weise
Coopersville City Council Member

𝗖𝗢𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗩𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗔𝗣

𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟮, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

Here is my recap of the main discussions and decisions from Monday night's Coopersville City Council meeting.

I'm sharing this from my perspective as an individual Council member, not on behalf of the entire Council. My goal is to help residents understand what was discussed, what decisions were made, and how those decisions may affect our community.

𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟱 — 𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗟𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗦

𝗔𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

A representative from Brickley DeLong presented the City's annual financial audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026.

The City received an 𝘂𝗻𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 (𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻) 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻, the highest opinion an auditor can provide on the presentation of financial statements.

Some key financial highlights:

• 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱: Ending fund balance of approximately $4.74 million.
• 𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱: Approximately $1.41 million in operating income.
• 𝗦𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱: A small operating loss of approximately $74,000.
• 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴: The City's pension system is approximately 77.1% funded and has shown improvement over several years.

One important detail regarding the Sewer Fund is that expenses increased significantly during this transition year. The City was still paying expenses associated with the former wastewater treatment plant, including sludge removal, while also beginning to pay Muskegon County for wastewater treatment.

The auditor also noted that the City paid off the remaining Sewer Fund bonds early, eliminating those associated interest expenses going forward unless new debt is issued.

The General Fund experienced higher revenue, largely because of increased construction permitting activity. Those revenues should not automatically be considered recurring annual income.

The auditor identified one recommendation involving the separation of financial duties among staff, an internal-control consideration that can be challenging for smaller municipal governments.

𝗢𝘁𝘁𝗮𝘄𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀

Ottawa County Commissioner Allison Miedema provided several county updates.

The county approved its FY2027 budget while maintaining its existing operating millage.

She also discussed the upcoming county parks millage proposal. Voters approved a 0.33-mill renewal and restoration in August, and a separate proposal for an additional 0.2 mills for ten years will appear on the November ballot.

The Commissioner expressed her personal concerns about asking residents for additional taxes given current household expenses.

Another significant topic was the use of automated license plate reader cameras, including Flock Safety cameras. The county is reviewing questions involving privacy, information sharing, government surveillance, and appropriate oversight.

She also shared information about upcoming county events focusing on water quality and community growth.

𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

Residents raised several topics during public comment, including:

• Transportation options connecting Coopersville with surrounding communities.
• Concerns about the cost of FOIA requests and access to public information.
• Water pressure and how the proposed water tower would affect different neighborhoods.
• Ongoing odor concerns involving the dairies.
• Fairlife's proposed expansion, water consumption, and upcoming tax abatement request.
• Employee compensation and retaining qualified City workers.

These were comments and concerns raised by residents, rather than findings or decisions made by Council.

𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟴 — 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗔 — 𝗪𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗦
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved two agreements with Infrastructure Alternatives (IAI) as the City continues transitioning away from operating its own wastewater treatment plant.

The first provides certified operator oversight averaging approximately 12 hours per week, at an annual cost of approximately $66,944.

The second provides professional consulting services on an as-needed basis, meaning the City would be charged when those additional services are used.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱?

Although Coopersville is no longer treating wastewater at the former plant, it has not yet received final closure approval from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).

Until that process is complete, the City still has regulatory responsibilities, required reporting, and equipment and facility closure work to finish. It was explained that formal closure could take another year.

The agreement also provides guidance while a City employee works toward the necessary operator certification.

The regular oversight agreement includes a provision allowing termination with 15 days' written notice.

This is not an agreement to keep the former treatment plant operating indefinitely as a backup. It provides certified oversight during the remaining closure process and transition.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗕 — 𝟲𝟴𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗨𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved awarding the first construction contract to 𝗠𝗰𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 $𝟰,𝟵𝟲𝟳,𝟲𝟴𝟴.

The project will construct a new 20-inch water transmission main along 68th Avenue, from Leonard Street north toward Coopersville.

Nine bids were received. The selected bid includes an accelerated construction option, with a targeted completion date of July 9, 2027.

The engineer's estimate was approximately $6.2 million, meaning the approved bid came in roughly $1.23 million below that estimate.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁?

The larger water transmission system improvements are intended to increase capacity, improve reliability, and support existing customers as well as future residential, commercial, and industrial development.

The State of Michigan has provided approximately $17 million in funding toward the broader water infrastructure project.

While industrial expansion has been an important driver of these improvements, the infrastructure will be part of the public water system.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗖 — 𝗗𝗢𝗪𝗡𝗧𝗢𝗪𝗡 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved the appointment of 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹, a co-owner of Coopersville Creamery, to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Board.

The DDA works on projects and initiatives intended to support and improve our downtown district.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗗 — 𝗪𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗘
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved the next phase of the former wastewater treatment plant's decommissioning.

This involves removing aerators and associated equipment from Aeration Pond #2 at a cost of $𝟲𝟳,𝟱𝟳𝟭.

A similar project involving Pond #1 was approved in September.

These projects are part of the required process of closing the treatment facility. Additional closure work, including addressing remaining biosolids and equipment, is still necessary.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗘 — 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝟭-𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡-𝗚𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗞
𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗨𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗗

Council discussed plans for a new elevated water storage tank, estimated to cost approximately $𝟴 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻.

The proposed tower would significantly increase the amount of elevated water storage available to the community.

The height and location of a water tower influence water pressure throughout the distribution system. A larger and properly designed elevated tank can also provide additional storage for high-demand periods and firefighting.

However, the engineering work is still underway. The exact effects on pressure in different neighborhoods have not yet been finalized.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁?

The preliminary funding plan includes:

• Approximately $1.5 million in existing state grant funding.
• A proposed $3 million federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant.
• Approximately $3.5 million from the City's Water Fund.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 $𝟯 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱.

The City is exploring the use of existing Water Fund reserves rather than borrowing for its proposed share, which could avoid borrowing costs and interest. Using those reserves would also reduce the funds available for other water system needs.

The lower-than-expected bid for Phase 1 construction of the 68th Avenue water transmission main may also reduce the amount needed from the Water Fund for that project. If those savings are confirmed and remain available for the broader water infrastructure program, they could potentially reduce the City's Water Fund contribution needed for the proposed water tower. This should be viewed as a possible funding adjustment, not a confirmed reduction, until the final project costs, funding requirements, and grant terms are established.

No construction contract was approved for the tank at this meeting.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗙 — 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗬𝗘𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗜𝗗 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘 𝗢𝗙𝗙 𝗦𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗟𝗘
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved adjustments to how City employees earn paid time off.

The revised schedule allows employees to move through existing PTO levels more consistently and reach higher accrual levels earlier in their careers.

The discussion included employee retention and the importance of remaining competitive with other employers.

When the City invests time and money in training employees and helping them earn certifications, retaining those experienced workers can help avoid the expense and disruption of repeatedly hiring and training replacements.

The change also establishes a maximum annual PTO accrual of 200 hours for employees with 20 years of service, only four hours higher than the previous maximum.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗚 — 𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗔𝗜𝗥𝗦
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗯𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿 & 𝗦𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 $𝟭𝟱,𝟱𝟮𝟱 to complete grouting repairs at the Main Lift Station.

Inspections identified deteriorating joints, areas of exposed reinforcing steel, and locations where water could enter the structure.

The approved work will repair the affected joints and cavities to help prevent water infiltration and protect the structure.

A substantially more expensive epoxy coating option was also considered, but the engineering evaluation indicated that it was not necessary at this time.

Council approved the targeted repairs rather than the additional coating.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗛 — 𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗔𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗧
𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗘𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗙𝗜𝗟𝗘𝗗

Following the earlier presentation, Council formally voted to receive and file the City's annual audit.

The financial highlights are summarized near the beginning of this recap.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗜 — 𝗙𝗢𝗜𝗔 𝗙𝗘𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved waiving an $𝟴𝟯.𝟮𝟮 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗰𝘁 (𝗙𝗢𝗜𝗔) 𝗳𝗲𝗲 for a records request submitted by Heather Grandy.

The request involved 𝟮𝟳𝟴 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 concerning odor complaints, inquiries, and communications related to Continental Dairy and Fairlife.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲?

The discussion centered on whether the information being requested served a broader public interest rather than primarily benefiting one individual.

Given the ongoing community concerns surrounding dairy odors, Council recognized that these records could help residents better understand the complaints that have been made and the communications involving the City.

There was also discussion about how FOIA fees work. Preparing records requests can require considerable staff time, including locating documents, reviewing them, and preparing them for release.

Those costs exist even when records are provided electronically rather than printed.

Council's decision was to waive the fee for this particular request because of its broader public-interest value.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗙𝗢𝗜𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲. Requests can involve different circumstances, amounts of staff work, and levels of public interest.

The discussion also raised the broader question of how government can make public information more accessible while accounting for the staff time required to process requests.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗝 — 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦-𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗠
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved a four-year contract with 𝗛𝘆𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽 𝗳𝗼𝗿 $𝟮𝟵,𝟳𝟴𝟯.𝟰𝟯.

This continues the City's commercial cross-connection control and backflow prevention program.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝗱𝗼?

Cross-connections can create situations where contaminated water flows backward into the public drinking water system.

Backflow prevention inspections help protect drinking water quality by ensuring that appropriate safeguards are installed and maintained.

HydroCorp handles inspections and related compliance activities for commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, while City staff handle the residential portion of the program.

The agreement covers up to 180 inspections during its four-year term.

𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟴.𝗞 — 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡
𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗

Council approved a resolution indicating its commitment to provide up to $𝟯.𝟱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 as part of the application for the proposed $3 million federal EDA grant.

This is an important step in pursuing outside funding for the proposed water tower.

𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 $𝟯.𝟱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻.

If the grant application moves forward successfully, Council will still have additional decisions regarding the grant agreement, project costs, construction bids, and final authorization.

𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧

𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲

MDOT has moved the contractor bidding date for the Grove Street bridge replacement to 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟰, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲, slightly later than previously anticipated.

This is the date for receiving construction bids, not the bridge's reopening date.

Construction is still anticipated in 2027, although the final schedule will depend on the project moving through the bidding and construction process.

I know this closure has been a major inconvenience to many residents. My own family regularly notices how useful that route would be for traveling to and from school.

𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲

The Main Street bridge replacement is currently planned for 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟴.

The City is working with engineers on preparations, including the potential relocation of utilities before bridge construction begins.

𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗮𝘅 𝗔𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁

Fairlife's Industrial Facilities Tax exemption request is expected to come before Council in November.

This would involve consideration of a potential industrial property tax abatement related to the expansion.

No decision on that request was made at this meeting.

Council will have the opportunity to evaluate the application, supporting information, and proposed terms before making a decision.

𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀

The City Manager also reported on several other items, including a USDA grant for a downtown platform project and ongoing work associated with major infrastructure grants.

He noted that utility payments from residents and businesses help finance water infrastructure improvements, with large-volume customers contributing substantial utility revenue.

𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗣𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘

A significant portion of this meeting involved water and wastewater infrastructure.

These are expensive systems that serve residents, businesses, and industries throughout our community. Decisions about them need to account for construction costs, available grant funding, ongoing maintenance, future capacity, and the long-term financial responsibilities of the City.

I think it is important for residents to understand not only what Council approves, but also why projects are being considered and how they fit into the City's longer-term plans.

Some of these projects are already moving into construction. Others, particularly the proposed water tower, still have engineering, funding, and approval steps ahead.

My goal with these updates is to make that process easier to follow and encourage informed conversations about the decisions affecting Coopersville.

If you have questions about something discussed at the meeting, feel free to reach out.

𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗪𝗲𝗶𝘀𝗲
Coopersville City Council Member

Water, Wastewater, Fairlife, and the Cost of Growth in Coopersville

October 15, 2026

After my recent City Council update, several residents asked questions about Fairlife's expansion, our water and wastewater systems, tax abatements, and what Coopersville is getting in return for all these investments.

Some of the conversations have been lengthy, but they've raised questions worth discussing. Rather than continue answering everything in separate Facebook comments, I thought it would be helpful to pull the information together here.

I want to be clear that I'm writing this as an individual City Council member, sharing what I know and how I'm looking at these issues. I'm not speaking for the entire Council.

We've needed water improvements for a long time

One of the questions I've heard is whether we're building a new water line and water tower just because Fairlife wants to expand.

The short answer is that Fairlife's expansion is a major reason these projects are moving forward now, but Coopersville needed improvements long before this expansion was proposed.

For years, the City has been looking for ways to improve water pressure and, perhaps more importantly, establish a second water transmission line.

Right now, we rely on one aging 16-inch line, more than 50 years old, to bring water into Coopersville.

That concerns me.

If something happened to that line, our existing water towers would provide some temporary storage, but we wouldn't have a second line bringing water into the City. Depending on the severity of the problem, we could find ourselves dealing with a significant interruption in water service.

That affects everyone: homeowners, schools, businesses, and industries.

We've known about this vulnerability for years. The problem has been finding a way to pay for another line. At nearly $5 million for just the first phase of the 68th Avenue project, it's easy to understand why this has been difficult for a community our size.

So yes, Fairlife's expansion is helping drive the current improvements. But we're also addressing infrastructure needs that existed regardless of whether Fairlife expanded.

How does a business expansion lead to infrastructure projects?

Something that may not be widely understood is that when a business wants to build or expand, it has to go through a review process.

Part of that process involves determining whether the community's infrastructure can support what the business wants to do.

That includes water supply, wastewater capacity, drainage, and other City services.

For example, Fairlife's November 2025 Planning Commission approval included conditions requiring the expansion to comply with available water and wastewater capacities, including average and peak demands, and obtain approval from the utility system owners.

If a development needs more capacity than what's available, that has to be addressed before the development can move forward as proposed.

That doesn't automatically mean the company has to build and pay for an entirely new public utility system. There can be different ways to address the need, depending on the project and the agreements involved.

This is where organizations like Lakeshore Advantage come into the picture.

Lakeshore Advantage has worked with Coopersville, the state, and other regional partners to pursue funding for infrastructure improvements connected to economic development. Similar partnerships helped secure the $60 million in state funding for the regional wastewater project connecting Coopersville to Muskegon County.

It's a fairly normal part of larger economic development projects to examine infrastructure needs and identify ways to fund the necessary improvements.

In this case, the expansion has helped create an opportunity to make public infrastructure improvements that would have been much harder for Coopersville to finance on its own.

What about the new water tower?

We're considering an entirely new 1-million-gallon elevated water tower.

We currently have two towers, each holding approximately 250,000 gallons. The proposed tower would be considerably taller and provide much more elevated storage capacity.

A major goal is improving water pressure throughout Coopersville. The additional storage would also help with high-demand periods and firefighting.

Engineers expect the new tower to improve pressure in many parts of the City, but they're still working through the calculations. I don't want to promise that every home will experience the same improvement.

In particular, some areas served by dead-end water lines may continue to have pressure or flow issues that require other improvements.

Another resident asked what would happen to the existing towers, especially since one was repainted only a few years ago.

That's still being evaluated.

We discussed several possibilities at our October Council meeting, including whether one of the older towers might have a use for local industry. The different operating elevations also create some engineering questions.

We haven't made a final decision about keeping, repurposing, or removing the older towers.

And we haven't approved construction of the new one yet.

How would we pay for it?

The new water tower is estimated to cost approximately $8 million.

Right now, the preliminary funding plan looks like this:

• Approximately $1.5 million in existing state grant funding.
• A proposed $3 million federal Economic Development Administration grant.
• Approximately $3.5 million from the City's Water Fund.

The federal grant hasn't been awarded yet.

At our October meeting, Council approved a resolution supporting the proposed local matching funds needed for the federal grant application. That wasn't final approval to build the tower.

One thing I found encouraging was that the first phase of the 68th Avenue water line came in approximately $1.23 million below the engineer's estimate. Depending on the final project costs and grant requirements, some of the available funding may be able to help with the tower.

That isn't guaranteed, but it's worth watching.

The City will have some financial responsibility for these projects. There's no getting around that.

However, the State of Michigan has already approved approximately $17 million toward the broader water infrastructure improvements. That funding comes through an established state program, rather than requiring Coopersville to raise a new local tax specifically for that grant.

It's still public money. I understand that. But it also means our community can receive substantial outside funding for infrastructure we have needed for years.

Without that help, the full expense would be much more difficult for Coopersville to manage.

What do Fairlife and Continental Dairy contribute financially?

This has been one of the biggest questions in the comments.

I think it's helpful to separate direct project contributions, property taxes, and utility payments. They're different things, and sometimes we mix them together when discussing what the dairies contribute.

Fairlife contributed $90,850 toward preliminary work for the water-main and water-tower projects, including surveys, geotechnical work, and a water-rate study.

Fairlife also committed $5 million toward construction of the regional wastewater system.

For the proposed water tower itself, I haven't seen a separate direct construction contribution from Fairlife identified in the current funding plan. The broader water improvement program is expected to involve agreements with major water users, but those details shouldn't be assumed before they're finalized.

Then there are the regular taxes and utility charges.

According to Coopersville's FY2025 audited financial statements, Fairlife and Continental Dairy together accounted for approximately 35% of our General Fund property-tax revenue.

That's approximately $925,000 in City property taxes in one fiscal year — almost $1 million.

That figure is for both companies combined, not Fairlife alone. It's also just the City General Fund portion, not their entire property-tax bills.

The same audit shows these two companies accounted for approximately 81% of the City's water billings and 82% of its sewer billings.

These are substantial payments into our utility systems.

Now, does that automatically mean every expense has been divided fairly between industry and residents? No. That requires looking at the actual costs of providing service, the rate structures, and the agreements involved.

But it also wouldn't be accurate to say the dairies aren't contributing financially.

Putting those tax dollars into perspective

Almost $1 million a year is significant revenue for a community our size.

But consider the cost of some of our other infrastructure projects.

The Grove Street bridge replacement is roughly a $3 million project, and the Main Street bridge replacement is another multimillion-dollar undertaking.

A single $3 million bridge project represents approximately three years of the dairies' combined City property-tax contributions, using the FY2025 figure.

Of course, those taxes aren't set aside just for bridges. That revenue helps support the many services and responsibilities of our City, and outside funding can cover portions of major bridge projects.

I'm using the comparison simply to put the numbers into perspective.

It doesn't take many major infrastructure projects to see how quickly millions of dollars can be spent.

This is one reason I believe pursuing available infrastructure grants is important, provided we're also considering the long-term costs of whatever we build.

What about the history of our wastewater treatment plant?

Some residents have raised questions about whether Coopersville may have subsidized industrial wastewater treatment over the years.

In other words, did the dairies create costs that ultimately fell on residents?

I understand why people are asking.

Our former treatment plant had real problems over the years. There were capacity limitations, industrial wastewater violations, equipment issues, and documented overflows.

In 2019, the City and the dairies entered into a consent agreement addressing disputed wastewater discharge violations, fines, and related costs. The companies agreed to pay $1 million toward an additional clarifier at the treatment plant.

The dairies had also installed on-site pretreatment equipment to remove solids before sending wastewater into the City's system.

I also looked into some of the reported overflows.

In April 2013, there was a sanitary sewer overflow into Deer Creek during a period of historic flooding across West Michigan.

In July 2021, approximately 11,000 gallons of partially treated wastewater overflowed within the treatment facility after an equipment blockage.

Another incident in August 2021 involved approximately 150,000 gallons overflowing from one sludge pond into another.

The two 2021 incidents involved wastewater moving into other parts of the treatment facility. The reports do not establish that those quantities went directly into the Grand River.

I mention those differences because the cause matters. Heavy rainfall, equipment failures, excessive industrial discharge, and limited treatment capacity can all create problems, but they aren't necessarily the same problem.

I haven't found a complete historical accounting that would tell us whether every cost was fairly divided between residents and industrial customers.

What we do know is that problems occurred, the City pursued enforcement actions, and financial agreements were reached.

I don't think we should ignore that history. But I also don't think we can determine who ultimately paid every expense without the supporting financial records.

Why are we still spending money on a closed treatment plant?

This came up in the comments, too.

Coopersville is no longer treating wastewater at its former plant. Our wastewater now goes to Muskegon County for treatment.

However, the old plant hasn't received final closure approval from EGLE.

Until that happens, there are still reporting requirements, regulatory responsibilities, and physical work to complete. Dennis explained at the October meeting that the formal closure process could take another year.

That's why Council approved continued certified operator oversight, along with access to additional consulting services if needed.

We're not paying to keep a second wastewater treatment plant operating indefinitely as a backup. We're paying for the work and oversight needed to finish closing the former facility properly.

Some of the former ponds are also being converted for emergency wastewater storage under agreements with Muskegon County.

And Coopersville still has its own sewer pipes, lift stations, and collection system to maintain.

Those responsibilities don't disappear just because Muskegon County now treats the wastewater.

Muskegon County's treatment charges will influence what our sewer service costs, but Coopersville City Council still sets the sewer rates charged to local customers.

I share the frustration about the dairy odors

I want to address this separately because it has come up repeatedly, and it's something I personally care about.

I'm not pleased with how long it's taking to get the odor problems under control.

I've made several complaints myself.

I know what it's like to be outside and deal with those smells, and I understand why residents are frustrated. People should be able to enjoy their yards and neighborhoods without regularly dealing with unpleasant odors.

We've heard about the companies working on solutions, and EGLE has been involved. But at some point, residents need to experience the improvements, not just hear about what is being tried.

I recognize that the dairies provide jobs and contribute to the local economy. That doesn't mean I think we should overlook the problems their operations create.

We can appreciate the jobs and investments while still expecting these companies to be responsible neighbors.

I don't see those positions as contradictory.

How much of Fairlife's payroll goes to Coopersville residents?

One resident asked a question that I hadn't seen addressed in the materials we've received so far.

Fairlife employs hundreds of people at its Coopersville facility and has announced plans to add approximately 200 more full-time jobs.

But how many of those employees actually live in Coopersville?

And what percentage of Fairlife's payroll goes to people living within City limits?

Those seem like reasonable questions to ask as we prepare to consider the company's industrial tax abatement request in November.

Michigan's standard application asks about jobs retained and created, but it doesn't specifically require information about where employees live.

I've asked Dennis, our City Manager, to see whether Fairlife can provide that information, possibly through Lakeshore Advantage.

I'm hoping we can get an anonymous breakdown showing how many employees live within Coopersville, how many live in surrounding communities, and approximately what percentage of payroll goes directly to City residents.

I recognize that people who work in Coopersville but live elsewhere can still contribute to our local economy by shopping, eating, and using local businesses. That's part of the picture, too.

Fairlife is wholly owned by Coca-Cola, and companies such as Berkshire Hathaway, Vanguard, and BlackRock are major Coca-Cola shareholders.

We're not talking about a small independent business.

I think it's reasonable to consider the financial resources of the company, along with local employment, taxes, infrastructure needs, and the impact on residents, when we evaluate a request for additional tax incentives.

I haven't decided that the number of new jobs alone should settle that discussion. I want to understand what those jobs and the broader expansion mean for Coopersville.

A quick update on the bridges

A few residents have also asked about the Grove Street bridge.

I understand the inconvenience of that closure personally. For my family, Grove Street would be one of our most convenient routes to and from school. Since it's been closed, it's surprising how often I find myself wishing we could take that route.

At our October meeting, Dennis reported that MDOT had moved the contractor bidding date to December 4, 2026.

That's when bids are scheduled to be received, not when the bridge will reopen.

Construction is anticipated in 2027. Earlier schedules targeted completion by late fall, although that will depend on the final construction schedule.

The Main Street bridge replacement is currently planned for 2028, and the City is working through engineering and possible utility relocation in preparation.

I know these projects take a long time, particularly when roads and bridges people rely on every day are closed.

Where I stand on all of this

I know this has been a lot of information. When I started sharing more detailed Council updates, part of what I wanted was to help residents see what goes into the decisions being made.

Some of these projects are difficult to explain in a short Facebook comment. And the more we discuss them, the more questions come up.

I don't expect everyone to agree with every decision Council makes, and I understand why people are concerned about the influence of large industries in a relatively small community.

I think we have to consider several things at the same time.

Our water system needed improvements before Fairlife's latest expansion. The dairies contribute substantial tax and utility revenue. We've had historical wastewater problems, and residents continue to deal with odors that haven't been adequately resolved.

All of those things can be true.

I also think we should recognize an opportunity when major outside funding can help us address infrastructure needs that have existed for years. That doesn't make the funding free, and it doesn't excuse us from considering future maintenance expenses.

For me, the goal is to make decisions that will serve Coopersville well long after the current construction projects are finished.

I appreciate the questions residents have raised. Some have led me to look further into past projects, while others have prompted me to request additional information before upcoming Council decisions.

I may not always have an immediate answer, but I'd rather acknowledge what I don't know than give residents information I'm not confident is accurate.

And that's really why I've been writing these updates. I want people to have a better understanding of what's happening in Coopersville and why.

Peter Weise
Coopersville City Council Member

Sources and further reading

• City of Coopersville — FY2025 Audited Financial Statements, including Note L on major industrial customers: https://cityofcoopersville.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/City-of-Coopersville-FS-Final-E-Copy.pdf
• Michigan Economic Development Corporation — March 2026 Fairlife expansion and infrastructure funding announcement: https://www.michiganbusiness.org/press-releases/2026/03/fairlife-expansion/
• Lakeshore Advantage — Coopersville water infrastructure funding: https://lakeshoreadvantage.com/water-main-infrastructure-grant-to-spur-economic-growth-in-coopersville/
• Michigan Economic Development Corporation — October 2022 regional wastewater infrastructure announcement: https://www.michiganbusiness.org/press-releases/2022/10/whitmer-announces-145-new-jobs-critical-infrastructure-upgrades-support-agricultural-industry-economic-growth-in-ottawa-muskegon-counties/
• Fairlife — August 2026 Coopersville expansion announcement: https://fairlife.com/news/fairlife-coopersville-michigan-facility-expansion/
• City of Coopersville — Council and Planning Commission agendas and minutes: https://cityofcoopersville.com/government/agendas-minutes/