Rush Creek Brownfield TIF
On Tuesday April 22, we will be voting on a proposed Brownfield Plan Amendment for The Landings at Rush Creek. The project proposes to redevelop a 7-acre parcel, vacant since the early 2000s, into 84 one-bedroom townhomes under Michigan’s 381 Brownfield Act, totaling a not-to-exceed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) of $6,299,313 over 21 years. I voted in favor of the proposal in Finance Committee and will be voting in favor at Tuesday’s BOC for the following reasons.
The Project Addresses a Critical Housing Shortage with Affordable Units
Hudsonville has identified a specific housing need, and The Landings at Rush Creek fits that needs by committing 12 of its 84 units (14%) to households earning no more than 90% of the Area Median Income ($64,800 for one person, $74,070 for two) for the entire 21-year TIF term. This ensures affordable housing for lower- and middle-income residents, such as young professionals, seniors, or small families, who might otherwise struggle in a tight housing market. By increasing housing supply—particularly affordable options—the project helps stabilize rents and home prices, benefiting the broader community. Without this development, the site remains a missed opportunity to house dozens of families and ease pressure on Hudsonville’s housing stock.
It Revitalizes a Dormant Property
The 7-acre parcel, formerly a garden center, has sat vacant for over two decades, contributing negligible property taxes and no economic activity. Its underutilized state is a deterrent to Hudsonville’s potential and its efforts to create a vibrant downtown setting. Brownfield redevelopment often involves overcoming environmental or economic barriers that deter private investment without public incentives. By approving the TIF, Ottawa County enables the developer, LaCati Group LLC, to tackle these challenges, and ensure the site becomes a productive asset rather than a long term liability.
It Generates Long-Term Tax Revenue
While the TIF redirects $6,299,313 in incremental taxes over 21 years—including $375,915 from the county operating millage—the project’s completion will significantly boost the property’s taxable value. A vacant lot generates minimal revenue; 84 townhomes, by contrast, will create a robust tax base. After the TIF expires in approximately 2046, Ottawa County, Hudsonville, and other taxing entities (e.g., schools) will collect the full property tax revenue from this enhanced value, far exceeding what the site would yield if left undeveloped.
It Stimulates Economic Growth
The project’s economic impact extends beyond property taxes. Construction of 84 units will create jobs for local contractors, suppliers, and service providers during the development phase. Once occupied, the townhomes could house 100–150 residents, who will spend money at Hudsonville businesses, from grocery stores to restaurants, boosting sales tax revenue and supporting jobs. This ripple effect strengthens the local economy, making Hudsonville a more attractive place to live and invest. Moreover, the $514,960 allocated to the Local Brownfield Revolving Fund can seed future projects in Ottawa County, amplifying the public’s return on investment. The $501,842 to the State Brownfield Revolving Fund similarly supports redevelopment statewide, reinforcing Michigan’s commitment to growth.
It Aligns with Community Priorities
The Hudsonville City Council’s concurrence on March 11, 2025, signals strong local support, reflecting the project’s alignment with community goals. Hudsonville City leaders recognize that housing and economic development are critical to Hudsonville’s future, especially as Ottawa County grows. By approving the TIF, the county validates this local priority, fostering a partnership that ensures Hudsonville remains competitive in attracting residents and businesses. The administrative allocation of $125,688 ensures the Brownfield Authority can oversee the project effectively, safeguarding taxpayer interests.
It Mitigates Risks with a Proven Framework
Critics might worry about the TIF’s cost or the risk of project failure. However, Michigan’s Act 381 is a well-established tool designed to minimize such risks. The TIF only captures incremental revenue generated by the project itself—no taxes are diverted unless the development increases the property’s value. If LaCati Group fails to deliver, the TIF simply doesn’t materialize, protecting taxpayers from upfront losses. Furthermore, LaCati’s commitment to 12 affordable units for 21 years is legally binding under the Brownfield Plan, ensuring accountability. The modest county contribution is a low-risk investment compared to the potential upside of a revitalized site.
It Seizes a Time-Sensitive Opportunity
The alternative—leaving the parcel vacant—offers no benefits. Without TIF, private developers are unlikely to tackle a Brownfield site with potential remediation costs or economic hurdles. The land could remain idle for another decade, generating zero taxes, housing, or jobs. Approving the amendment now capitalizes on LaCati Group’s readiness to invest, Hudsonville’s housing demand, and favorable market conditions. Delaying risks losing momentum and escalating costs, as construction prices continue to rise (U.S. construction costs increased 6.7% from 2023–2024). Acting decisively ensures taxpayers reap the rewards sooner.
I believe the Landings at Rush Creek will be a positive for Hudsonville’s growth, Ottawa County’s prosperity, and taxpayer value. By approving the Brownfield Plan Amendment, the Board will be able to unlock affordable housing, economic vitality, and a stronger tax base, all while transforming an unused parcel into a community asset. The TIF’s $6,299,313 investment, including the county’s $375,915 share, is a fair tradeoff for benefits that will accrue for decades. This project has earned the support of Hudsonville’s leaders and deserves the county’s endorsement to move forward.
Commissioner Use of County Logo
At this Thursday’s Planning and Policy Committee meeting, we are scheduled to discuss the Commissioners’ use of the county logo. I am not opposed to Commissioners using the county logo. In fact, we have a county policy that encourages our departments to use it on official correspondence with the public and outside agencies.
However, we have a couple of recent examples where I believe the logo was misused or used improperly. Commissioners Moss and Miedema both used the county logo on letters they sent to the presidents of Grand Valley State University (GVSU), petitioning for changes to the university’s policies on specific issues. While we, as private residents, are welcome to use our voices to petition governmental entities like GVSU for changes we’d like to see, I don’t believe that we, as Commissioners, should be leveraging the county logo—or any accoutrements of the county—in that process.
As Commissioners, we have the ability to present resolutions to the Board, allowing us to collectively determine whether the county should take a formal position on an issue. We are also free to speak as private individuals on matters of interest. What we cannot do, in my opinion, is attempt to forge a third option—a semi-official position that is neither private nor collectively authorized by the Board.
Our board rules contain one fundamental rule regarding our conduct: Rule 3.1, which states, “The Board shall have such powers and duties as are provided by law. The authority of the Board is a collective one, and according to state law, no individual member can assume any action, decision, or endeavor on behalf of or in lieu of Board action (MCL 46.11).” I believe that sending correspondence with the county logo—essentially leveraging a public asset— to advance a private concern rather than a collective one, violates this rule.
It is my belief that by sending correspondence of the nature that Commissioners Moss and Miedema did, and by using the county logo in that manner, a violation of Rule 3.1 occurred. I hope that our discussion on the use of the county logo this Thursday not only brings about specific guidelines for its use but also allows us to address the broader question of how we can and should act as a collective body moving forward—for our sake and for the sake of all Ottawa County residents to whom the logo belongs.
Campbell Plant Discussions
This past February, the Board of Commissioners passed a resolution urging the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to reconsider the planned closure of the J.H. Campbell Plant by Consumers Energy, set for May 31, 2025. I voted against that resolution because I believe the decision to phase out the coal plant was properly vetted in Consumers’ 2022 integrated resource plan, which balances reliability with the state’s clean energy goals. Similiarly, the MPSC and Consumers addressed this during the approval for shutdown, and Consumers specifically met MISO’s rules when closure was approved.
This Thursday, we will once again be taking up discussion of the Campbell Plant. If the MPSC refuses to reconsider, as we recommended earlier, I believe that we’re really left with only two viable options: legal action against the MPSC or requesting federal intervention. I oppose both of these for the following reasons:
First, pursuing legal action against the MPSC would be a costly and likely unfruitful endeavor. The courts’ deference to regulatory agencies on technical matters like energy planning is widely established, and Consumers has already demonstrated a replacement capacity that meets legal standards. Dragging this into litigation risks wasting taxpayer money, while straining our relationship with state authorities we rely on for other issues.
Second, asking for federal intervention feels equally misguided. Even if the Administration feels inclined to act, it’s unclear whether it could override Michigan’s jurisdiction over its utilities. Relying on federal overreach sets a risky precedent, inviting outside meddling in local affairs when we might not like the outcome next time. Plus, tying the plant’s fate to speculative AI data center co-location plans, as some have suggested, is a gamble that ignores the economic and environmental realities driving the closure.
In my view, we should accept the closure and focus on what’s next—working with Consumers and Port Sheldon Township to ensure the site’s redevelopment delivers real benefits to our community over the near and long term.
Honorary Resolutions
This upcoming Planning & Policy committee meeting, we will be voting on an update to our current Honorary Resolution Policy. There are numerous changes that I believe are not improvements to our current policy.
Most importantly, the new policy precludes us from making honorary resolutions supporting local organizations, high school sports or other extracurricular achievements, special celebrations, or special weeks or months. It only allows us to have tributes to individuals.
Honorary resolutions have not been overly used over my initial years that I’ve been on the Board, and less in the last two plus years. I see no reason to change our current policy, and will be voting no.
Our existing policy:
Our proposed Policy:
Adding back two positions..
Cathedral of Coyoacán. Coyoacán, Mexico
The Holland Sentinel has an article today detailing a part of Tuesday’s meeting, part of which reads:
”In an already packed agenda Tuesday, Jan. 7, Ottawa County Commissioner Doug Zylstra moved to add two commission appointments in what ended up becoming a complex legal argument.
Zylstra sought to appoint longstanding Ottawa County Parks Commission President Kelly Rice to fill a public seat for a term ending Dec. 31, 2027, and former Community Mental Health Board President Vonnie Vanderzwaag to fill a seat for a term ending March 31, 2026.
The duo would fill roles previously held by Commissioners Roger Belknap and Gretchen Cosby, neither of whom were re-elected in November. Belknap sat on the Parks Commission and Cosby headed up the Community Mental Health Board.
—-
As the maker of the two motions on the 7th, I would like to take the opportunity to detail why I made the motion and why I made it at that meeting.
At our December 19th meeting, we chose two residents for a public slot on both the CMH and Parks board. Two long term and highly regarded volunteers, Vonnie VanderZwaag and Kelly Rice were not chosen for reappointment. I considered that unfortunate and spent the holidays thinking how we could right what I believed to be a wrong on our part.
I approached the chair shortly after our opening meeting on January 2 with the idea of giving up two commissioner slots available for 2025, so that these two individuals could once again take their former places on their former boards.
The Chair appreciated the idea, but the agenda for the January 7 meeting had already been published, so the two items could not be placed on the formal agenda. I believed it important to make sure we made the appointments before they each had their January meeting. However, both of the two boards were scheduled to meet before our next BOC meeting, so the only way to get those two individuals placed on the respective boards before their initial meetings was to add their appointments to the agenda on the January 7th at Approval of Agenda, which is a perfectly legitimate action, and one which has been taken many times.
I understand that certain people asked why we didn’t reopen the seat to the public if we were thinking about making them public seats. However, one, we had just finished up a public search just a few weeks earlier and two, the whole motion was based on the idea that we as a Board were giving up what was a formerly Commissioner designated seat precisely so that we could place these two individuals on those two boards. They were not previously public seats and would have been filled with a commissioner absent these motions.
I hope this gives a better picture of the thinking behind what happened on Tuesday and why I thought it so important.
Note 1/12 - There was talk that an impediment existed in that various commissioners appointed for 2024 may still be on the Parks and CMH boards in 2025 for some reason. This a fairly blatant disregard of Motion BC 24-008 from 1/2/2024 which appointed all commissioners through the end of 2024 and 2024 only.
Looking Forward..
Monday's announcement that Village of Sparta Manager Jim Lower has decided not to continue with his candidacy for county administrator likely marks the end of the current search process. I had hoped we could attract and bring on board an administrator to help guide the County in the years ahead. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, that hasn't happened, and it seems unlikely to occur in the near future.
While I believe there were significant challenges with the search, I am grateful to everyone who volunteered their time and to all the candidates who came forward for consideration.
I look forward to resuming the search in the new year and working toward identifying a final candidate who has the full support of the Commission and can effectively lead all our staff and serve all our residents in the years ahead.
Highest quality best price..
Ottawa County’s purchasing policy is designed to get the highest quality best price vendor to help us carry out County services for residents. In 2021, as a result of a competitive RFP process, we hired GovHR, a recruiting firm with deep experience in the government sector, to help us carry out our search for a new administrator. The cost to taxpayers was $22,500.
This time, the Executive Transition Committee is proposing hiring a search firm that, while it has a strong private sector placement record, unfortunately has no available record in the government sector. The proposed contract shows a cost approximately three times the amount we paid in 2021, as shown below.
I do not believe that paying a search firm 30% of first year base salary, which in 2022 for John Shay was $210,000, makes sense for Ottawa County taxpayers and will be opposed to this contract if it comes before us.
Getting our best candidate
This Tuesday, September 24, we will be voting an a Resolution to create an Executive Transition Committee for the position of County Administrator. This Committee will be composed of five members, Commissioners Cosby, Belknap , Moss, Rhodea, and Miedema. The Committee will be delegated the authority to:
A. Review and approve the job description for the County Administrator.
B. Review and approve the recruitment profile for the County Administrator.
C. Coordinate with county administration to post the job by October 1, 2024.
D. Make a public announcement regarding the job posting.
E. Engage an independent recruiting agency to assist with the search.
F. Receive and review applications.
G. Interview applicants, including public interviews for final candidates.
H. Make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
When we last performed the process of hiring a permanent administrator in 2021, we hired GovHR as our Executive Search firm through a public RFP process, and created a seven member Search Committee composed of three commissioners and four members of the public to help work with GovHR to establish and oversee the hiring process.
I am very concerned that the process being proposed this upcoming Tuesday is a very truncated one, and one that is only bringing in insights from certain members of the Board. I do not believe that is the intentional, balanced approach that Ottawa County residents wish for their new Administrator. It is my hope that we can have a search committee and process that brings in more voices and an established search firm in order to guarantee the Board the best possible candidate.
Resolving Compensation..
Yesterday, Corporate Counsel released their Legal Memo regarding the current situation surrounding the Compensation Committee. As a Commissioner, I definitely found it helpful. The memo can be found here, as well as in Sarah Leach’s Substack piece on where we are now, a piece that I also found very helpful.
To begin with, I agree with several parts of the legal memo, especially around the May 2 meeting falling outside of the 45 day window and the fact that the vote regarding Commissioner Pay not having enough votes in favor so as to be valid. However, I do disagree with the memos plan to resolve the issue. The memo reads:
“Moving forward, we recommend that the Commission do the following:
• Memorialize the determinations and votes that occurred on April 11, 2024, and prepare written meeting minutes.
• Issue a corrected resolution reflecting that the only proper determinations were made on April 11, 2024, and were properly authorized by the Act, including:
o The Prosecutor, Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk/Register of Deeds, and Water Resources Commissioner shall have a salary increase of 8% effective January 1, 2025, and a salary increase of 6% effective January 1, 2026.
o The Chairperson of the Ottawa County Road Commission shall have a salary set to $15,500 per year effective January 1, 2025, and a 0% increase effective January 1, 2026, and all other Commissioners of the Ottawa County Road Commission shall have a salary set to $12,500 per year effective January 1, 2025 and a 0% increase effective January 1, 2026.
The Act only requires that “determinations” be made within 45 days, which did occur on April 11, 2024. However, there is nothing in the Act preventing the Commission from, at a later date, memorializing what occurred in order to provide an open and transparent record.
It is my belief that the Compensation Committee that began on March 11 has passed its 45 day window and is no longer a viable Committee that is able to take any substantive action. I strongly doubt it has the power to issue a new Resolution and I definitely believe that it has no power to create any meeting minutes at this point.
In addition, there remains an outstanding issue not identified in the memo that I believe is important. It is my understanding that there were a total of five meetings held by the Committee. However, only two of those were noticed, and one of the meetings not noticed was the April 11 meeting. The Michigan Open Meetings Act states that “A meeting of a public body cannot be held unless public notice is given consistent with the OMA’. It further states that A decision made by a public body may be invalidated by a court, if the public body has not complied with the requirements”. I think all of that makes the idea that all the actions, not just around the Commissioner pay, are in jeopardy.
A further consideration is that MCL 45.472.(2).1 mandates that the Committee “shall consist of 7 members” in order to do work. Counsel’s legal memo states that “one member resigned at the beginning of the process in March of 2024, thus leaving six active members. There is nothing in the statute that prohibits or nullifies the actions of the Commission if it is short one member.” As a Commissioner, this sentence makes me uncomfortable. If we are accepting that “When a statute uses the word “shall,” it means it must be followed. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that “[t]he word ‘shall’ as used in a statute is considered to require mandatory conduct.” Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50, 62; 771 NW2d 453 (2009). (P. 5 - Legal Memo) Then it seems fairly straightforward that when the Committee went from seven to six members, it was out of compliance with the Act.
Having said all that, What do I believe should be our next steps?
Reject any determination that may have already been produced or to be produced as not legally viable, for the above reasons.
Either reconvene a new Committee session and redo the process fresh, or preferably, have the Board itself make the salary determination. If the Board were to choose the second option, it shouldn’t take that much time and we should be able to schedule a final vote well before upcoming elections.
————-
Edit - A public commenter pointed out at the 5/21 Talent and Recruitment meeting another issue with the process. MCL 45.472.(2) says “members shall be appointed before October 1 of the year of appointment.” We did indeed appoint four members in 2023, but they were appointed at the December 12th Board meeting, two and a half months later than the mandate from that MCL.
An Activist Board?
Fox17 recently reported that the Ottawa County Compensation Committee had decided to increase commissioner wages by 60% and add a monthly stipend of $1000 for health insurance. I am unsure in what form the stipend would be paid out, but if it were simply a cash stipend, it would increase commissioner wages to approximately $44,000 a year, from the current $20,000 and push Chair and Vice Chair wages even higher.
I remarked on social media that I believed that this recommendation, if not voted down by the Board, would constitute a ‘major disservice’ to Ottawa county residents and taxpayers. I believe that for two reasons:
1. The obvious additional cost to County taxpayers. Rough estimates is that this would add nearly an adddtional $300,000 to the General Fund budget, a not inconsiderable amount of money.
2. The other way in which this does a disservice is that, by tradition and county structure in general, the Commissioner job is not designed to be full time or even near full time. Our roles are appropriation, oversight and constituent service. Prior to 2023, this role could be accomplished with 10-15 hours a week. Starting in 2023, these duties increased, mainly because of differing attitudes and expectationsof the new commissioners who came on to the Board. Overall, I have not shared these attitudes and expectations of the role of my colleagues, but have had to adapt the work load I’ve undertaken in order to represent my constituents, given these changes.
It is my hope that as we go forward, we can gradually return to the concept of a part-time Board, that accomplished its role with 10-15 hours a week. One of the main concerns I have with a potential increase of this nature, besides simply the cost, is that it will make returning to this part time role nearly impossible, and that we will maintain the current posture of an activist Board that is out of character with the structure of our County government going forward, which is not something that I believed has served nor will serve Ottawa County residents well into the future."
Consent Agenda..
During all of 2023, every member of the Ottawa County Board was also a member of each committee, if they so wished. In practice, that meant that every committee almost always had a full roster of the eleven commissioners when deliberating on action actions.
As a result, it made a lot of sense to put items that were approved at the committee level on the consent agenda when they moved from committee to the Board agenda. The consent agenda is a tool to take routime items or items that have been previously discussed and deliberated on by all Board members and place them together for a single vote.
In January of 2024, the committee structure was changed so that only five members of the board were placed on a committee. Since the Board consists of eleven members, even a unanimous vote of on item on committee meant that only a minority of commissioners would have had a chance to hear the presentation in the Boardroom, ask questions and most importantly, to weigh in with their vote during the committee process.
At the first meeting of the year, items discussed at committee were placed as action items on the full Board agenda, as has been the Board’s historical practice when committees are of five members. However, at the second meeting of the year, all committee items appeared on the consent agenda. Commissioner Bergman asked to have important items removed and placed on the action item agenda. The same happened at the most recent meeting, and I asked to have important committee items removed from the consent agenda and placed on the action item agenda so that we could have full discussion of these items and have individual votes on them.
It is my hope that going forward all committee items will once again appear on the action agenda and not on the consent agenda. The full Board deserves to hear presentations and weigh in with questions and their vote on these important items, and the public very much deserves this as well.
Note - Simply American makes the false assertion that I did not “read the material in the packet provided or watch the Planning and Policy Committee meeting that the County provides on YouTube”. (https://simplyamerican.com/meeting-highlights-update-on...)
I most certainly had. My point in saying that "I don’t think I should need to watch it online in order to get a presentation" was simply that I reject the idea that items that pass committee should go to the consent agenda and that only way that Commissioners can get information about agenda items then is through watching committee meetings. That would be a severe diminishment of the full Board and the Board process. We as a Board have the right and responsibility to fully examine and deliberate agenda items, and that means on the full Board, as an action item.
Administrator Gibbs
On February 22, the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners held a Special Session to review recent developments with County Administrator John Gibbs. Following a nearly two hour closed door meeting, the Board voted 10-1 to place Administrator Gibbs on Paid Administrative Leave. I voted no on the Motion.
There have been numerous reports on this matter the past few days, weeks and months, and I wanted to take a moment to explain how I currently view the situation with Mr. Gibbs and why I voted they way I did on the Motion.
Thursday's meeting was ostensibly brought on by a letter sent by Gibbs’ Attorney to Board Chair Moss. This letter was the second letter that Gibbs has sent to Chair Moss regarding his employment with the county. However, the issues with Mr. Gibbs, as the rest of the members of the Board learned late on February 21 when they were finally shared the letter, began a considerable time before that.
This letter, dated February 15, details a variety of actions dating back almost a year earlier. The first was on March 10 of 2023, when Mr. Gibbs reached out by email to certain members of the Board to outline numerous issues he had with Corporate Counsel, Kallman Legal Group, and their role and abilities to function adequately as Counsel for the County.
The February 15 letter also described a follow-up document from Mr. Gibbs in July, where he laid out in greater depth his various issues with Corporate Counsel. According to the letter, “members of the Board and Mr. Kallman met with Mr. Gibbs. During this meeting, Mr. Gibbs’ concerns regarding the Corporation Counsel were not addressed. The Board conducted no investigation into Mr. Gibbs’ complaints, and instead began to plan Mr. Gibbs’ expulsion. In the time since Mr. Gibbs expressed his concerns about the Corporation Counsel, the Board has become increasingly hostile towards him and some members aligned with the Corporation Counsel have openly expressed their lack of confidence in Mr. Gibbs.” The Board has taken no action to investigate Mr.Gibbs’ assertions.
On October 24, 2023, a court complaint was filed (“Kimball v Ottawa County”) against the County alleging that Mr. Gibbs had unlawfully discriminated against an applicant for employment with the County. According to Mr. Gibbs, “the Kimball matter quickly became the vehicle for the County’s attempt to fire Mr. Gibbs. After its own failure to secure a settlement in the Kimball matter, the Corporation Counsel seized an opportunity to exact its revenge on Mr. Gibbs by offering his termination as part of a settlement offer in that matter. Accordingly, Mr. Gibbs was approached by the Board on January 9, 2024, to request that he tender his resignation.” The Board has taken no action to investigate Mr.Gibbs’ assertions. However, it is important to note that, similar to the email in March and the document in July, this conversation, however phrased, was not one that the Board as whole was aware of until late on February 21, approximately ten hours before the Special Meeting.
On January 15, Mr. Gibbs sent, through his attorney, a letter warning the Board not to fire him. My initial perception of this letter, not knowing about the conversation from January 9 and the context in which it was written, was to take this as a very negative action by Mr. Gibbs. However, in the context presented in the February 15 letter, the letter dated January 15 makes a good deal more sense, and I now view it much more neutrally.
On February 22 at our special meeting we heard and discussing charges brought up against Mr. Gibbs. As his attorney noted afterwards, “Mr. Gibbs was confronted today with what the County described as recently uncovered allegations about his job performance that were never previously disclosed until this emergency board meeting.” He went on to allege that “These brand new allegations about his conduct were strictly obtained for the purpose of justifying a ‘for cause’ termination. The forced leave of absence the Board placed him under is retaliation for Mr. Gibbs’ efforts to protect the County.”
I personally do not have a strong positive impression of Mr. Gibbs as County Administrator. I believe that if we were able to have given him his annual performance review as contractually mandated, I would not have given him high marks, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I left Closed Session concerned about two things. The first is that Mr. Gibbs is alleging that the conversation on January 9 regarding him potentially leaving his employment with Ottawa County was because of his March email and July letter to certain members of the Board regarding his perception of the quality of Corporate Counsel services, and that this allegation in my mind has not been disproven, nor even investigated by the Board. The second is that he was not afforded basic fairness around his ability to hear and rebut the charges brought against him at that Special Session. Both of these issues I believed demonstrate a lack of proper process and placed the Board in a precarious position should we decide to take action at the Special Session. Thus, when the motion to place him on Administrative Leave was made, I felt that I could not support that action, because it was both premature and made with too many loose ends pending.
It is my hope that we get better resolution on both of these issues over the next week, so that any further action may be informed by a better process, with better answers to open questions and a fairer review regarding the pending charges.
Update 2/24 - On Friday 2/23, Chair Moss publicly released a set of accusations that were sent to Mr. Gibbs’ attorney. Approximately half of those charges were the ones Mr. Gibbs was shown on the 22nd. The other half were brand new charges. I am troubled by the public release, because, to my knowledge, Mr. Gibbs has not rescinded his request to hear all charges in private. I worry that if that is the case, such action by Chair Moss only further complicates the current proceedings against Mr. Gibbs.
As far as the additional accusations themselves, they do not change my prior opinion, that Mr. Gibbs has a right to hear his charges in private and to be able to respond to them before they are made public, and before we take any action on them.
Update 2/29 - On Tuesday, February 27, Mr. Gibbs responded to the accusations against him. You can rea his responses here.
‘Auditing’ ARPA
On Tuesday’s Finance Committee agenda, there is a motion to “conduct an internal audit of ARPA Funds received by Ottawa County. The audit should encompass: use and amount of those funds dispersed, who these funds were given to, and amount of dollars returned from each account.”
I am unsure what the third part of the motion, ‘amount of dollars returned from each account’ may mean, but the first two are already documented and easily researched. To find out more information on what the previous Board did as far as ARPA investments go, you could simply go through the packets of the relevant meeting. They are here, here, here, and here. As far as the third ask, ‘amount of dollars returned from each account’, if the question is accounting of the current status of ARPA funds, Fiscal Services prepared the below attached document for the December 5, 2022 Finance meeting. If the request is ‘how have those investments been playing out’, I think an easy solution is for the Board to simply ask the investees to stop by and report out how it’s going, the successes and what may need tweaking in order to optimize the investment.
The whole point of ARPA and the community investments it fostered was to create better outcomes, more opportunities and additional bonds within the community. Let’s continue to do that to really maximize our overall investments!
Where we are now.
Over the last week, there have been many reports around what may or may not have happened at last Friday’s Evidentiary Hearing. As a non-participant, I do not know what happened either inside the courtroom. But one thing that has stood out is the relief from many parts that Judge McNeil did not find that there was a binding settlement agreement for a $4M payment in exchange for the resignation of Health Director Hambley. I frankly find myself in the same camp. I do not believe that the Board should have sought, nor should be seeking, Director Hambley’s resignation in exchange for a cash payment of any amount.
I do believe that the Board should be seeking a way to resolve the issue in a way that involves Director Hambley and Deputy Director Mansaray staying in their positions. It is incumbent upon us, as County leaders, to show that we can work together for the sake of our staff and our residents, and keeping our Health Department together, and in a position to continue offering the services our residents deserve, is a very good first step.
Edit - There seems to be some discussion about whether the Judge’s ruling invalidates the idea that there was ever a $4M tentative agreement. I think the exchange of emails after the Board left Closed Session on the afternoon of the 6th give a clear indication of what was discussed and agreed upon in closed session. The email from Stephan Kallman, referenced in Exhibit 1 in Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement on Behalf of Ottawa County Health Officer, written less than 15 minutes after the Board’s convening of the Closed Session, is especially clear on the matter:
Committee Assignments for 2024
At the organizational meeting on Tuesday, there were some rather large changes made to the current committee structure and a question raised as to how these changes compared to historical norms.
When I came on the Board in 2019, we only had four standing committees; Finance and Administration, Planning and Policy, Talent and Recruitment, and Health snd Human Services. These committees, despite the recent addition of the Rules Committee, were the four major committees and remain so today.
The four committees, comprised of five members, gave an opportunity for twenty total assignments. With a Board membership of eleven, there was not an opportunity for equal representation of commissioners on those committees.
So whether out of a desire to make the math work and give everyone an equal number of slots, or for other reasons, the Chair abstained from being on the Committees. Therefore, each commissioner ended up with two slots on the four committees. This had always seemed a common sense approach to make sure each non-chair Commissioner was able to have an equal role on committees.
I was supportive of the changes from last year, as I’ve said numerous times. I think going back to pre-2023 standards, and the more limited involvement it signifies, is a negative.
It is my hope though, that we can still make additional changes so that all Commissioners have a more equal representation on committees and that committees can benefit from the diverse points of view of all commissioners. As Commisisoners, we all have unique talents, experience and points of view that we all bring to the table, and employing those fully and in a way that more equally represents all Ottawa County residents seems a common sense step that we should take.
Regarding Ottawa Food..
Some recent questions made recently regarding Ottawa Food, and how I see the answers.
Couldn’t we just streamline Health Education to make room for the Coordinator position?
Given the cuts to Health Education, the department has already seen significant reductions in its operations and capacity. Remaining Health Education programs were all reduced significantly and are being completed by the most senior health educator currently at 0.6 FTE.
The Health Education budget currently supports a manager, a part-time supervisor, and one health educator (0.6 FTE). Current workloads with the reduced personnel following the recent cuts would simply not allow significant time for any member of the Health Education team to dedicate to Ottawa Food coordination efforts.
Why did the Ottawa Food coalition place a pause on the cooperative effort?
According to the coalition’s press release, the coalition felt it was prudent to pause the model of Ottawa Food as it’s been operating, rather than continue without a full-time coordinator. They made a point of noting that the collaborative still exists but all regular monthly and quarterly meetings and other activities are on pause.
The previous Coordinator is still working at Ottawa County. Why can’t she simply take up her previous role?
Unfortuntely, there is simply no funding in the Health Education budget for her to carry out the work of Coordinator. She continues to be employed by OCDPH, but has been reassigned to Environmental Health Food Safety with more focus on Food Safety Education because of the requirements of the grant we used as alternative funding for her position. That funding does not allow her to work on coordination issues for Ottawa Food.
Why is this coming to the Board now?
The idea that Ottawa Food would very likely have funding issues, and that the coordinator position was at risk, is something that has been know for some time. Indeed, I personally proposed a general fund contribution to the Health Education line to explicitely fund the coordinator positon during the Budget process. This proposal was voted down.
Subsequently, Public health went to the Administorator with the proposal to potentially shift some savings from the closure of the Hudsonville Office towards partial funding of the coordinator position. After initial discussions at the beginning of November, there has not been any more information on this possibility.
So, we are at a crossroads where the need still exists and the funding has not been appropriated. The Board knows of this, and a number of Commissioners have been working now to help make that funding happen.
Why can’t Community Action House take over the coordination role, especially given that we awarded them nearly $500,000 during the ARPA process?
The previous Board did indeed make a grant to Community Action House (CAH) as contractee for an expansion of the Lakeshore Food Rescue plan. Part of that grant stipulated that CAH would hire three full time staff to help in that expansion. If we were to reach out to CAH and ask or direct them to move one (or more) of those three FTEs to a Ottawa Food coordinator role, it would obviously hobble CAH’s efforts to carry out food rescue county-wide, which was the entire purpose of the grant. Additionally, It is very uncertain whether that would even be financially possible, as our funding for 2024 is down to supporting only half those positions, or 1.5 FTEs.
It is important to reiterate that the Ottawa Food program is not receiving any funds on an ongoing basis from this grant, nor were they ever provided funding for staff. They were simply the granting and coordinating agency for the contract with Community Action House, as can be seen in the below infographic.
Couldn’t the collaborative itself provide for a full-time staffer for Ottawa Food?
It might be possible for us to push off the responsibility for funding the coordinator position onto the OF partners, but that would simply take away current capacity from these organizations and their work. It is my belief that Ottawa County can and should be a force multiplier, and not a force detractor, by funding this position ourselves.
How much fresh funding is needed?
The Health Department has outlined that, In order to fully fund a health educator (0.9 FTE) to serve specifically as Ottawa Food Coordinator for FY24, the Health Education line would need the following in addition to what has already been allocated (salary, fringe & indirect costs provided by fiscal services):
• Salary & Fringe Health Educator at .9 FTE: $83,731
• Indirect & CAP for supporting .9 FTE: $33,493
• Mileage: $1000
• Conference and Training: $1000
• Office Supplies: $300
• Postage: $600
• Printing & Binding: $750
• IT Operational: $400
• TOTAL: $121,274
It is worth noting that staff support was also provided by another Health Education health educator to run the Senior Project Fresh program and that clerical support was provided from the Health Education Clerk. Neither of these costs are listed above.
Given all this, what do you think we should do next?
My takeaway from all the discussions so far is that we all support what Ottawa Food is doing, and we all realize that a coordinator is necessary to the work it does.
I believe our differences center around who should pay for that position. Should it be us, with fresh funding, should it be us with existing funding only, should it be Community Action House, should it be Spoke, should it be MSU Extension, or maybe should all the members of the coalition together find a way to pay for it themselves?
I believe that we can and should assume leadership on this, and not take a backseat or even worse, a bystander role here. The fight against food insecurity should be a county-wide one, and as the entity that by definition encompasses all of Ottawa County, it makes the most sense that we take up the leadership role. However, I don’t believe we can do that with existing funding levels, and thus fresh funding is paramount to make this effort work. It is my hope that we see this vital item placed on the next Finance agenda so we can assume the responsibility that the Ottawa community is asking of us.
The burden of proof..
Throughout the 23 pages of background material and charges, and the 17 hours of testimony and arguments relating to the four charges brought against Health Director Hambley, Counsel Kallman never made the argument, at least with any attempt at proof, that Director Hambley had misled the public regarding her portrayal of the proposal made by Chairman Moss for a $2.5M General Fund transfer to the Public Health budget. In fact, when asked about why they levied the charge in regards to her August 30 Press Release, Counsel Kallman refused any attempts to justify the charge, when it was evident Ms. Hambley’s Press Release was simply reiterating language the Administrator had used in his own Press Release just two days earlier.
I find it significant that that was never done. My understanding of the hearing process is that Counsel had the burden of proof. But throughout the hearing, Counsel did not care to take up that burden. There were insinuations in the document that maybe her language was not tempered sufficiently, but no serious attempts at proving her language incorrect or misleading were made in the document or the hearing.
I realize that the hearing was not a legal hearing, but rather a political one. However, the hearing was still a ‘hearing under MCL 46.11(n)’ for statutory removal. As such, I believe that there is still a burden of proof, one that I believe Counsel did not seriously attempt and never at all achieved.
In the end, Ottawa County residents should expect the protection of law, and when there is a hearing for the removal of the Ottawa County Health Director, they should expect that one of the basic tenets of legal protections, the burden of proof, is respected by Counsel that seeks to remove her.
A few questions..
A few questions I’ve received both this morning and over the weekend:
From this morning:
Why did you recess and why did you vote no?
According to Chair Moss, certain members need more time with the evidence. As far as my vote; on the one hand, I do want to give my colleagues the time they need to sift through the evidence, and that was why I didn’t oppose the first motion to recess last Wednesday. On the other, I do think we owe it to all parties involved, most importantly the Ottawa community, to render a timely verdict, which is why I voted no on the second motion to recess this morning.
From this weekend:
Shouldn’t Director Hambley assume some responsibility for the sense of crisis her words seemed to enable?
Ms. Hambley’s public communication was extraordinary. However, it was in response to Chair Moss’s proposal which was unprecendented, at least in my opinion. Chair Moss’s proposal targeted the Health Department in a very open and blatant manner, and the depth and impunity of cuts proposed set off a deep sense of crisis in the community. His proposal was unwarranted, unworkable and, to the extent that it violated minimum standards of care levels, likely not lawful. Without Chair Moss’s very public proposal, none of the ensuing events would have occurred. In my mind, 100% of the responsibilty for the events of the last two months, and the sense of crisis that exists currently within the community, lies with the Chair and his proposal.
No business employer would or should ‘tolerate’ an employee talking to the public directly like Director Hambley did. Why should or would the Administrator or the Board ‘tolerate’ Director Hambley’s talking to the public?
This is an easy to make analogy, but it doesn’t take into account the simple fact that it’s not the Administrator or the Board who are Director Hambley’s real employer. Rather it is the Ottawa County public itself who is the employer. Each and every taxpayer and resident in the county deserve to know relevant information that is going on in the entity that they are supporting with their tax dollars, and Ms. Hambley carried out her mission as Health Director of letting the public, her ultimate employer, know what was going in their entity, the county government.
Charges against Health Director Hambley
My specific thoughts on the the four charges as presented against Health Director Hambley
CHARGE I: MS. HAMBLEY DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE, MISCONDUCT, AND NEGLECT OF DUTY BY MAKING FALSE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT BUDGETARY SCENARIOS.
I believe that Ms. Hambley acted professionally and responsibly in alerting the Ottawa County community to the potential risk that the proposals generated by Chair Moss entailed. Her actions did not cause panic, but rather gave proper notice to the community. I believe that her extensive responses to Administration were both reasoned and good faith responses.
I believe moreover, both before she was excluded from the further crafting of the Public Health budget and after, that she was attentive to the requests and far from ignoring them, diligently gave the necessary and correct answers to both the requests and the external proposals being made by Chair Moss and refrained from discussing in public any internal proposals.
Ms. Hambley was effectively cut out of the budget process on Friday August 25 at 3:53 PM, when Administrator Gibbs sent an email to Karen Karasinski asking her to take over the drafting of the changes to Public Health’s budget. (Exhibit I). Her role at that point was relegated to simply answering questions of a technical nature so that Fiscal Services could craft final revisions to the Public Health budget - if and only if she was specifically asked by Fiscal Services to do so.
The element of the charge that she was peremptorily putting forth information as final in a August 30 Press Release and ‘lying’ about the status of the budget is belied by the fact that the Release was mirroring prior statements from Administration and Board Chair Moss from their Press Release two days earlier on August 28. (Exhibit 8 and Exhibit O)
The element of the charge that states “While Ms. Hambley was publicly proclaiming that the completed budget ‘will be’ $3.8 million and services ‘would be eliminated,’ she was privately admitting to her staff that ‘services are continuing as usual’ until ‘after October 1, 2024,’ and ‘budgets are being discussed’ and ‘have not been finalized’ (Exhibits G, L and O),” is disproven by a reading of the actual email, instead of an untrue characterization in which Ms. Hambley’s words are in part simply omitted. The sentence in question reads (in Exhibit G) “If you have clients contacting you with concerns, please let them know that services are continuing as usual and budgets have not yet been finalized so we are unable to give definitive answers as to what will happen after October 1, 2024.” It is unfortunate that Counsel chose to abridge the actual email in this manner.
In my view, Counsel and Chair Moss have not demonstrated in charge one that Ms. Hambley is unfit to continue in her position because of her incompetence, misconduct, and/or neglect of duty.
CHARGE II. MS. HAMBLEY DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE, MISCONDUCT, AND NEGLECT OF DUTY BY FALSELY CLAIMING THAT SHE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
Ms. Hambley made a number of statements that indicated that she began to feel excluded from the further crafting of, and active engagement with, the Public Health budget following Administrator Gibbs’ August 25 email. In my opinion, following two days of testimony, and the ability to cross examine witnesses, Counsel has not shown that she was factually incorrect in her statements. Perception of events is, of course, subjective. But if our employees are stating that they feel they are being marginalized, it is not our job as leaders to tell them that they are lying, or that it’s not true. Much less is it our job to levy charges of incompetence, misconduct, and neglect of duty against them for expressing that.
One element of the charge is that “On August 25, 2023, Administrator Gibbs sent an email to Ms. Karasinski and Ms. Hambley, with the latest budget scenarios, and requested that Ms. Karasinksi ‘please work with Nina and Kris to set the exact budget numbers within the above parameters.’ Nina Baranowski is the Public Health Financial Manager and Kris Conrad is an Administrative Assistant in the Public Health Department. Clearly, the Health Department was not being bypassed when the County Administrator requested that the head of the Finance Department work with two high level employees in the Health Department.”
The email in question (Exhibit I), far from showing that Ms. Hambley had an active involvement in the budget process, shows the exact opposite. The email was addressed to Karen Karasinksi, and read :"Hi Karen, Good afternoon. Please take the following action to draft Public Health’s budget:…” Contrary to Counsel’s assertion in this Charge, the August 25 email was not directed to Ms. Hambley. She was merely copied on it. The directives in this email from Administrator Gibbs regarding budget preparation were to Ms. Karasinski, not Ms. Hambley. This supports Ms. Hambley’s statements that she was, indeed, being excluded from the budget development process.
The email further instructed Ms. Karasinksi to “please work with Nina and Kris to set the exact budget numbers within the above parameters.” It was clear that the Administrator did not intend Ms. Karasinski to work with Ms. Hambley, or at least expressed no desire that she do so.
Emails such as the one from August 28 (Exhibit K) that state “Thank you for cc’ing me on the request you sent Friday afternoon to Karen for changes to the Public Health FY 2024 budget” further demonstrate that Ms. Hambley was definitely not part of the process, and as she stated at the hearing August 25, was ‘on the outside looking in’.
Further emails listed in the charges (Exhibits J, K, L, O, and P) simply reinforce this, and that any role that Ms. Hambley had was purely one of serving as a technical resource for questions that Commissioners, Administration or Fiscal Services might have had.
A final element of the charge accuses Ms. Hambley of not being truthful in her public statements because she “admitted in her August 28, 2023 email that she was providing program information to Fiscal Services…” (Exhibit K). In this email, Ms. Hambley said, in part, “It is important for both Fiscal Services and Public Health to work together on your new request for budget amendments, since there are program details that Karen will need from Public Health to attempt to do what you have asked...” This is quite obviously stating a desire of Ms. Hambley that Fiscal and Public Health have a stronger relationship in formulating the budget changes, and an offer from Ms. Hambley to once again hopefully be able to assist more substantively in that process.
In my view, Counsel and Chair Moss have not demonstrated in charge two that Ms. Hambley is unfit to continue in her position because of her incompetence, misconduct, and/or neglect of duty.
III. MS. HAMBLEY DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE, MISCONDUCT, AND NEGLECT OF DUTY BY FAILING TO COOPERATE IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
It is very apparent to me that not only was Ms. Hambley deliberately shut out of an active role in formulating changes to the Public Health budget after August 25, it is likewise apparent that, although she was being deliberately sidelined, she worked very hard to overcome these obstacles so as to assume the most productive presence possible.
Charge 3 states in part that Ms. Hambley failed to create a budget as “as close to the below-directed level as possible” (Exhibit E). The vagueness of the request aside, Ms. Hambley did respond to the request on Thursday, August 24, 2023 5:08 PM (also Exhibit E) with the statement that “it is impossible to create an exact budget as the Health Department is unable to operate at this funding level.” Ms. Hambley was making the very understandable observation that it was not possible to create a budget at any level close to $2.5M. Administrator Gibbs and Chair Moss may not have liked to hear that response, but it is a reasoned response nonetheless. Proof of this is that the final General Fund (GF) and State ELPHS contribution, including fund balance transfers, finished at well over two times that amount, with $4.8M in GF contributions and approximately $700K in state ELPHS funds as well.
An element of the charge is that “Throughout the budget process, the Finance Committee and Board of Commissioners would have found it useful for Ms. Hambley to provide information concerning the acceptable minimum Health Department funding.” However, as shown on page 109 and following the Communications on the Public Health exhibit list, that information was indeed made available to Administration and Chair Moss.
Additionally, I find it highly disingenuous that this line of argument is being made when Ms. Hambley had made it very well known that anything close to $2.5M was never going to meet Minimum Service levels, either in the aggregate or in the specific service level. They well knew that, for Ottawa County to be reasonably above the Minimum Service levels, the General Fund transfer would need to be at least $4M.
In my view, Counsel and Chair Moss have not demonstrated in charge three that Ms. Hambley is unfit to continue in her position because of her incompetence, misconduct, and/or neglect of duty.
IV. MS. HAMBLEY DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE, MISCONDUCT, AND NEGLECT OF DUTY BY MAKING FALSE CLAIMS THAT ENCOURAGED AND CAUSED CONFUSION, ANXIETY, FEAR, AND PANIC IN THE COMMUNITY.
Charge four makes the argument that, because Chair Moss’ proposal was not a final proposal, or a proposal that the Board was set to vote on, that it somehow is exempt from scrutiny. Counsel further argues that Chair Moss’ proposal for a $2.5M GF transfer was an ‘internal’ proposal and therefore it was inappropriate for Director Hambley to offer her vierws on it. This idea makes little sense. Chair Moss first brought up his proposal in a Finance and Administration meeting on August 21, and he made a fuller proposal on his website and social media as a Press Release. His proposal was far from internal and was indeed designed to be a public document.
Additionally, Chair Moss holds heavy sway among the Board majority, and it is very logical to think any proposal by Chair Moss could very potentially pass the Board. As such, not discussing the proposal or having an artificial prohibition on discussing it likewise makes very little sense.
Charge four is, in many senses, the key argument among the four that Counsel has put forward to attempt to show that Director Hambley is “Incompetent, engaged in misconduct and habitual or willful neglect of duty,” and the fact that it is such a weak argument, relying on the fiction that Chair Moss’ proposal was unimportant or somehow exempt from scrutiny speaks volumes about their entire case against Ms. Hambley.
This proposal was a drastic series of recommendations that had the effect of creating a deep crisis in the Ottawa County community about the ability of the Ottawa County Health Department to carry out its statutory duties. The Board would be wise to look at the Proposal itself as the source of any public ‘panic’, and not shifting that responsibility entirely onto someone else who had no role in creating these proposals nor crafting the subsequent budgets, namely Health Director Hambley.
In my view, Counsel and Chair Moss have not demonstrated in charge four that Ms. Hambley is unfit to continue in her position because of her incompetence, misconduct, and/or neglect of duty.
Looking back, and ahead.
This past Tuesday was a culmination of a dedicated campaign to communicate with Holland City residents about what we’ve been able to achieve these past two years on the Board, and my goals for the next two, if granted that privilege. I am thankful that Holland City once again have placed their trust in me for the upcoming two years. It is definitely not a privilege that I take lightly.
Going forward, we still have nearly two months left in this current term. The most important item that we need to finish is the process of allocating American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. Ottawa County was allocated a little over $57M through the American Rescue Plan. Since then, we have made appropriations of $11.75M. The allocations have been approximately $5.5M for staff loyalty and Inflation Impact payments. We have allocated $2M for a locally-run Eviction Prevention fund as well as $3.5M for two affordable housing projects, one in Holland and the other in Grand Haven. The remaining funds have been used to hire ‘Bucket Fund’ managers as well as begin work on the County-wide Broadband project.
That means we have a little over $45M left in ARPA funds. On Tuesday, November 15, we will begin seeing a number of projects that have been recommended by our ARPA Task Force. We will also see a few projects centered around County-specific initiatives that have come to us through an internal process. My hope, as it has been since we began with the ARPA process, is that these funds accomplish two main goals:
1.) Work to engage and fund community projects as much as possible. These funds were entrusted to us on a per-capita basis, and as such, they are by and large community funds. Our allocations should reflect that to the greatest extent possible.
2.) The projects that we select should be unique, transformational projects that we would not engage in absent the ARPA funds being entrusted to us. I do not believe we should be using these funds to be accomplishing things that we would be or otherwise are carrying out.
Likewise, this Tuesday we will continue discussions on extending Severance protections to all non-elected department heads. Over the past few months, we have extended those protections to the Director of the Health Department, Lisa Stefasnovski, as well as to the head of the Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. I believe, at a minimum, we should extend that protection to all department heads. Recruiting and retaining high quality candidates is important to our goal of offering high quality services to our residents, and this will simply be one more benefit that we can offer to help us carry out that important goal.
Finally, as member of the Talent and Recruitment Committee, it is important that we close out the year with as many boards and commissions vacancies filled as possible, so that they can begin the new year as ready and able to complete their important work as possible.
I would like once again to thank the City of Holland residents for their confidence and if you have any questions or concerns, please reach out at 616 443-4281 or dzylstra@miottawa.org.