Several people asked questions after my recent posts and Facebook replies about Fairlife's proposed Industrial Facilities Tax exemption, or IFT.

The questions have gone well beyond simply, “Should Fairlife get a tax break?”

People have asked how much Fairlife would actually save, how much the City would still collect, whether the odor problem should affect the decision, how much water Fairlife and Continental Dairy use, who paid for past water and sewer infrastructure, and what Fairlife provides to the community beyond taxes.

Rather than leave those answers scattered across several Facebook threads, I wanted to pull together what I have found so far.

I have not made a final decision on the IFT. There are still some important numbers and legal questions I want answered before I do.

First, what does an IFT actually do?

An Industrial Facilities Tax exemption is a Michigan economic-development tool under Public Act 198.

For eligible new facility real-property improvements, the basic calculation reduces local property-tax millages by approximately 50% during the approved IFT period. The State Education Tax has separate rules. Michigan Treasury says an IFT can generally run from one to twelve years, with the term determined by the local government. Michigan Treasury: Industrial Facilities Exemption ↗

It is important to understand that the proposed IFT does not cut Fairlife's entire property-tax bill in half.

It applies to the eligible new facility improvements associated with this expansion. It does not apply to the land or simply erase the taxes on Fairlife's existing plant and other property.

During an approved IFT period, Coopersville would still receive roughly 50% of its normal City property tax on those eligible new improvements. The land, existing facilities, and other property outside the new certificate would continue to be taxed normally.

When the IFT ends, the eligible improvements return to normal property taxation.

So the difference between a three-year IFT and a twelve-year IFT is primarily how long the reduced rate applies to the eligible new investment, not whether Fairlife pays property taxes at all.

What I still do not have is the detailed financial profile showing what that means in actual dollars for this particular project.

I have asked for estimates showing what Fairlife would pay without the IFT, what it would pay with the IFT, how much the City and other taxing jurisdictions would receive each year, and the cumulative value of different possible terms.

That matters because construction cost is not the same thing as taxable value. I do not want to take the project's construction number, divide it in half, and pretend that tells us the tax impact.

What is the expansion expected to bring?

The State's incentive package describes a $650 million Fairlife expansion, approximately 245,000 square feet of additional production space, and a formal commitment to create 150 new jobs. Michigan Economic Development Corporation: Fairlife expansion ↗

Fairlife has more recently publicly estimated that the expansion could ultimately add approximately 200 full-time jobs. I think the distinction is worth keeping clear: 150 is the formal job commitment associated with the State incentive package, while approximately 200 is Fairlife's more recent estimate of what employment may ultimately become. Fairlife: Coopersville expansion announcement ↗

There are community connections beyond the job count.

Fairlife joined Coopersville High School's Manufacturing Engineering Partnership Program, or MEPP, in 2024. The partnership has included Fairlife employees presenting to students and students touring the Coopersville facility to learn about manufacturing and engineering careers. Coopersville Area Public Schools: Fairlife and MEPP ↗

MEPP itself connects more than 100 students each year with local industry partners through courses, certifications, company visits, interviews, scholarships, and employment pathways. Coopersville High School: MEPP overview ↗

Fairlife has also committed about $75,000 toward the North Bank Trail, helping provide local matching funds that can leverage larger grant funding. City of Coopersville: North Bank Trail funding ↗

Those things do not decide the IFT question by themselves, but I think they are legitimate parts of the overall picture.

What about the claim that Fairlife and CDF use 80% of our water?

I have seen the 80% figure mentioned several times.

I have not found a current public record showing that Fairlife and Continental Dairy together consume 80% of all Coopersville water.

Fairlife is unquestionably a very large water user, and its expansion is a major reason additional capacity is needed. But I want to verify the actual Fairlife/CDF percentage before repeating a specific number as fact.

City records do show how significant the expansion is to future demand. During Fairlife's preliminary site-plan discussion, the company indicated that approximately two million gallons of water per day would be needed as the expansion develops. City of Coopersville: agendas and minutes ↗

Would we need the new water line without Fairlife?

Probably not at the same size or on the same schedule. Fairlife's expansion is clearly a major driver.

But I think there is another side to this.

Coopersville currently depends heavily on a single major transmission route for its water supply. The existing system is aging. If that primary route suffers a major failure or eventually needs extensive repairs, having another way to bring water into the City becomes very important.

The City's September Council materials described the new project as providing approximately 1.1 million gallons per day of additional transmission capacity, a second transmission route, and improvements to redundancy, reliability, storage, fire protection, and future growth capacity. The same City material said the infrastructure would ultimately benefit residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial customers throughout the municipal system.

So my view is that Fairlife's expansion accelerated and enlarged a project, but the redundancy itself provides a long-term City benefit.

The State has committed $17 million toward the water infrastructure project. City staff have also credited Lakeshore Advantage with playing an important role in helping Coopersville pursue and secure that funding and with continuing to pursue additional outside funding for the proposed water-storage tank. City Council records ↗

That does not mean the infrastructure is free, or that Fairlife is the only beneficiary. It means the expansion helped create an opportunity to bring a substantial amount of outside infrastructure money into Coopersville.

What about wastewater? Didn't residents pay for that infrastructure?

Yes. The City has made significant investments in wastewater infrastructure over the years, including investments made specifically because the dairies' wastewater had to be accommodated.

So I do not think it would be accurate to say Fairlife and Continental simply paid for Coopersville's wastewater system.

But the opposite claim, that the City paid for everything and received nothing toward those improvements, also leaves out a lot of the history.

In 2014, the State awarded Coopersville approximately $2.4 million in Community Development Block Grant funding for wastewater collection and transmission improvements connected with a Fairlife expansion. The City contributed approximately $384,000 toward that project. MEDC: 2014 expansion and infrastructure funding ↗

In 2017, another Fairlife/CDF expansion involved additional State economic-development funding associated with onsite wastewater infrastructure, while the City committed money to upgrade its own wastewater-treatment plant. MEDC: 2017 project funding ↗

More recently, the Southeast Regional Force Main received major State funding, and Fairlife committed $5 million of its own money toward that regional wastewater project. The system serves more than Fairlife and CDF and provides additional regional capacity. MEDC: Southeast Regional Force Main ↗

There was also a question online about residents still paying approximately $1 million in old water/sewer debt.

The old wastewater bond is no longer outstanding. Council paid off the remaining sewer bond early in October 2025.

Residents and businesses absolutely helped pay for the infrastructure over the years, so I think the broader point about the community's historical investment is fair. But it would not be accurate today to describe that old sewer bond as an ongoing million-dollar annual debt obligation.

The odor issue is serious

I have complained about the odor myself, and residents have raised this issue repeatedly.

After going through the EGLE records, I think it is important to be clear that this has gone beyond simply receiving complaints.

On July 7, 2026, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy's Air Quality Division issued Fairlife a formal violation notice following an investigation into several odor complaints.

The notice identified the wastewater equalization tank and said the odors constituted an:

“unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.”

EGLE said its staff determined the odors were intense, frequent, and long-lasting enough to constitute a violation of Michigan's Rule 901 and a condition of Fairlife's air permit.

During a June 11 investigation, EGLE described what its investigator encountered as “distinct, definite, and objectionable” odors with a “milky, sour, rotten characteristic.”

The investigation covered West Randall Street between Mason Drive and 64th Avenue and portions of 64th Avenue. EGLE's notice says that in one location the odor became strong enough that a person would attempt to avoid it completely.

On June 17, EGLE followed up on additional complaints and stated that it confirmed Fairlife's equalization tank as the source.

EGLE then required Fairlife to respond with the cause and duration of the violation, whether it was continuing, what corrective actions had been taken or were proposed, the dates for those actions, and what would be done to prevent it from happening again.

These are public State environmental records. Residents can search for Fairlife, LLC, the Coopersville address, or source ID P1512 through EGLE's MiEnviro system. EGLE MiEnviro public records ↗

Fairlife has since discussed additional corrective work with Council. The largest planned step is covering the wastewater tank so air can be captured and treated rather than escaping from the open surface.

The current target discussed with Council has been completion of the tank cover by the end of March 2027, with additional permanent odor-control improvements to follow.

It is important to distinguish those two things. EGLE documented the violation and required corrective actions and dates. The March 2027 date is the timeline Fairlife has discussed for its major tank-cover project, not a deadline that I have found EGLE itself imposing in the violation notice.

I will continue watching whether that work actually produces meaningful and sustained improvement.

Should Council use the IFT to punish Fairlife for the odor?

Several people have suggested some version of this to me.

I do not think using an IFT as a punishment for an environmental violation would be an appropriate way to approach the decision.

Environmental enforcement and the IFT serve different purposes.

EGLE is responsible for enforcing State air-quality requirements. The City also has separate regulatory authority where applicable.

An IFT is an economic-development incentive. It is not a fine.

Where I think the odor issue does become relevant is in evaluating the overall community impact of the expansion and deciding what level and length of economic-development incentive is justified.

That is an important distinction.

I am not looking at this as:

“Fix the smell or we punish you by taking away your IFT.”

The question I am asking is:

With major corrective work still underway and the outcome not yet known, is there enough information today to justify committing to the maximum twelve-year incentive?

That is one reason I remain interested in whether a shorter initial IFT could make sense.

Before relying on a shorter-term approach and any possibility of additional years later, however, I want the City Attorney to confirm exactly how that process could legally be structured and what factors Council could appropriately consider.

I do not want to promise residents leverage that the law does not actually give us.

What I am still waiting for

  • The actual financial impact of the IFT. I want the estimated taxable value, annual taxes without the IFT, annual taxes with it, and cumulative savings under different possible terms.
  • The impact on each taxing jurisdiction. The City's share is only part of the overall property-tax picture.
  • Clarification from the City Attorney about a shorter initial term. I want to know what can legally be considered now and what could be considered if Fairlife later sought additional years.
  • Continued information on the odor corrective work and EGLE status. The tank cover is a major project, but the important question is whether it works.
  • Better detail on the new jobs. The public commitment is at least 150 new jobs, but I would like a clearer picture of the types of positions and wages associated with the expansion.
  • A verified current water-use breakdown. Fairlife and CDF are major users, but I do not want to repeat a specific percentage without current data supporting it.

Where my thinking is today

I think there are real benefits associated with Fairlife's continued investment in Coopersville.

There is a very large private investment, substantial employment, the MEPP partnership with our schools, contributions such as the North Bank Trail, and major State and regional infrastructure investments that Fairlife's growth has helped move forward.

There are also real costs and impacts.

The operation creates major water and wastewater demands. Expansion affects traffic and other infrastructure. The IFT itself has a real financial value. And the odor problem is not simply anecdotal. EGLE has formally documented a violation.

For me, those all belong in the same evaluation.

The question is not whether Fairlife is simply “good” or “bad” for Coopersville.

The question is whether the overall arrangement is good for the community, what level of incentive is justified, and how long that incentive should last.

I am still gathering information before making that decision.

If there is a specific number or claim from this discussion that you would like me to trace further, feel free to send it to me. Several of the questions residents have raised have led me to information I would not otherwise have looked into.

Sources and records

Weise Updates is an independent publication by Peter Weise, writing from my perspective as a member of the Coopersville City Council. It is not an official City of Coopersville publication.