On the agenda: Zeeland Council Packet — flock camera (Nov 16)

CITY OF ZEELAND
City Council Work-Study Session
Agenda
City Hall – Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 21 South Elm
November 16, 2026, 6:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Appraiser Contract Agreement
2. Electrical Inspector Contract Amendment
3. Fire Truck Purchase
4. PFAS Ordinance Update
5. Behind the Meter Generation Update and Ownership Model Recommendation
6. Gentex Development Agreement Addendum No. 2
7. Main/Fairview Roundabout Discussion
8. 84th Street Construction Contract Award
UPCOMING BUSINESS:
OLD BUSINESS:
Vacancies on Boards/Commissions:
Board of Construction Appeals (1)
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (1)
Nominating Commission (5)
ANNOUNCEMENTS:

CITY OF ZEELAND
City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
City Hall – Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 21 South Elm
November 16, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation – Councilmember Amy Langeland
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Excuse absent members (by motion and reason)
Approve additions/deletions to the Agenda
Consent Agenda (page 2)
Public Comment/Visitors
Communications
City Manager’s Report
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Appraiser Contract Agreement
2. Electrical Inspector Contract Amendment
3. Fire Truck Purchase
4. Behind the Meter Generation Ownership Model Recommendation
5. Gentex Development Agreement Addendum No. 2
6. 84th Street Construction Contract Award
REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion with a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these matters
unless a council member, a member of the administrative staff or a citizen so requests, in
which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately in
its normal sequence on the regular agenda.
1. Approve minutes of the City Council Work Study of November 2, 2026.
2. Approve minutes of the Regular City Council meeting on November 2, 2026.
3. Receive for information draft minutes of November 10, 2026, Board of Public Works
Commission meeting.
4. Ratify BPW Action #26.066 - Approve Cash Disbursements and Recommended Cash
Transfers
5. Ratify BPW Action #26.067 - Approve BPW Admin Building HVAC Unit Replacements
6. Ratify BPW Action #26.068 - Approve Substation Reclosure Purchase
7. Ratify BPW Action #26.069 - Approve Electric AMI Meter Purchase
8. Ratify BPW Action #26.070 - Approve Board of Commissioners 2027 Board Meeting
Schedule

Council Meeting
Common Council
November 2, 2026
The regular meeting of the Common Council was held at 21 S. Elm Street, Zeeland, Ml 49464
on Monday, November 2, 2026. Mayor VanDorp called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:

Councilmembers - Mayor VanDorp, Mayor Pro-Tern Gruppen, Timmer, Lam,
Langeland, Perkins, Bult
None

Staff Present: City Attorney Jim Donkersloot, Interim City Manager/Finance Director Kevin
Plockmeyer, Community Development Director/Assessor, and City Clerk Kristi DeVerney
The Invocation was offered by City Attorney Jim Donkersloot
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Consent Agenda
Motion was made by Councilmember Lam and Supported by Councilmember Timmer to
approve the Consent Agenda.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Approve minutes of the City Council Work Study of October 19, 2026.
Approve minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of October 18, 2026.
Receive for information draft minutes of October 1, 2026, Planning Commission meeting.
Receive for information draft minutes of October 8, 2026, Shopping Area Redevelopment
Board.

Motion carried. All present voting aye.
Public Comment
John Duquette (9581 Cedar Ct.), representing Wreaths of Honor, asked for donations and help
placing wreaths on veteran’s graves.
Travis McGeehan (22 N. Jefferson) disagrees with having flock cameras as there is misuse of the
system.
Communications
None
Interim City Managers Report
ICM Plockmeyer reported:
Church Street Construction Project
The reconstruction project is progressing nicely with crews focusing on completing remaining work
between Main Avenue and Washington Avenue. Final paving was scheduled for Friday.

Planning Commission Update
The Planning Commission’s meeting is on Thursday to discuss the following:
- Bridge Youth Center (435 W Main Ave) for a site plan review for a gym addition and deck.
- 600 E Riley St for a special land use for camper, trailer, and large recreational equipment
repair within a portion of the property.
- Continued work on the Master Plan by reviewing draft survey questions and discussing
community engagement opportunities
- Review status of projects on the 2026 Capital Improvement Program list
- Discuss new ideas following their October bus tour of the City
Joint Planning Commission / City Council Meeting
The primary purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the Sligh Block and future considerations for
development of the area.
Zeeland Pumpkin Path
Reminder to visit Vande Luyster Square to see the carved pumpkins that are illuminated each
evening at dusk.
Public Hearing 7:12 p.m. – Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Development District
Motion was made by Councilmember Timmer and Supported by Councilmember Lam to have
Mayor VanDorp call the Public Hearing to order at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried. All voting aye.
Community Development Director/Assessor Maday stated during 2024 and 2025, Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC acquired several properties adjacent to its existing campus as part of its planned
campus modernization project. With its property acquisitions complete, the company has submitted
a request to establish Act 198 Industrial Development District that aligns with its expanded campus
boundaries, including the former North Division Street right-of-way that was recently vacated.
An Industrial Development District (IDD) established in 2019 encompasses the company’s
earlier campus holdings, and several of the industrial properties acquired since that time have
their own existing districts. However, these districts do not encompass the entire expanded
campus. The proposed district would encompass the full campus and simplify future
exemption applications.
Upon adoption of the resolution by the Council, this would complete the district establishment
process.
Mr. McGeehan (Mead Johnson) noted that they wanted to simplify by bringing all properties
together. They had already started on construction of relocating utilities underground and
finishing grading pavement.
Motion was made by Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen and Supported by Councilmember Langeland to
close the Public Hearing for the Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Development District at 7:20 p.m.
Motion carried. All voting aye.
Public Hearing 7:21 p.m. – Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate
Motion was made by Councilmember Langeland and Supported by Councilmember Lam to have

Mayor VanDorp call the Public Hearing to order at 7:21 p.m. Motion carried. All voting aye.
Community Development Director/Assessor Maday stated Mead Johnson & Company, LLC is
undertaking substantial ventilation and related improvements to its existing manufacturing facilities
at 725 E Main Avenue as part of its campus modernization efforts. The work includes north and
south tower ventilation improvements and related upgrades to the facility’s ventilation and heat
exchange systems, along with associated structural, mechanical, electrical, and fire protection
improvements.
The company has submitted Act 198 Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate application for these
improvements which identifies approximately $58.5 million in real property investment and requests
a 12-year exemption. The improvements are located within the Industrial Development District
established by City Council in June 2019.
Upon approval of the application and supporting documents by the Council, they would be
forwarded to the State Tax Commission for their consideration and issuance of the certificate.
Mr. McGeehan noted that they were investing $58.5 million in mostly HVAC improvements. He was
appreciative that they had the ability to use local contractors and engineers for this project.
Motion was made by Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen and Supported by Councilmember Langeland to
close the Public Hearing for the Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Facilities Exemption at 7:25 p.m.
Motion carried. All voting aye.
Action Items
26.171

Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Facilities Exemption

Motion was made by Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen and Supported by Councilmember Lam to adopt the
resolution approving Mead Johnson & Company, LLC’s Act 198 Industrial Faciality Exemption
Certificate application for ventilation and related improvements at 725 E. Main Avenue, with a total
project cost of $58,484,107.49 and a 12-year exemption, subject to the conditions outlined in the
resolution.
Ayes:
Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen, Timmer, Lam, Langeland, Perkins, Bult, Mayor VanDorp
No Vote: None
Absent: None
26.172

Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Development District

Motion was made by Councilmember Timmer and Supported by Councilmember Lam to adopt the
resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for Mead Johnson & Company, LLC
encompassing its full campus at 725 E. Main Avenue and adjacent properties, as described in the
resolution and shown on the survey map.
Ayes:
Timmer, Lam, Langeland, Perkins, Bult, Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen, Mayor VanDorp
No Vote: None
Absent: None
26.173

Fire Department Chaplain Position

Motion was made by Councilmember Lam and Supported by Councilmember Timmer to approve and

support the addition of a Fire Chaplain position to our roster as outlined in the proposal.
Ayes:
Lam, Langeland, Perkins, Bult, Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen, Timmer, Mayor VanDorp
No Vote: None
Absent: None
26.174

Lawrence Park Design and Construction Administration Contract Award

Motion was made by Councilmember Langeland and Supported by Councilmember Timmer to award
a design development, construction documentation, bidding and construction administration contract
in the amount of $78,407 to the MCSA Group for the reconstruction of Lawrence Park.
Ayes:
Langeland, Perkins, Bult, Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen, Timmer, Lam, Mayor VanDorp
No Vote: None
Absent: None
Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen noted the CEP meeting dues will remain the same. Gifts can be given if
desired.
ICM Plockmeyer thanked the Clerk Staff for a job well done during the November Early Voting and
Election Day.
Councilmember Perkins thanked staff for informing the local businesses about Church Street
reconstruction progress. She also thought the Pumpkin Path was a great addition to our City of
Zeeland events.
There being no further business, motion was made by Councilmember Timmer and Supported
by Councilmember Langeland to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried. All voting aye.
___________________________________
Mayor Richard VanDorp III
___________________________________
City Clerk Kristen R DeVerney

MEMORANDUM OF-STUDY SESSION
Zeeland City Hall Council Chambers Monday, November 2, 2026
6:00 P.M.
Mayor VanDorp called the Study Session to order at 6:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Councilmembers - Mayor VanDorp, Mayor Pro-Tern Gruppen, Timmer, Lam,
Langeland, Perkins, Bult
ABSENT:

None

Staff Present: City Attorney Jim Donkersloot, Interim City Manager/Finance Director Kevin
Plockmeyer, Community Development Director/Assessor Tim Maday, Fire Chief Brad
Deppe, and City Clerk Kristi DeVerney
Fire Department Chaplain Position
Fire Chief Deppe stated Zeeland Fire Rescue feels the addition of a Chaplain will give the
department more depth of support in dealing with difficult circumstances and transitioning
back to their home life after certain types of calls. Because the suicide rate is 21% in fire
service, their goal, as a department, is to be proactive in overall support and mental health
awareness. Our long-term plan with a Chaplain in place is to begin exploring a Peer
Support Team within the department to work in unison with the Chaplain. This would start
these difficult conversations even sooner, providing thorough and comprehensive support.
This position would first be a voluntary staff member fulfilling duties outlined in the policy
and secondly as a contract service for individuals requesting assistance through the
Fearless Chaplain program.
Staff recommended for Council to approve and support the addition of a Fire Chaplain
position to our roster as outlined in the proposal.
Parks and Recreation Five-Year Master Plan
ICM Plockmeyer stated over the past several months, the Cemetery and Parks Commission has
worked with MCSA Group and City staff to develop the updated plan. This process included reviewing
existing park conditions, evaluating the goals and objectives from the previous plan, reviewing the
results of a community survey, and conducting a bus tour of the City's parks to evaluate potential
improvement projects. The Commission also participated in an exercise to prioritize future capital
improvements, which helped establish the direction of the Action Program and Capital Improvement
Schedule included in the draft plan.
The community survey provided valuable feedback as respondents expressed strong support for
reinvesting in existing facilities, improving accessibility, enhancing playgrounds and restrooms,
expanding trail connections, and preserving natural areas. This feedback, together with the
Commission's discussions and project rankings, helped shape the priorities identified in the updated
plan. The Cemetery and Parks Commission completed its review of the draft plan and provided final
feedback to MCSA Group and staff.
The draft plan will be made available for public comment during the month of November and into
December.

No formal action is requested of City Council at this time. The intent is simply to provide Council
with an opportunity to review the draft plan and offer any preliminary feedback before it is
released for public comment.
FY27 Financial Sustainability Update
ICM Plockmeyer gave an update on the following:
- General Fund revenues
- Appropriations, including ongoing transfers to other funds
- Annual surpluses
- Property taxes
- State-shared revenue, permit, investment income & transfer patterns
- General Fund wages & benefits
o Compensation, payroll taxes, health insurance, retirement & other employer-paid costs
- Motor pool, information technology, and street related investments
o Municipal Street Fund for street reconstruction & Library operations
- Annual surpluses – projected fund balance
- Capital needs
o Project timing, scope & sources of funding, future maintenance & operating impacts
associated with investments
- City’s future tax base
- Zeeland Generating Station changes
Staff suggests a three-part approach to funding the capital categories identified in the Strategic Action
Plan:
- Continue existing General Fund funding for motor pool, IT and streets.
- Use available future surpluses selectively for parks, downtown and targeted facility or street
improvements.
- Evaluate bonds or alternative revenue sources for major facility projects.
Overall, the ten-year financial outlook provides a positive picture of the City's ability to maintain
existing service levels and continue its established financial commitments using our current tax
structure. The City's strong financial position, combined with anticipated investment in our community,
places us in a favorable position to continue to address some of our longer-term capital needs.
No formal action is being requested from City Council at this time. Rather, the purpose of this information
is to share our financial outlook, present a potential framework for funding future capital improvements,
and solicit Council's feedback on the suggested funding approaches for our various capital improvement
categories and whether there are other considerations staff should incorporate as we continue developing
our long-term financial plans.
Lawrence Park Design and Construction Administration Contract Award
ICM Plockmeyer stated funds have previously been set aside for the reconstruction of Lawrence Park.
The next step is to refine the design, develop construction documents, and ultimately prepare the project
for bidding.
Staff are requesting approval of a contract with the MCSA Group for design development, construction
documentation, bidding, and construction administration services. The total cost for these services is
$78,407, which includes a topographical survey, soil borings, and associated civil engineering services.
Our goal would be to begin reconstruction of the park in either the fall of 2027 or the spring of 2028.

Staff recommended awarding a design development, construction documentation, bidding and
construction administration contract in the amount of $78,407 to the MCSA Group for the reconstruction
of Lawrence Park.
Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Development District
Community Development Director Maday stated during 2024 and 2025, Mead Johnson & Company LLC
acquired a number of properties adjacent to its existing campus as part of its planned campus
modernization project. With its property acquisitions complete, the company has submitted a request to
establish Act 198 Industrial Development District that aligns with its expanded campus boundaries,
including the former North Division Street right-of-way that was recently vacated.
An Industrial Development District (IDD) established in 2019 encompasses the company’s earlier campus
holdings, and several of the industrial properties acquired since that time have their own existing districts.
However, these districts do not encompass the entire expanded campus. The proposed district would
encompass the full campus and simplify future exemption applications.
Should Council adopt the resolution following the public hearing, this would complete the
district establishment process. The district would then be in place for future Act 198 Industrial Facilities
Exemption Certificate applications for eligible projects within the expanded campus.
Staff recommended adopting the resolution establishing an Industrial Development District for Mead
Johnson & Company LLC encompassing its full campus at 725 E Main Avenue and adjacent properties,
as described in the resolution and shown on the survey map.
Mead Johnson Act 198 Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate
ICM Plockmeyer stated Mead Johnson & Company LLC is undertaking substantial ventilation and related
improvements to its existing manufacturing facilities at 725 E Main Avenue as part of its campus
modernization efforts. The work includes north and south tower ventilation improvements and related
upgrades to the facility’s ventilation and heat exchange systems, along with associated structural,
mechanical, electrical, and fire protection improvements.
An Act 198 Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate application has been submitted by the company for
these improvements. The application identifies approximately $58.5 million in real property investment
and requests a 12-year exemption.
The improvements are located within the Industrial Development District established by City Council in
June 2019.
Should Council adopt the resolution following the public hearing, the approved application and
supporting documents would be forwarded to the State Tax Commission for its consideration and
issuance of the certificate.
Staff recommended adopting the resolution approving Mead Johnson & Company LLC’s Act 198
Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate application for ventilation and related improvements at 725 E
Main Avenue, with a total project cost of $58,484,107.49 and a 12-year exemption, subject to the
conditions outlined in the resolution.
City Manager Search Update
Mayor VanDorp stated the City Manager Search Committee consists of the following members:

-

Mayor VanDorp
Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen
BPW Commissioner Cooney
Jill Ver Steeg
Brett Gerrtsma
Kurt Wassink (Screening applicants)

Interviews will take place next week and the committee is anticipating the first of the year to have
someone hired.
Closed Session
Motion was made by Mayor Pro-Tem Gruppen and supported by Councilmember Lam to enter
Closed Session at 6:42 P.M. for purposes of reviewing an attorney’s opinion. Motion carried by all
voting aye.
Motion was made by Councilmember Timmer and supported by Councilmember Lam to reconvene
from Closed Session at 6:49 p.m. Motion carried with all voting aye.
There being no further items to discuss, Work Study was adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
_______________________________
Kristen R DeVerney, City Clerk

Regular Meeting
Board of Public Works
BPW Conference Room
November 10, 2026
The regular meeting of the Board of Public Works Commission was held at the Zeeland BPW
Administrative Office & Customer Service Center, 350 E. Washington, Tuesday, November 10, 2026.
Chairperson Boerman called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:

Commissioners – Chairperson Boerman, Vice Chair Cooney, Commissioner Query,
Commissioner VanAst, Commissioner Walters
Commissioners – None

Staff Present:

BPW General Manager Mulder; Water Operations Manager Postma, Electrical
Transmission & Distribution Manager Coots, City of Zeeland ICM/Finance Director
Plockmeyer, BPW Senior Advisor Boatright, BPW Administrative Assistant Poll,
BPW Lead Line Worker Brower, and City of Zeeland Clerk DeVerney

BPW General Manager Mulder introduced Natalie Poll, new BPW Administrative Assistant and Andy
Boatright, new Senior Utility Advisor.
Electrical Transmission & Distribution Manager Coots introduced Chad Brower as the new Lead Line
Worker.
Motion was made by Commissioner Query and seconded by Commissioner Walters to approve the
minutes of October 13, 2026, Regular Meeting. Motion carried. All voting aye.
Public Comment
None.
Safety Minute
Cell Phones at work: Safety Tips to Avoid Dangerous Distractions
26.066

Approve Cash Disbursements and Recommended Cash Transfers

Motion was made by Commissioner VanAst and seconded by Commissioner Walters to approve the
September 2026 cash disbursements and the regular monthly transfers for the month of September
2026 as follows:
Cash and Investments as of:

September 30, 2026
Electric

Receiving
Accumulated Debt Service (In Receiving Fund)
Plant Improvements and Contingencies
Bond and Interest Payment Reserve*
Totals

$

5,244,353
13,160,831
______________$
18,405,184

*Reserve required per electric and water revenue bond ordinances.

Water
$

980,801
11,611,595
___________ $ 12,592,396

Recommended Transfers for the Month:

Receiving
Accumulated Debt Service
Plant Improvements and Contingency
General Fund (per charter provision)

September-26
Electric

Water

(1,051,065)
993,100
57,965

(476,900)
476,900
-

Notes on Recommended Transfers:
1. The annual operating transfer for FY 2026-2027 from the Electric Fund to the General Fund is a
combination of 1% of fixed net assets as of June 30, 2025, and 1% of gross sales, less sales
tax, for the year ended June 30, 2025, less any franchise payments. The annual operating
transfer is divided into twelve monthly payments.
2. Assumed carrying amounts (minimum) in Receiving accounts are established at approximately
10% of budgeted operating expenses, before depreciation.
Electric = 10% of $ 41,933,289 or approximately $ 4,193,329
Water = 10% of $ 5,039,159 or approximately $ 503,916
3. Further surpluses of $993,100 in the Electric Fund and $476,900 in the Water Fund are recommended
for transfer to the Plant Improvements and Contingencies Reserve.
Motion carried. All voting aye.
Accounting, Finance & Customer Service Report
ICM/Finance Director Plockmeyer updated the Board on current operations status, activities and projects
which included:
September 2026 Customer Metrics
• Overdue/Disconnect Notices = 248
• Disconnected = 13
• Active Accounts = 8,121
• Total Bills Sent = 8,092
• Paperless Bills = 2,587
• Pre-Authorized Payment Customers = 2,278
• Invoice Cloud = 3,234
▪ Credit Card = 2,463
▪ EFT = 771
August 2026 Customer Metrics
• Overdue/Disconnect Notices = 174
• Active Accounts = 8,102
• Total Bills Sent = 8,095
• Paperless Bills = 2,565
• Pre-Authorized Payment Customers = 2,292
• Invoice Cloud = 3,201
▪ Credit Card = 2,455
▪ EFT = 746

Holiday Power Dollars
November 2026 marks the beginning of the Holiday Power Dollars season. Customers will be able to claim
their Power Dollars beginning November 30, 2026, with the claim period running through December 11, 2026.
Certificates may be redeemed at participating merchants from November 30, 2026, through January 31, 2027.
Merchant registration closes on November 6, 2026, and we anticipate participation levels to remain consistent
with previous years. Thank you to the Board for its continued support of this popular program, which provides
a meaningful boost to our local businesses during the holiday season.
CY2027 Health Insurance & Wellness Plan Update
ICM/Finance Director Plockmeyer gave a brief overview of the 2027 Health Insurance Program and Wellness
Plan.
Water Department Report
Water Operations Manager Postma updated the Board on activities, current operations status, and
projects which included:
- Meter Replacement Program
- Galvanized Service Line Replacement Program
- Other Work Projects
- Water Administration Projects
- Buildings & Grounds
26.067

Approve BPW Admin Building HVAC Unit Replacements

Water Operations Manager Postma noted that the FY2027 Building & Grounds Capital Improvement Plan
includes $30,000 for replacement of three aging HVAC systems at the Zeeland BPW Administrative Office &
Customer Service Center. One system was replaced in July 2026 following a failure. Staff received four
quotes to replace the remaining two systems.
Bidder Name

Bidder
Location

Quote

Meets
Spec.

Mast Heating &
Cooling

Zeeland, MI

$18,300.00

Yes

Recommended; lowest
quote.

Peerbolt’s

Zeeland, MI

$21,125.00

Yes

Not recommended

Redmon Heating &
Cooling

Grandville, MI

$24,035.00

Yes

Not recommended

Quality Air

Grand Rapids,
MI

$34,151.00

Yes

Not recommended

Comments

Mast Heating & Cooling will install two new Trane furnace and air-conditioning systems. The $18,300.00 price
includes the removal and disposal of the existing equipment, crane service, mechanical permits, installation,
startup, tax, and a first-year warranty.
Motion was made by Commissioner Query and seconded by Commissioner Walters to approve a contract
with Mast Heating & Cooling in the amount of $18,300.00, including tax, to replace the two remaining HVAC
systems at the Zeeland BPW Administrative Office & Customer Service Center. Motion carried. All voting
aye.

Transmission & Distribution Department Projects Update
Electrical Transmission & Distribution Manager Coots updated the Board on current activities which
included:
• Near Term Projects
• BTMG Project
• Outage Statistics
26.068

Approve Substation Reclosure Purchase

Electrical Transmission & Distribution Manager Coots stated staff recommended two (2) G&W Electric Viper-S
Solid Dielectric Reclosers. The first unit will replace the PE-6 recloser transferred from Perry Substation to
Fairview Substation, replacing the reclosure damaged by the storm. The second unit will serve as a system
spare for unexpected equipment failures or damage at other distribution substations.
Distributor

Manufacturer

Lead Time

Quoted Total

U&I Utility

G&W Electric

60 Weeks

$ 50,430

Items listed were not called out specifically in the FY 2027 budget, but the BPW will receive additional funding
from the MPIA insurance pool in response to a claim resulting in storm damage that occurred in early
September 2026.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cooney and seconded by Commissioner Query to approve the purchase
of two (2) Viper-S Solid Dielectric Reclosers from G&W Electric for a total of $50,430 plus applicable material
cost adjustments in accordance with the supplier’s escalation clause. Motion carried. All voting aye.
26.069

Approve Electric AMI Meter Purchase

Electrical Transmission & Distribution Manager Coots stated that the Zeeland Board of Public Works electric
system continues to experience growth throughout its service territory, including the City of Zeeland and the
neighboring Holland and Zeeland Townships. Ongoing residential and commercial development, along with
other system improvements, continues to drive demand for additional electric meters to meet growing service
needs.
The Zeeland BPW continues to utilize the Eaton Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) mesh network for
its electric metering system. To maintain compatibility with the existing network, all meters must be
equipped with the appropriate Eaton AMI modules.
The recommended purchase will replenish the Electric Department's meter inventory and ensure the
necessary materials are available to accommodate new service requests, support timely installations, and
meet ongoing operational needs.
Bidder
Name
Eaton

Quote

Comments

(116) 2S CL200 Itron Meters: $20,172

Recommendation

Motion was made by Commissioner Cooney and seconded by Commissioner Query to award the purchase of
one hundred and sixteen (116) Itron 2S CL200 electric meters to Eaton for the price of $20,172 plus freight
charges of $806.88, for a total purchase price of $20,978.88. Motion carried. All voting aye.

Informational: Electric Customer Undergrounding Process & Potential Improvements
Electrical Transmission & Distribution Manager Coots updated the Board on the Current Undergrounding
Process:
•
Underground Electric Customer Process
•
Service Review & Customer Identification
•
Initial Notice & Approximate Timing
•
Notice After Project Completion
•
Follow-Up & Removal of Unused Equipment
•
Current Pain Points
•
Other utility Practices
•
Process Improvement & Future State
Power Production Department Report
BPW General Manager Mulder updated the Board on activities, current operations status, and projects which
included:
• Operations & Power Supply: September 2026
• Renewable Energy Credits (RECS): September 2026
• Projects & Department Updates
o Unit #11 Heat Trace Installation
o New Generation & MPPA BTMG / Resources Adequacy Project Update
o MPPA CEO & General Manager Search Process Update
Informational: New Generation Capacity Implementation Plan Update
BPW General Manager Mulder gave updates on the following:
MPPA Resource Adequacy Project Update
• Equipment Providers – Developing Site-Specific Pricing
• Electrical Interconnection Evaluation
• Environmental Assessment (Air Permit / Modeling)
• Preliminary Site Plan Development
• Fuel Supply
• Financing & Ownership Model
BPW Staff Action Update
• Property Rezoning
• Potential Alternative Site Evaluation & Procurement
• Re-engagement of nFront Consulting, LLC
• Rate Impact Evaluation
• Legal Services Engagement
Next Steps
MPPA and participating members anticipate the following schedule:
•

•

November 2026: MPPA targets completion of final technical and site due diligence and receipt of
updated vendor pricing to support the December 2026 economic evaluation and
recommendation.
December 2026: Provide updated investment models and final project recommendations to
participating members. Identify any gaps in meeting projected needs and develop strategies to address
them.

•

•
•
•
•
•

December 2026 – January 2027: Substantially complete due diligence and applicable operating and
power sales agreements, allowing project plans and supporting documentation to be finalized during
the first quarter of 2027 for the BPW’s PA 341 capacity demonstration filing with the MPSC.
February 2027: MPPA Board approval for the creation of an asset project, approving project structure,
participating members, financing, and project agreements.
February – March 2027: Member authorization to enter the Asset project and definitive agreements.
February – April 2027: Final contract negotiation and execution between MPPA and its members.
March 2027: MPPA submits PA341 capacity demonstration documentation for all MPPA members.
Ongoing BPW Activities: Continue pursuing additional properties that support near and long-term
strategic siting priorities. Work with nFront Consulting and UFS to evaluate the proposed project costs,
alignment with portfolio and IRP projections, and the anticipated impact on rates.

No formal action is requested on this informational update. Staff recommend continuing project due diligence
and coordination with MPPA and participating members. MPPA intends to provide a recommendation for
participation in potential project members in December 2026, which staff will present to the Board.
Informational: MPPA J1389 Transmission Facilities Project Participation
BPW General Manager Mulder stated the Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA), Wolverine Power
Cooperative, and METC jointly own a 345 kV transmission line that will interconnect a new 120 MW solar
generating facility.
As a joint owner of this transmission line, MPPA is eligible to jointly own these upgrades. Participation would
provide a return of and on invested capital, serving as a hedge against transmission expenses, while
expanding MPPA’s ownership footprint and opportunities for future transmission investment.
Participating would entitle MPPA to an Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement (ATRR), representing a
return of and on capital, calculated using the FERC-approved Attachment O and Attachment GG templates.
The ATRR and resulting return on investment (ROI) will vary annually based on MPPA’s enterprise factors.
Using its 2025 financial data, MPPA estimates the project would have provided a 9.8% return on investment
(ROI) that year. MPPA anticipates ROI could decline to 6% to 7% in lower-return years but does not currently
expect it to fall below that range.
Zeeland’s allocation is 14.44% of MPPA’s share, with an estimated capital contribution of $723,241.84. If
approved, MPPA will collect contributions monthly from January through May 2027.
No formal action is requested currently. The MPPA Board of Commissioners will consider creating the J1389
Transmission Facilities Project on November 11, 2026. If approved, participation agreements will be
distributed for approval by members’ governing bodies and return by December 31, 2026.
At the December 8, 2026, BPW Board meeting, staff intend to recommend participation in the project with
funding provided through Zeeland’s MPPA Municipal Trust balance. The recommendation will identify
Zeeland’s final proposed allocation and capital contribution, including any additional shares available if other
MPPA members decline participation.
Other BPW Business
26.070

Approve Board of Commissioners 2027 Board Meeting Schedule

BPW General Manager Mulder stated the Board of Commissioners meeting schedule for the 2027 calendar
year has two meetings in February 2027 for the regular meeting and for a special meeting dedicated to
reviewing and discussing the FY 2028 budget.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cooney and seconded by Commissioner Query to approve the Board of
Commissioners 2027 Board Meeting Schedule as presented. Motion carried. All voting aye.

26.071

Approve Gentex Development Agreement No. 2

BPW General Manager Mulder gave an overview of the agreement between Gentex Corporation and Zeeland
BPW.
Motion was made by Commissioner Walters and seconded by Commissioner Cooney to approve the updated
agreement addendum that includes electric and infrastructure project improvements to Gentex’ North Riley
Campus. Under the addendum, Gentex’s contribution will be $2,225,017 and Zeeland BPW/s contribution will
be $2,719,466. Motion carried. All voting aye.
Informational – 2026 Michigan Energy Assistance Program (MEAP) Compliance Filing Report
BPW General Manager Mulder stated as a municipal electric utility that opts out of collecting the state’s
energy assistance surcharge, Zeeland BPW must maintain a locally funded program for eligible residential
customers’ electric and home heating needs, notify customers annually, and submit an annual compliance
report to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) beginning December 1, 2026. Through the
program administered by the Ottawa County Community Action Agency, six households applied were
qualified to receive assistance totaling $2,356.20. An additional $1,320.00 in administrative costs was
charged to the program fund. The total BPW program expense was $3,676.20, which was substantially below
the statutory funding level.
Informational – Recruitment Update: Key BPW Positions
BPW General Manager Mulder gave an update on the following:
• Electric Power Supply & Market Operations Manager position
o Offer has been made and tentatively accepted and should start on December 7, 2026.
• Part-Time Senior Utility Advisor position
o Former ZBPW General Manager, Andrew Boatright, has filled the position.
• Line Supervisor position
o Recruitment efforts anticipated soon with an internal posting.
Informational – The Bridge Youth Center Donation Request
BPW General Manager Mulder stated as a previous supporter, the Zeeland BPW was invited to donate
towards a renovation and construction project for the Center. Chairperson Boerman suggested they apply for
the 2027 Community Grant Award.
Informational – 2026 Public Power Week Open House & Events
BPW General Manager Mulder stated Public Power Week took place from October 4, 2026, to October 10,
2026, and celebrated the benefits of Zeeland being a public power community. The Open House occurred on
October 8, 2026, and featured a ribbon cutting for Zeeland BPW’s renovated Administrative Office &
Customer Service Center. A student coloring contest was also held to engage students within the community.
Winners were chosen from first through fourth grade students who received a Captain Sundae gift certificate,
a Zeeland Bakery gift certificate, and a Zeeland BPW swag bag. A grand prize winner was also chosen and
received an Amazon gift card courtesy of MMEA, a Captain Sundae gift certificate, a Zeeland Bakery gift
certificate, and a Zeeland BPW swag bag.
Thank Yous
BPW General Manager Mulder stated BPW received a note of appreciation from the following:
• Music on Main Event Sponsorship

Upcoming Events
• Next Regular Zeeland BPW Board Meeting, Tuesday, December 8, 2026, 3:30 p.m., BPW
Boardroom
• Holiday Power Dollars Distribution, Monday, November 30, 2026, to Friday, December 11, 2026
• Zeeland Magical Christmas Parade, Monday, November 30, 2026, 6:15 p.m. to 8 p.m. Downtown
Zeeland
• All Staff Holiday Luncheon, Wednesday, December 16, 2026, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., BPW Admin
Office (Commissioners welcome!)
Closed Session
Motion was made by Commissioner VanAst and seconded by Commissioner Walters to enter Closed
Session at 5:09 p.m. pursuant to MLC 15.268 and MCLA 460.833a(1)(a) and (b) to consider prices and
specifications of product for the MPPA’s Behind-the-Meter Generation initiative and to consider the
purchase of real property.
Ayes:
Boerman, Cooney, Query, VanAst, Walters
Nayes:
None
Absent:
None
Board of Public Works Commission reconvened from Closed Session at 6:15 p.m. with a motion made by
Commissioner VanAst and seconded by Commissioner Walters.
Ayes:
Boerman, Cooney, Query, VanAst, Walters
Nayes:
None
Absent:
None
26.072

Approve MPPA Behind-The-Meter Generation Project Participation & Ownership Model

BPW General Manager Mulder stated since early this year, MPPA and BPW staff have been diligently
working together to perform technical, environmental, commercial, financial, legal, operational, fuel-supply,
interconnection, permitting, and other due diligence on Zeeland’s potential sites.
From MPPA’s perspective, the preferred ownership model for this project is an MPPA-owned project, in
which all member participants receive their pro-rata share of capacity, energy, and all other attributes, and
contribute their proportionate shares of capital and operations and maintenance costs across all constructed
facilities. In short, this project would be administered the same as any other agency project, although the
proposed facilities would be constructed in member communities and connected to their electric distribution
systems. MPPA identifies reduced costs through economies of scale and reduced risk as the principal
benefits of this ownership model. Benefits included:
• MPPA’s collective credit strength can provide access to favorable financing terms.
• Aggregating projects across members secures more competitive pricing for equipment and longterm service agreements.
• Centralized project management streamlines development and construction.
• Participation across multiple projects reduces member exposure to outages or issues at any
single facility.
• Gas and distribution system upgrade costs can be shared among participants, lowering costs
for individual members.
• Multiple off takers enable development of larger local projects.
While MPPA’s preference is for an MPPA-owned project, the agency is willing to consider a jointownership (tenants-in-common) model in which a member could hold an ownership interest of less than
50% in the facility constructed in its community. The member would be responsible for financing its share

of the project and paying its proportionate share of operations and maintenance costs. In either of these
ownership models, all rights and responsibilities will be governed by a series of contracts executed
between MPPA and the member, including but not limited to power sales, operations, and facilities
interconnection and lease agreements. Although this model would give a host member a direct ownership
interest in its local facility, it would concentrate the member’s capacity entitlement among fewer generating
units, increasing exposure to outages at that facility. The members’ rights and responsibilities would
remain governed by the project agreements.
Alternatively, MPPA is willing to support members in a third ownership model, member self-build, should
a member decide to proceed independently. Under this model, MPPA would endeavor to assist with
equipment procurement and in other areas where economies of scale can be realized and serve as the
MISO market interface as it currently does. The member would assume the following responsibilities and
risks:
• Financing the resource and carrying all associated debt.
• Operating and maintaining the resource or contracting directly with a vendor for long-term
operations and maintenance services.
• Bearing greater outage risk due to reliance on a single facility.
• Limiting project size to manage concentration risk.
MPPA has selected natural gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) as proposed
technology and is completing its final economic evaluation of two vendors. Both vendors offer smaller units
that support lower installed capital costs, shorter development timelines, and flexible dispatch.
MPPA has requested that Zeeland indicate the ownership model it desires to pursue for this endeavor in
November so that the project economics and member-specific costs can be calculated and provided to
members in December 2026. Staff recommend providing MPPA with an indicative, non-binding expression of
Zeeland’s intent to participate in the recommended offtake and support hosting a proposed 50 MW generation
facility in Zeeland. Staff recommend the MPPA-owned model rather than acquiring a separate ownership
interest in the Zeeland facility.
Staff recommend proceeding on this indicative, non-binding basis, subject to reconsideration if:
• Final vendor pricing and economic evaluations show a compelling advantage to another
ownership model.
• Zeeland and MPPA cannot reach acceptable terms on the agreements governing the project,
including operations, facility leasing, interconnection, and power sales.
• The proposed vendor technology or other material aspects of the Zeeland facility are unacceptable
to Zeeland.
• The project cannot provide sufficient accredited capacity within the required timeframe to
meet Zeeland’s resource adequacy needs.
• Other material concerns arise that warrant reconsidering Zeeland’s participation.
Importantly, this recommendation does not authorize final participation in a generation project, project
financing, construction, ownership, or execution of definitive power sales, operating, or other long-term project
agreements. Any binding commitment would be presented separately for governance consideration following
completion of due diligence and approval of the proposed project by the MPPA Board of Commissioners. This
recommendation would communicate Zeeland’s preliminary intent to participate and allow MPPA to continue
project development, including finalizing economic evaluations, refining member-specific costs, completing
due diligence, and developing the necessary project agreements.
Motion to recommend that Zeeland provide MPPA with an indicative, non-binding expression of intent to
participate in the MPPA-owned Behind-the-Meter Generation project at the recommended 28.1% offtake, or
greater, and to support hosting a proposed 50 MW facility in Zeeland, subject to the considerations outlined in
this memo. This recommendation does not authorize financing, construction, or execution of binding project
agreements.

Motion was made by Commissioner Walters and seconded by Commissioner VanAst that the regular
meeting be adjourned at 6:19 pm. Motion carried. All voting aye.
________________________________
Kristi DeVerney, City Clerk

21 South Elm Street • Zeeland, Michigan 49464 • (616) 772-6400 • FAX (616) 772-5352

CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM

TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and City Councilmembers

FROM:

Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Interim City Manager’s Report

DATE:

November 13, 2026

Church Street Reconstruction – Work on the Church Street reconstruction project continues to
progress, with crews focused on completing the remaining items throughout the project area.
At this point, we are hopeful that the remaining work can be completed next week. Staff will
continue working with the contractor and engineer to address the final items and bring the
project to completion.
Snowmelt System Update – Over the past several weeks, the engineering team has been
working through a number of design issues associated with the new snowmelt boiler plant. In
particular, there was concern that the venting for the boiler system would not function as
originally planned. The team has now worked through those issues and identified an approach
that they believe will allow the new boiler system to operate properly.
Unfortunately, the additional design work has affected the project schedule. At this point, we do
not anticipate operating the new Church Street snowmelt section this winter. The plan is to
connect and test the new section, flush the system, confirm there are no leaks or pressure
issues, and properly circulate the glycol. The Church Street section would then remain isolated
for the balance of this winter, with full operation anticipated next season. While we are
disappointed with this news, we are making other arrangements to ensure the sidewalks along
Church are snow free this winter.
Main & State Traffic Signal Update – Staff is aware of the recent timing issues with the traffic
signal at Main Avenue and State Street. As the signal is currently operating, we recognize that
the timing on Main Avenue does not allow much traffic to move through the intersection before
the signal changes.

FEEL THE ZEEL

Staff is continuing to diagnose the root cause of the issue and is working with the appropriate
contractor to identify and implement a repair. At this point, the primary interim alternative
would be to convert the intersection to a four-way stop. We do not believe that would be an
appropriate solution for this intersection, so staff will continue working toward restoring the
signal to normal operation as quickly as possible.
Personal Property Tax Reimbursement Update – The City recently received its annual Personal
Property Tax reimbursement, which is the budgeted payment we typically receive each fall. As
the reimbursement formula continues to transition from a straight reimbursement model, a
growing portion of the payment is now based on the City’s share of business reinvestment in
personal property compared to statewide investment. Approximately 35% of the
reimbursement is now calculated using this methodology, which has made the payment more
difficult to predict with the same level of accuracy as in prior years. For the current year, our
budget estimate was approximately $30,000 less than the actual reimbursement received. Given
the changing formula, we feel very good about how closely the estimate aligned with the final
payment.
Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting – Staff is continuing to work through
scheduling for a joint meeting of City Council and the Planning Commission. We expect to have
the date finalized shortly and will likely share the meeting date at the beginning of next week.
November 3 Election Certification – The Ottawa County Board of Canvassers has certified the
results of the November 3 General Election, with all City of Zeeland precincts reviewed and
completed. Certification of the Zeeland Public Schools results is expected Monday, pending
receipt of certification from Allegan County. I also want to recognize Kristi and the election
team for their work throughout the election process. There is a significant amount of
preparation and follow-up that goes into administering an election, and their work is very much
appreciated.
Have a great weekend. If something comes up that needs attention, please do not hesitate to
contact me at [email protected] or 616-368-7370.

________________________
Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

FEEL THE ZEEL
2

21 South Elm Street • Zeeland, Michigan 49464 • (616) 772-0872 • (616) 772-0880

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

Friday, November 13, 2026

TO:

Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

FROM:

Tim Maday, Community Development Director

RE:

November 16th City Council meeting agenda – Potential Main Ave and Fairview Rd
Roundabout – Property Appraisal Proposal

Background: The City’s adopted 2026 Strategic Action Plan includes the following goal concerning a potential
roundabout at E. Main Avenue and Fairview Road:

A preliminary roundabout concept plan has been developed, and the City’s consulting engineers have identified the
property acquisition needs at each leg of the intersection. Appraising these areas is the next step toward engaging
property owners in acquisition discussions and developing a total project cost for Council’s consideration.
Staff solicited the attached proposal from A. Van Stensel & Son, LLC to prepare appraisals for the affected portions
of four properties: 725, 730, 815, and 860 E. Main Avenue. The proposed fee is $14,000, or $3,500 per appraisal
report. The reports will address compensation for the proposed acquisitions and follow the MDOT reporting format
used for state and federal right-of-way acquisitions. Staff considers the proposed fee reasonable, and the appraiser
has significant experience with right-of-way acquisition projects of this nature.
Next Steps: The proposal will come before City Council for action on Monday, November 16. If Council approves
the proposal, staff would execute an engagement letter with A. Van Stensel & Son, LLC confirming the scope,
reporting requirements, and completion schedule so the appraisal work can begin.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposal from A. Van Stensel & Son, LLC in the amount of $14,000 to
appraise the property interests needed for a potential roundabout at E. Main Avenue and Fairview Road, and authorize
staff to execute the related engagement letter.

A. Van Stensel & Son, LLC
700 3 Mile Rd. NW Suite 2
Grand Rapids, MI 49544

Date of Proposal: Thursday, November 5, 2026
City of Zeeland
Timothy Maday
21 South Elm Street
Zeeland, MI 49464
616-772-0872
[email protected]

David J. Van Stensel, MAI
Principal
616-745-7212
[email protected]

Roundabout Proposal

Dear Mr. Maday:
Thank you for the opportunity to propose appraisal services for the City of Zeeland’s Main/Fairview right-of-way project. The
intended use of the Appraisal Reports is to determine just compensation for the partial taking for the construction of the
Main/Fairview Roundabout.

Project Understanding

Your October 26, 2026, correspondence identifies a Main/Fairview right-of-way appraisal request which includes takings from 860,
815, 725, and 730 E Main Ave, Zeeland, MI 49464. The Main/Fairview Roundabout Exhibits identify Moore + Bruggink as the
preparing engineer and include drawings and legal descriptions from four adjacent parcels impacted by a prospective roundabout.

Proposed Scope and Deliverables
•
•
•

Review the final right-of-way plans, parcel information, legal descriptions, and any proposed permanent or temporary easements.

•

Provide a separate written appraisal report for each of the four parcels, explaining the information relied upon, valuation methods,

•
•
•

Inspect the affected properties and research relevant market evidence for the valuation date, the date of inspection.
Consider before-and-after valuation where appropriate to the agreed assignment. No damages are assumed beyond the prospective
takes.
assumptions, and conclusions.
Discuss the completed reports with the city and address reasonable clarification requests within the agreed scope.
The final report will follow the MDOT report format used in takings for State and Federal right-of-way acquisitions.
The final opinions of value will be used for just compensation for each property owner.

Information, Fees, and Schedule

Before work begins, we propose confirming intended users, any additional reporting requirements. Please provide the City’s
requested completion date and property-access contacts.
Fee and delivery: To be agreed in writing after the parcel scope and reporting requirements are confirmed. A $14,000 fee
($3500/report) is committed by this preliminary proposal. Material plan changes, additional parcels, appraisal review, negotiation
support, or testimony would require separate written agreements.

A. VAN STENSEL & SON, LLC

1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

Next Step

Please confirm the assignment requirements and provide the final project materials. We would then submit an engagement letter
for the City’s authorization before commencing work.

Respectfully,
A. VAN STENSEL & SON, LLC

David J. Van Stensel, MAI
Principal

2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

21 South Elm Street • Zeeland, Michigan 49464 • (616) 772-0872 • (616) 772-0880

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

Friday, November 13, 2026

TO:

Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

FROM:

Tim Maday, Community Development Director

RE:

November 16th City Council meeting agenda – Updated electrical inspection services agreement

Background: The City has worked with Gord Bosch of Electrical Inspection Service LLC for many years
to provide electrical inspections as an independent contractor. That arrangement was formalized through a
written agreement in 2018, under which he currently operates.
The attached updated agreement would increase compensation from $60 to $75 per inspection and from
$60 to $75 per hour for additional services, such as plan review and consultation. The proposed rates reflect
current market rates for trade inspections and match those paid by the City for plumbing and mechanical
inspections, which are also provided by an independent contractor.
The City collects fees for inspections requested as part of an electrical permit, with inspection costs largely
passed through to permit applicants as user fees. The electrical permit fee schedule is reviewed annually
and amended as necessary through the regular budgeting process.
City staff and contractors are satisfied with the services provided by Electrical Inspection Service LLC, and
staff recommends continuing the City’s relationship with Gord Bosch.
Next Steps: The updated agreement will come before City Council for consideration and action on Monday,
November 16. If approved, the new rates would take effect December 1, 2026.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the updated agreement with Electrical Inspection Service LLC, effective
December 1, 2026.

______________________
Timothy Maday, Community Development Director

ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR CONTRACT
(INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)

This Agreement is made as of the 16th day of November, 2026, between Electrical Inspection
Service LLC, whose address is 996 College Avenue, Holland, Michigan 49423 (“EIS”) and the City of
Zeeland, a Michigan municipal corporation of Ottawa County, whose address is 21 South Elm Street,
Zeeland, Michigan 49464 (“Zeeland”).
RECITALS
Zeeland is a governmental subdivision that has elected to administer and enforce the StilleDeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act (the “Act”- MCL 125.1501, et seq.) and the State
Construction Codes, including the Michigan Electrical Code, as adopted by the State of Michigan (the
“Code”).
Code.

EIS is properly licensed and certified to perform electrical inspections for the enforcement of the

Zeeland desires to retain EIS to perform electrical inspection services for Zeeland, and EIS is
willing and able to perform electrical inspections for Zeeland, upon the terms and conditions of this
Agreement
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual promises, terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement,
the parties agree as follows.
1.
Retention of Inspector. Subject to all of the terms of this Agreement, Zeeland retains EIS,
as an independent contractor, to provide electrical inspection services within the city limits of Zeeland and
appoints EIS as the enforcing agency and officer for the Code. EIS agrees, as an independent contractor,
to accept such retention and appointment.
2.

Duties of Inspector. EIS shall have and agrees to perform all of the following duties:
A.

All electrical inspection duties as the electrical inspector and enforcing agency
under the Code for Zeeland.

B.

Maintain a full working knowledge of the Code.

C.

Complete and provide to Zeeland a permanent record of the duties performed
pursuant to this Agreement.

D.

Be available to perform emergency electrical inspections as may be requested from
time to time by Zeeland, where Zeeland deems that an immediate electrical
inspection is needed.

E.

Issue notices of violation as may be required under the Code.

F.

Consult with and assist Zeeland, its administrative staff and its attorneys with
respect to problems with particular construction projects, prosecutions for
1

violations of the Code, questions of interpretation or application of the Code and
other matters relating to the performance of inspections and the enforcement of the
Code.
G.

Perform all duties in a timely and competent manner which is satisfactory to
Zeeland.

H.

At all times during the term of this Agreement, the person(s) assigned to perform
the work hereunder shall be registered as an electrical inspector with the Michigan
Bureau of Construction Codes.

I.

Perform all duties under this Agreement personally and individually.

3.
Equipment and Supplies. EIS shall provide and maintain, solely at its own cost and
expense, such equipment and supplies as are necessary to perform the duties required by this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, EIS shall have reasonable access to and use of Zeeland’s copy machine, at
no expense to EIS. EIS shall provide a motor vehicle for the performance of its duties pursuant to this
Agreement. EIS shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the operation of the motor vehicle,
including but not limited to, gasoline, maintenance, repairs, insurance (as required by Section 12 of this
Agreement), and all other incidental costs.
4.
Performance of Inspections for Other Persons and Entities. It is acknowledged that EIS
may perform electrical inspection services for other governmental units. It is agreed that this Agreement
shall not prevent EIS from continuing to perform such during the term of this Agreement, except to the
extent that:
A.

EIS shall not perform any electrical inspection or consultation service for any other
person or entity concerning any electrical system located, or to be located, within
the city limits of Zeeland, unless the prior written permission for a specific
property or job is requested of and given by the Community Development Director.
Such electrical inspection or consultation services include without limitation
matters involving the design, selection, application, installation, construction,
testing and/or maintenance of an electrical system which is regulated by the Code.

B.

Such work for other persons or entities conflicts with or affects the ability of EIS
to perform its duties as provided under this Agreement and in a timely and
competent manner.

5.
Nonassignability. Zeeland is relying on EIS’ employee’s qualifications and certification,
and therefore, this Agreement and the services to be provided under its terms are not and shall not be
assigned by EIS to any person who is not an employee of EIS except as may be approved by Zeeland.
6.
Force Majeure. EIS shall not be liable for any nonperformance, loss, damage, or delay due
to war, riots, fire, flood, strikes or other labor difficulty, governmental actions, acts of God, delays in
transportation, inability to obtain necessary labor or materials from usual sources, or other causes beyond
the reasonable control of EIS. In the event of a delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of
performance of any duties hereunder shall be extended to reflect the length of time lost by reason of such
delay.
2

7.
Independent Contractor. In performance of all work and duties pursuant to the Agreement,
it is mutually understood and agreed that EIS is and shall be at all times acting and performing as an
independent contractor. Except for compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, Zeeland shall neither
have nor exercise any control or direction over the methods and means by which EIS performs its duties
and work. As noted in Section 3 of this Agreement, except as otherwise set forth herein, EIS shall provide
and maintain, at its sole expense, all equipment and supplies necessary to perform the duties required under
this Agreement and to pay all ancillary expenses related to such performance. Also, as noted in Section 3
of this Agreement, EIS shall provide for its own transportation for the performance of duties under this
Agreement and shall be responsible for all expenses related to the operation of the motor vehicle(s),
including without limitation, fuel, repair, maintenance, insurance (as required in Section 12 of this
Agreement below) and other incidental expenses.
8.
Compensation. As compensation for the services to be performed under this Agreement,
Zeeland shall pay EIS the following amounts.
A.

Zeeland shall pay EIS Seventy-Five Dollars ($75.00) per electrical inspection
performed by EIS within Zeeland. With respect to apartment and motel/hotel
buildings, four apartment units or four motel/hotel rooms will be treated as one
inspection when done during the same inspection visit. Example: For a final
inspection of all the units of a 12-unit apartment building done during the same
visit, Zeeland shall pay for three inspections, or $75.00 x 3 = $225.00.

B.

Zeeland shall pay EIS Seventy-Five Dollars ($75.00) per hour for additional
duties requested by Zeeland and performed by EIS, such as plan review,
consultation, and complaint and problem resolution.

Except as provided above, EIS is not entitled to any other compensation for services provided under
this Agreement. Further, no employees of EIS are entitled to any fringe benefits from Zeeland, including
without limitation, health insurance, retirement benefits, pension contributions, unemployment
compensation, and worker’s compensation coverage or matching Social Security contributions.
9.
Payment of Compensation. On a monthly basis, EIS shall submit to Zeeland an accounting
of all inspections and other services performed, the records of such inspections and the services performed,
the permits issued and a detailed invoice for the compensation requested, including details supporting the
amount of the compensation being requested. EIS understands and agrees that payment of the invoices will
be subject to the review of and approval by the Building Official. EIS shall provide an invoice for a calendar
month in adequate time to be presented to Zeeland for review, approval and payment.
10.
Term. This Agreement shall commence as of December 1, 2026, and it shall continue
through November 7, 2027. This Agreement shall automatically be renewed for consecutive additional one
(1) year terms unless terminated earlier, as provided in Section 11 of this Agreement.
11.
Termination. This Agreement may be terminated, during its initial term or any renewal
term, by Zeeland or EIS, without cause or reason, at any time, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the
other party. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by Zeeland or EIS immediately upon written
notice to the other party in the event such other party fails or refuses to adequately perform any of its
responsibilities under this Agreement. In addition, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by the
parties on mutual agreement.
3

Upon termination of this Agreement, the parties shall have no further obligation to each other,
except for the following:
A.

Obligations that accrued prior to the effective date of the termination (for example,
the obligation of Zeeland to pay for services rendered prior to termination).

B.

Obligations of the parties to indemnify and hold the other harmless under Section
12 and the obligation of the parties to cooperate with each other under Sections 12
and 13, in the event any claim is filed against either party with respect to the duties
and services under this Agreement.

These obligations shall survive such termination until all such matters are finally resolved.
12.

Insurance and Indemnification.
A.

Insurance. Each party shall maintain such insurance as will protect that party from
any claims which may arise out of or as a result of that party’s performance under
the terms of this Agreement, whether such performance be by the party or by
anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts
any of them may be liable. Either party may comply with this paragraph through
a self-insured retention program consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Each
party shall comply with the insurance and worker’s compensation laws of the State
of Michigan while engaging in all activities authorized under the terms of this
Agreement. Upon reasonable request, each party shall furnish proof of any
insurance coverage required by this section to the other party.

B.

Indemnification. Each party shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party
harmless from any costs and liability, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, caused by any act or omission of the indemnifying party, its officers, agents
or employees performed while acting within the scope of their duties and while
performing under the terms of this Agreement. In the event a joint settlement or
judgment is entered against the parties, each party shall save, defend and hold
harmless the other to the extent the liability is allocated and determined to each
respective party. Nothing contained within this Agreement shall be intended or
construed to provide third party beneficiary rights to any persons or to create a
cause of action in favor of such persons. In signing this Agreement, Zeeland does
not waive its governmental immunity nor any defenses available to it or its officers
or employees under the Michigan Governmental Immunity Act, being Act 170 of
the Public Acts of 1964, as amended, MCL 691.1401 et seq., or any other defenses
which may be available to Zeeland under state or federal law.

13.
Governmental Function. The parties acknowledge and agree that the electrical inspection
duties performed under this Agreement are governmental functions in accordance with the Act and the
Code. As referenced above in Section 12, no party shall waive or otherwise act to jeopardize any immunity
available to the other party.

4

14.

Miscellaneous.
A.

Notice. All notices and other documents to be served or transmitted shall be in
writing and addressed to the respective parties at the addresses stated on Page 1 of
this Agreement or such other address or addresses as shall be specified by the
parties from time to time, and may be served or transmitted in person or by ordinary
or certified mail properly addressed with sufficient postage.

B.

Governing Law. This Agreement has been executed in the State of Michigan and
shall be governed by Michigan law.

C.

Breach of Agreement. The waiver by any party of a breach or violation of any
provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any subsequent breach or
violation of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

D.

Validity. If any section or provision of this Agreement is unenforceable for any
reason, the unenforceability shall not impair the remainder of this Agreement,
which shall remain in full force and effect.

E.

Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding and
agreement between parties, and all prior understandings and agreements are
specifically merged in this Agreement. The captions in this Agreement are for
convenience only and shall not be considered as part of this Agreement or in any
way amplifying or modifying its terms and provisions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
above written.
Electrical Inspection Service LLC

City of Zeeland

By: ____________________________
Gordon R. Bosch
Its Member

By: _________________________________

Richard J. Van Dorp III
Its Mayor

By: _________________________________
Kristen R. DeVerney
Its Clerk

5

Chief Brad Deppe
DC Mitch Harsevoort

City of Zeeland

29 W. Main Avenue
Zeeland, MI 49464

Office: (616) 931-3310

Antique Fire Truck
TO:

Mayor Van Dorp, Council Members and Interim Manager Plockmeyer

FROM:

Brad Deppe, Fire Chief

SUBJECT:

Purchase of an antique Zeeland Fire Department truck

DATE:

10/6/2026

Background: I will preface this to the Council, this proposal is a unique request, however, the
department members and several community members feel strongly enough to formally propose
purchasing one of our very own antique fire trucks. On December 29, 1949, the Zeeland Fire Department
voted to write a letter to City Council, recommending that they purchase a 1949 Howe fire truck. The
request was approved on January 2, 1950, and the truck was ordered, not to exceed $10,750. The truck
arrived on the night of March 27, 1950, after a department meeting was held. The truck responded to its
first call on April 5, 1950, at 7:30pm to the corner of Elm and Cherry for burning cooking fat on the stove
while frying French fried potatoes. The distance to its first call was about 50 feet. It appears that the
truck served the City of Zeeland until January of 1968 when a new truck was purchased to replace it. Our
best guess is that the truck likely went to auction and was picked up by the Clam Union Township Fire
Department in Missaukee County. The department used it primarily for dry hydrant and draft pumping
during fires. We aren’t certain of the exact date when the township sold the truck, but the current owner
has owned it since the early 2000’s.
Fast forward to today. An envelope arrived in our office containing pictures of the truck as it
was in Clam Union Township. One of our members, Marty VanderVelde took those pictures and began
digging. By the images, it appeared that it may be the truck that the Zeeland Fire Department operated in
the 1950’s and 60’s. Even more digging revealed that the truck is currently for sale and located in the Bay
City area. Marty contacted the owner to get more pictures, wanting to further examine the truck.
Community members and past department members all but confirmed that this was our truck. In the
middle of September, Marty arranged to meet the gentleman who stores the truck, to get a closer look.
After more pictures and investigative reasoning, we are nearly 100% certain that this is a Zeeland
original. There were a few objectives that Marty was given for his trip to the East Side. 1. Confirm that
this is our truck. 2. Evaluate the overall condition of the truck. 3. Begin estimating the costs associated
with making the truck safe and road ready. 4. Establish a price with owner based on condition and actual
value. 5. Determine the estimated annual cost for maintaining the truck. 6. What will it take to transport
the truck back to Zeeland and the associated fees for it.
You may be asking at this point why we would want an old fire truck, which is a valid question
and concern. The fire service in general is deeply rooted in history, and all firefighters are proud of fire
service history and certainly their department history. In my six months with the department, I found out
quickly that Zeeland and its fire department are rich with interesting history. In 2027, the Fire Rescue
Department will celebrate its 150th anniversary which is such a wonderful milestone for this community.
It would be our honor to have this truck back in our city to celebrate 150 years, giving us the
Smoke Alarms Save Lives
CHANGE YOUR CLOCK

CHANGE YOUR BATTERIES

Chief Brad Deppe
DC Mitch Harsevoort

City of Zeeland

29 W. Main Avenue
Zeeland, MI 49464

Office: (616) 931-3310

opportunity to reflect on where we came from and where we are hopeful of going. We anticipate that this
truck would be part of the many events held throughout the year downtown, such as the Memorial Day,
Labor Day, Pumpkinfest and Christmas parades. The annual car cruise and show held in July, National
Night Out and others. In my experience as the curator for a 1931 Ford Model AA fire truck for the City
of Wyoming, the public loves these trucks, especially if they are part of the original department. I would
field hundreds of questions from the year of the truck to why there was a tractor seat on the front. Many
people would take pictures and wave while I was driving down the street. It was a beloved truck and
belonged to the community. I strongly believe this 1949 Howe Pumper would have a very similar
welcome in this community.
Proposal:
Zeeland Fire Rescue is proposing that the City Council vote to purchase the 1949 Howe
Fire Truck from Donald Hillard of Burton, Michigan for the cost of $9,000.00 using Motor Pool funds. I
spoke with Interim Manager Plockmeyer and Mike Schreur about our options to purchase the truck.
Because this would be a city owned vehicle, both agreed there is money in the Motor Pool fund for a onetime purchase, with the understanding that this purchase is forever and is not replaced, and both support
this effort. Funding for the initial repairs to make it safe and roadworthy at an approximate cost of
$4,000.00 is also available in the Motor Pool fund. The estimated annual cost for general maintenance is
approximately $1,500.00.
Next Steps:
objectives.

Upon Council approval to purchase the truck, department members work towards these

1. Arrange transport from the Bay City area back to Zeeland. We have had offers to transport at no
cost to the city.
2. Further evaluate the repair needs, making it roadworthy. The initial needs known are these: The
brake cylinders are seeping and need to be rebuilt. At the same time, we will replace the brake
shoes and hardware. The engine has some very minor oil leaks, but a gasket kit is still produced
to fix this. The gas tank needs to be drained and a filter installed. The emergency lights don’t
work currently, and finally we would like the original style decals placed back on the truck.
3. Begin working on the truck and have it ready for events in 2027.
We are very excited about the possibility of this truck coming back to the city, and if you have any
questions or concerns about this proposal, please reach out to myself or Marty VanderVelde. We would
be happy to answer any questions.

Brad Deppe, Fire Chief
Smoke Alarms Save Lives
CHANGE YOUR CLOCK

CHANGE YOUR BATTERIES

21 South Elm Street • Zeeland, Michigan 49464 • (616) 772-6400 • FAX (616) 772-5352

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and Councilmembers

FROM:

Doug Engelsman, CWP Superintendent

SUBJECT:

PFAS Ordinance Update

DATE:

November 13, 2026

CC:

November 16, 2026, Work Study Agenda Only

At the September 1, 2026, work study session, CWP staff presented information regarding
a proposed PFAS ordinance to protect the wastewater transmission system, Clean Water
Plant, biosolids program, and Michigan’s receiving waters. While there was general
recognition of the need for these protections, three concerns emerged.
Following the work study, staff sought additional engineering review and advice from legal
counsel specializing in the review and drafting of local regulatory ordinances to ensure our
recommendation is sound and legally defensible.
After legal review, it is the legal opinion that the City has clear authority to adopt the
proposed PFAS local limits. They rest on federal and state pretreatment law and the City’s
Sewer Use Ordinance, on water quality based effluent limits supplied by EGLE, on a local
limits’ evaluation performed by the City’s consulting engineer under EPA’s methodology,
and on EGLE’s approval of that evaluation and of the corresponding program modification.
I will break down some of the comments and council’s concerns into brief statements
below.
City’s authority to adopt the proposed local limits - Federal regulations, Michigan
rules, and the City’s Sewer Use Ordinance allow Zeeland to adopt limits more protective
than those calculated in its study. The calculated values establish the maximum pollution
the City may accept—not the amount it must allow. EGLE reviewed and approved the
proposed limits, affirming the City’s right to choose more protective standards.
The basis of recommended concentration limits - The City applied the same
approach to all five PFAS compounds, selecting the lower, more protective value from the
engineering calculation or EGLE’s water-quality-based limit. For PFOS, this produces the
recommended 12 ng/L rather than the calculated 23.1 ng/L. The calculated local limit
study value represents a maximum (or ceiling) the city may allow, not an amount an
industry is entitled to discharge. EGLE’s April 22, 2026, approval letter recognizes the City’s
right to make this protective choice, which reflects its policy that industries should not rely
on dilution from domestic sewage to meet water-quality values. Legal opinion states the
City’s authority to adopt a 12 ng/L PFOS limit is well supported, and changing or
eliminating the safety factor would not change that limit or the proposed limits for PFBS,

PFNA, and PFHxS. Only PFOA would be affected: reducing the safety factor to 10% would
increase its proposed limit from 192 to 200 ng/L, approximately 4%. That reduction would
also cut the combined safety and growth reserve significantly, leaving less capacity to
protect the Plant’s permit compliance and accommodate future community growth.

Additional support for the recommended limit
•

PFOS accumulates in living organisms and is subject to strict limits on allowable
dilution in receiving waters. The city must therefore build its protective margin into
the local discharge limit.

•

Michigan’s antidegradation policy supports preserving capacity to protect water
quality, since capacity allocated today may be difficult to recover later. The rule
applies to the City’s discharge and provides policy support for protective industrial
limits.

•

EGLE anticipates stricter PFOS standards. Adopting a protective limit now reduces
the risk of requiring larger reductions later, after industries have planned their
operations around a higher limit.

Are we being too restrictive for existing and potential new industries - The
recommended limits balance industrial growth with protection of the treatment system and
water resources. The City already has several dozen established local limits serving this
same purpose. The calculated recommended values rely on limited seasonal sampling and
does not establish reliable year-round removal. Applying the same protective approach to
all five PFAS compounds provides clear expectations for existing and future industries while
preserving capacity for community growth. Some businesses may need pretreatment or
process changes to comply.
Based on legal counsel review, staff remains confident in the recommendation and plans to
bring the proposed ordinance to next Council meeting for the first of two required
readings.
Sincerely,

Doug Engelsman
Clean Water Plant Superintendent
Attachments

Legal Opinion, Mr. George Davis - Special Legal Council

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager; and Doug Engelsman,
Superintendent, Clean Water Plant

FROM:

George B. Davis, Special Legal Counsel

DATE:

November 9, 2026

RE:

Proposed PFAS Local Limits for the Clean Water Plant: Authority and
Technical Basis for the Proposed PFOS Limit of 12 ng/L

Summary
The City proposes a PFOS local limit of 12.0 ng/L for the Clean Water Plant. That figure is the
water quality based effluent limit (WQBEL) EGLE has currently established for PFOS. EGLE
approved the City’s proposed limit of 12.0 ng/L, and the City’s authority to adopt it is well
established.
The limit does not depend on the safety factor. Running the local limits evaluation’s own numbers
at any safety factor from 0% to 30% leaves the calculated result well above 12, because the EGLE
established WQBEL governs in every case. The safety factor affects only PFOA, where it would
move the proposed limit from 192 to at most 200 ng/L.
The limit produced by the headworks loading calculation done by the City’s engineer, Moore &
Bruggink, is a ceiling on what the City may allow, not a floor beneath which it cannot go. EGLE’s
April 22, 2026 approval letter describes the City’s selection of the water quality value as the
exercise of a right.
The input that does affect the calculation is the PFOS removal credit taken for the Plant. The City’s
engineer has documented that the same method yields 23.1 ng/L at the 34% removal used in the
evaluation, 20.6 ng/L at 28.5%, and 11.7 ng/L with no removal credit at all. The proposed 12.0
ng/L falls inside that documented range.
The text of a proposed ordinance implementing these PFAS limits is not before Council at this
meeting. Staff is reviewing a draft, and an ordinance will be presented for first reading at a later
meeting.
Background
The Clean Water Plant operates an approved industrial pretreatment program under its NPDES
permit. Sampling of the City’s industrial users confirmed that PFAS compounds are present in
wastewater streams discharged to the Plant. The City has no local limits for PFAS at present.

Proposed PFAS Local Limits

Page 1 of 5

EGLE supplied water quality based effluent limits, or WQBELs, for five PFAS compounds by
memorandum dated January 22, 2026. Moore & Bruggink then completed a local limits evaluation
using EPA’s Allowable Headworks Loading methodology, drawing on six sampling events at the
Plant influent, the Plant effluent and a background location within the City during November and
December 2025. EGLE approved the resulting local limits by letter dated April 22, 2026, and
approved the corresponding pretreatment program modification as non-substantial under R
323.2309. Moore & Bruggink reissued the evaluation on October 28, 2026 as Revision 1 to correct
a spreadsheet error in one column of the removal efficiency worksheet. The correction does not
change any calculated limit or recommendation.
The limits now proposed are 12.0 ng/L for PFOS, 192 ng/L for PFOA, 780,000 ng/L for PFBS, 35
ng/L for PFNA and 240 ng/L for PFHxS.
Authority to adopt the proposed limits
The City’s authority rests on three independent sources, and it extends to adopting a limit more
stringent than its own local limits evaluation calculated.
Federal pretreatment regulations require a publicly owned treatment works with an approved
pretreatment program to develop and enforce local limits where necessary to prevent pass through
and interference. 40 CFR 403.5(c). The same regulations expressly preserve local authority to go
further: nothing in them precludes a municipality from adopting or enforcing requirements more
stringent than the federal rules themselves impose. 40 CFR 403.4.
Michigan’s pretreatment rules carry the parallel obligation to establish local limits, R 323.2303,
and place no ceiling on their stringency.
The City’s Sewer Use Ordinance, Chapter 40, Article V of the City Code, supplies the local
authority. Council retains authority over the management, supervision and operation of the
wastewater system. Section 40-211. The ordinance prohibits any discharge that passes through or
interferes with the Clean Water Plant or the disposal of its treatment residuals, and it authorizes
the City to determine maximum concentration or mass limitations for pollutants in wastewater
discharges, with limits for incompatible substances. Sections 40-347(f) and 40-569. Its standards
are declared to be the absolute minimum consistent with the preservation of the public health,
safety and welfare, the prevention of pollution, and the City’s obligations under state and federal
law. Section 40-213.
The calculated local limit is a ceiling, not an entitlement. The allowable headworks loading
methodology answers how much pollutant loading the City may accept without causing pass
through, interference, contamination of biosolids or a violation of the Plant’s own permit. It does
not answer how much the City must accept, and it confers on no discharger an entitlement to that
quantity. Nothing in 40 CFR 403.5 or in Michigan’s Part 23 Rules converts a calculated maximum
into a floor beneath which the City cannot go.
EGLE’s own characterization is the clearest statement of the point. The April 22, 2026 approval
letter states that the evaluation “had calculated local limit values greater than the applicable Water

Proposed PFAS Local Limits

Page 2 of 5

Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs), but the city has exercised the right to be conservative
and set limits at the WQBELs.” That is the approval authority describing the City’s choice as a
right. The City is not acting on its own initiative beyond what the state has reviewed; it is doing
what the state regulator examined and approved.
The basis for 12 ng/L
The WQBEL EGLE supplied for PFOS is a monthly average of 0.012 ug/L, or 12 ng/L. The
headworks calculation produced a value of 23.1 ng/L. The City proposes the WQBEL.
The City applied one rule across all five compounds: adopt the more protective of the calculated
limit and the WQBEL. For PFOS, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS the WQBEL is the lower value and
is proposed. For PFOA the calculated limit of 192 ng/L falls below the 200 ng/L WQBEL, and the
calculated limit is proposed. The method is the same for every compound rather than selected
compound by compound. Stated as policy, the rule the City is applying is that an industrial user
may not rely on municipal domestic sewage as dilution in order to discharge above the state water
quality value.
The result does not depend on the safety factor
The evaluation reserved 20% of the allowable headworks loading as a safety factor. EPA’s local
limits guidance treats the safety factor as a site specific judgment and recommends a minimum of
10%. For PFOS the calculated result is not sensitive to that judgment. The table below is a
sensitivity run on the evaluation’s own inputs: MAHL of 0.000364 lb/day, uncontrolled loading
of 0.0000889 lb/day, growth allowance of 2.5% and industrial flow of 1.00 MGD.
Safety factor
0%
10%
20%
30%

Calculated PFOS limit (ng/L)
31.9
27.5
23.1
18.8

Limit after WQBEL cap (ng/L)
12
12
12
12

Even with no safety factor at all, the calculated number stays far above 12, and 12 is the value the
City proposed and EGLE approved. The same holds for PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS, each set at its
WQBEL. The safety factor is consequential only for PFOA, where the calculated limit governs
because it falls below the 200 ng/L WQBEL. Reducing the factor to 10% there would move the
proposed limit from 192 to 200 ng/L, a change of 8 ng/L, or 4%.
The safety factor does real work elsewhere, and it is worth understanding what that work is. At a
23.1 ng/L limit, total headworks loading reaches roughly 77% of the MAHL, and the remaining
22.5% is the safety factor and growth allowance held in reserve. Reducing the safety factor to 10%
would cut that reserve to 12.5%, nearly in half, without changing the PFOS limit at all. That reserve
is the margin protecting the Plant against its own permit limits and accommodating future growth
in the community.

Proposed PFAS Local Limits

Page 3 of 5

Removal of PFOS at the Plant is limited and variable
The input that does affect the calculation is the 34% PFOS removal credit the evaluation took for
the Plant, the average measured across the six sampling events. Conventional biological treatment
is not designed to remove PFAS. The MAHL derives from the chronic WQBEL at a plant flow of
2.40 MGD, divided by the fraction of the pollutant that is not removed, so the removal figure scales
the entire result. Moore & Bruggink have documented how the calculated limit responds to that
input:
POTW removal

MAHL (lb/day)

34% (study basis)
28.5% (detected events only)
0% (no removal credit)

0.000364
0.000336
0.000240

Calculated limit at 20% safety
factor
23.1 ng/L
20.6 ng/L
11.7 ng/L

The documented range is therefore 11.7 to 23.1 ng/L. The proposed 12.0 ng/L sits inside that range,
just above the bottom. The City is selecting the point that does not depend on banking a removal
credit measured over six days in a single winter.
The 34% credit rests on six sample pairs taken in November and December at concentrations near
the reporting limit. Six events in two winter months do not establish an annual removal efficiency,
and the same dataset shows PFOA removal at negative 90% and PFBS at negative 3%, meaning
the Plant generates PFOA during treatment as precursor compounds convert. Nothing confines
that behavior to one season.
This is the affirmative basis for 12.0 ng/L, and it is a stronger statement than calling the limit
conservative. The City is not setting a limit below its own science. It is selecting the conservative
end of a range its own engineer has documented, and declining to commit the Plant to a removal
credit established over six winter days at a facility that demonstrably generates PFOA from
precursor compounds. The case rests on uncertainty rather than on a finding that removal is zero,
and that uncertainty runs in two directions at once. If removal is occurring, the PFOS captured
partitions into the biosolids, against a land application allowable headworks loading of 0.00037
lb/day, only 1.6% above the 0.000364 lb/day MAHL that controls the calculation, leaving
effectively no cushion on that pathway. If removal is not occurring, the pass through pathway
governs and the calculated limit itself falls to approximately 11.7 ng/L. The City cannot know in
advance which case it is in. A limit set at the water quality value is supportable in both.
Additional support for the proposed limit
•

PFOS is a bioaccumulative chemical of concern under Rule 57, R 323.1057. That
classification carries consequences under the Part 8 Rules, which impose special conditions
on such substances in R 323.1215, including tight constraints on mixing zones. With little
or no mixing zone available, there is no dilution cushion between the Plant’s discharge and
the water quality value, so whatever margin the City wants has to be built into the local
limit rather than recovered downstream.

Proposed PFAS Local Limits

Page 4 of 5

•

Michigan’s antidegradation rule, R 323.1098, points in the same direction. It governs the
City’s own discharge rather than an industrial user’s limit, so it is policy direction here
rather than a mandate, but the direction is clear: assimilative capacity, once allocated, is
difficult to recover, and holding capacity in reserve is consistent with that policy.

•

EGLE has signaled that more stringent PFOS values are anticipated, and the precedent for
movement is on the books. Michigan revised its PFOA human health values downward by
roughly two orders of magnitude in 2022, from 12,000 to 170 ng/L for surface water and
from 420 to 66 ng/L for waters protected as a drinking water source. The asymmetry
matters more than the forecast. A limit set at today’s water quality value survives a
tightening of that value. A limit set at 23.1 would have to be tightened later against a user
that had built its operations around the higher number and would be entitled to a
compliance schedule to come back down. It is far easier never to allocate capacity than to
recover it.

•

The proposed level is attainable with available technology. An industrial user discharging
to the Plant met a permit requirement of 11.0 ng/L for 12 consecutive months, from
September 30, 2024 through September 30, 2025, using a small trial granular activated
carbon unit. Demonstrated feasibility is not legally required to support a water quality
driven local limit, but it establishes that the proposed level can be achieved in practice by
a discharger to this Plant, and the proposed 12.0 ng/L is less stringent than the level already
demonstrated.

Conclusion
The City has clear authority to adopt the proposed PFAS local limits. They rest on federal and state
pretreatment law and the City’s Sewer Use Ordinance, on water quality based effluent limits
supplied by EGLE, on a local limits evaluation performed by the City’s consulting engineer under
EPA’s methodology, and on EGLE’s approval of that evaluation and of the corresponding program
modification. The proposed PFOS limit of 12.0 ng/L is the water quality based value, it falls within
the range of outcomes the evaluation itself produces, it does not depend on the safety factor or on
the removal credit used in the evaluation, and it has been achieved in practice by a discharger to
this Plant. Counsel recommends that Council receive the proposed limits for introduction and
direct that the implementing ordinance be prepared for first reading.
Attachments
1. Moore & Bruggink, Proposed PFAS Local Limits Memorandum for the City of Zeeland Clean
Water Plant, Revision 1, revised October 28, 2026.
2. Moore & Bruggink, Supplemental Comments on Proposed PFAS Local Limits, October 28,
2026.
3. EGLE approval letter, April 22, 2026.
4. EGLE memorandum supplying water quality based effluent limits, January 22, 2026.

Proposed PFAS Local Limits

Page 5 of 5

TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and Members of City Council

FROM:

Robert W. Mulder, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Informational Update – New Generation Capacity Implementation Plan

DATE:

November 13, 2026

Background
Consistent with prior monthly updates, this memo provides an update to City Council on the BPW’s new
generation initiative and MPPA’s Resource Adequacy Project, which is evaluating the development of new
behind-the-meter generation (BTMG) on the BPW’s system. Staff continue to work closely with MPPA staff and
our consultants to keep the project moving while ensuring that due diligence is being performed. Staff remain
confident that participation in the MPPA initiative, in any capacity, is the best means of addressing the BPW’s
projected capacity shortfall in 2030 and 2031.
Project Update
MPPA Resource Adequacy Project Update
MPPA continues to conduct the due diligence necessary to advance the project. A summary of the actions
taken over the past month is provided below:
Equipment Providers – Developing Site-Specific Pricing
Updated site-specific pricing has been received from one of the equipment vendors, and updated
pricing from the remaining vendors is expected shortly. MPPA anticipates providing participating
members with a final recommendation, including all identified site-specific project costs, in December
2026.
Electrical Interconnection Evaluation
MPPA members and their respective engineering consultants worked to evaluate interconnection
requirements, limitations, and associated costs. The BPW contracted with Power Systems Engineering,
Inc. (PSE), to evaluate interconnection requirements and limitations and provide budgetary estimates of
the required capital costs. Based on the expected project size, a new substation is anticipated to
connect the facility to the BPW’s sub-transmission system. PSE provided a budgetary cost estimate for
this work. PSE completed the study before the October 31, 2026, deadline. Comparable evaluations
were conducted for all potential MPPA host members.
Environmental Assessment (Air Permit/Modeling)
MPPA and BPW staff continue to partner with NTH Consultants Ltd. to evaluate potential sites from an
air permitting perspective. NTH is performing air dispersion modeling for each potential host member’s
site to confirm equipment and operational requirements and identify potential permitting challenges.
Modeling results for the BPW’s potential sites prompted further evaluation, but a path forward has been
identified and is being pursued.
Preliminary Site Plan Development
BPW staff coordinated with MPPA to develop preliminary site plans for both potential BPW sites for air
dispersion modeling and general site planning and budgeting. A comprehensive review of City and
Township ordinances and building requirements was also performed as part of this evaluation.
Additional work will be performed, but substantial progress has been made. Staff have held preliminary
discussions with the City’s Community Development Office and Zeeland Township to clarify
requirements and identify specific concerns.
Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

Fuel Supply
No additional correspondence occurred during the past month. Staff await revised estimates from
SEMCO Energy and do not anticipate concerns regarding meeting fuel-delivery or schedule
requirements at this time.
Financing and Ownership Model
MPPA and Zeeland BPW staff have had numerous discussions over the past several months regarding
the preferred ownership model for Zeeland. A recommendation to provide a non-binding commitment to
participate in the MPPA project at the recommended offtake was presented and approved at the
November 10, 2026, meeting of the BPW Board. The recommendation is subject to several conditions.
Staff do not anticipate changing the recommended approach unless further due diligence identifies
material changes to the information currently available. MPPA has requested that Zeeland identify its
preferred ownership model so that a final recommendation can be prepared for all project participants
in December 2026.
BPW Staff Action Update
In addition to participating in the MPPA activities described above, BPW staff have engaged in the following
actions over the past month:
Property Rezoning
Staff have submitted a rezoning application to the City of Zeeland Planning Commission to rezone the
BPW’s property located at 535 N. Fairview Road from Public Works Facility (PF) to Industrial I-2. Doing
so will enable this property to serve as a potential site for an electric generation facility, substation, or
related facilities supporting BPW operations, subject to applicable review and approval requirements.
Staff will present the application to the Planning Commission at the December 3, 2026, meeting.
Potential Alternative Site Evaluation & Procurement
Staff met with the owner of a potential property that could provide additional long-term strategic value to
the BPW, in addition to meeting the needs of the current project. Conversations regarding the potential
purchase of that property and the timeline remain on-going. Preliminary environmental and airpermitting assessments have been completed to evaluate the property’s suitability, and additional due
diligence will be performed.
Re-Engagement of nFront Consulting, LLC
nFront Consulting, LLC, which recently completed the BPW’s 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
update, has been re-engaged to assist with due diligence related to the generation resources, dispatch
models, and economic projections developed by MPPA. Progress has been limited while MPPA awaits
final site-specific pricing from all vendors. That information will support nFront’s independent economic
evaluation.
Rate Impact Evaluation
Staff have re-engaged Utility Financial Solutions (UFS) to evaluate the proposed project’s impact on
electric rates and compare the projected rates with those of other utilities and relevant benchmarks.
This evaluation also depends on receipt of final vendor pricing and updated project economics from
MPPA. Information provided by MPPA and nFront Consulting will serve as the basis for this evaluation.
Legal Services Engagement
BPW staff have identified specialized legal-review needs associated with the anticipated contracts that
may be executed between the BPW and MPPA to govern the project. Staff have coordinated with the
City Attorney’s Office and are discussing these needs with a law firm that has relevant expertise, with
the goal of retaining the firm by January 2027.

Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

Next Steps
MPPA and participating members anticipate the following schedule:
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

November 2026: MPPA targets completion of final technical and site due diligence and receipt of
updated vendor pricing to support the December economic evaluation and recommendation.
December 2026: Provide updated investment models and final project recommendations to
participating members. Identify any gaps in meeting projected needs and develop strategies to address
them.
December 2026 – January 2027: Substantially complete due diligence and applicable operating and
power sales agreements, allowing project plans and supporting documentation to be finalized during
the first quarter of 2027 for the BPW’s PA 341 capacity demonstration filing with the MPSC.
February 2027: MPPA Board approval for the creation of an asset project, approving project structure,
participating members, financing, and project agreements.
February – March 2027: Member authorization to enter the asset project and definitive agreements.
February – April 2027: Final contract negotiation and execution between MPPA and its members.
March 2027: MPPA submits PA 341 capacity demonstration documentation for all MPPA members.
Ongoing BPW Activities: Continue pursuing additional properties that support near- and long-term
strategic siting priorities. Work with nFront Consulting and UFS to evaluate the proposed project costs,
alignment with portfolio and IRP projections, and the anticipated impact on rates.

Recommendation
No formal action is requested on this informational update. Staff recommend continuing project due diligence
and coordination with MPPA and participating members. MPPA will provide a recommendation for participation
in the potential project to members in December 2026, which staff will review and present to the Board and
City Council.
Attachment:

Zeeland / MPPA Approval Roadmap (October 30, 2026)

Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

Zeeland / MPPA Approval Roadmap
Draft with Target Completion Dates and Decision Gates
Stage

Principal Actions / Deliverables

MPPA Action

Zeeland Action

Target Completion

Decision Gate

1. Policy Foundation —
IRP

Complete Integrated Resource Plan; establish
projected 2030/31 capacity need; identify local
dispatchable generation as an implementation
pathway.

Incorporate Member
resource needs into portfolio
planning.

BPW / governing-body approval of
IRP resolution.

Completed — 2026

Policy direction established;
capacity need and
implementation pathway
formally recognized.

2. Preliminary Project
Recommendation /
Member Decision Point
#1

Present preliminary
Review preliminary technology, vendor, portfolio,
recommendation and
economics, Zeeland host project and proposed
advance Member-specific
offtake.
due diligence.

Adopt Resolution Authorizing
Continued Due Diligence and
Participation in the MPPA Resource
Adequacy and Local Generation
Development Initiative.

September 2026

Preserve Zeeland’s ability to
participate and continue due
diligence without making a final
project commitment.

3. Final Technical &
Site Due Diligence

Vendor/site visits; BAFO development; Phase II
environmental assessment; air analysis;
distribution/system impact studies;
interconnection review; BES/NERC review; gas
availability and infrastructure requirements; site
evaluation.

Coordinate vendor,
environmental, engineering,
gas and system studies.

Review Zeeland-specific findings;
engage consultants; confirm site
suitability and local system
implications.

November 30, 2026

Is the Zeeland project
technically, environmentally
and operationally viable?

4. Final Project
Economics &
Commercial Structure

Update capital cost, operating assumptions,
capacity economics, project size, portfolio
composition and Zeeland entitlement/offtake.

Develop final project
economics and proposed
Asset Project structure.

Independent reasonableness
review; assess rate, financial and
operational implications.

December 2026

Are the project economics and
proposed Zeeland participation
commercially reasonable?

5. Ownership / Asset
Project Structure

Resolve MPPA-owned/project structure; cost
allocation; Member entitlement; step-up
provisions; host responsibilities; attrition
treatment; financing approach.

Recommend preferred
ownership and Asset Project
structure.

Evaluate structure with legal,
financial and operational advisors.

December 2026

Is the proposed ownership and
risk-allocation structure
acceptable to Zeeland?

6. Member Decision
Point #2 — Confirm
Project Direction

Present completed due diligence, updated
economics, project structure, proposed portfolio
and material risks.

Obtain Member direction to
proceed toward definitive
documentation.

BPW direction confirming continued
advancement into final agreement
development.

Dec. 2026–Jan. 2027

Authorize advancement from
evaluation into final contract
and project-document
development.

7. Definitive Agreement
Development

Draft Operating Agreement, Power Sales
Agreement/Contract, Asset Project documents,
host/site agreements and related project
instruments.

MPPA and counsel prepare
project documentation.

Zeeland counsel, staff and advisors
review proposed documents.

Substantially complete
by Dec. 31, 2026

Are the material commercial
and operating terms sufficiently
defined to support final review?

8. Legal / Financial /
Technical Review

Review authority, cost allocation, liability,
default/step-up, term/termination, dispatch,
O&M, metering, settlement, financing, host
obligations and conditions precedent.

Address Member comments
and reconcile project
documents.

City/BPW counsel, financial
advisors, engineering and staff
complete reviews.

Dec. 2026–Jan. 2027

Are Zeeland’s legal, financial,
technical and operational risks
acceptable?

9. Project
Documentation
Package

Assemble final due-diligence reports, project
economics, financing plan, environmental
documentation, gas/interconnection information,
project schedule and approval documents.

Complete project record for
MPPA Board and Member
approvals.

Prepare BPW/City governance
package.

January 2027

Is the record complete enough
for informed final governance
action?

10. MPPA Board
Approval / Asset
Project Authorization

Approve final Asset Project structure,
participating Members, financing and project
agreements.

MPPA Board of
Commissioners approves
project.

Zeeland MPPA representative acts
consistent with approved authority.

Target: February 2027

MPPA formally authorizes the
Asset Project and related
commitments.

Revised — October 30, 2026

Stage

Principal Actions / Deliverables

MPPA Action

11. Member Decision
Point #3 — Final
Project Participation
Approval

Present substantially final project structure and
contractual commitments.

Seek Member authorization
to enter the Asset Project
and definitive agreements.

12. Final Contract
Negotiation &
Execution

Resolve remaining business/legal terms;
execute Operating, Power Sales and related
agreements.

13. PA 341 Capacity
Demonstration
Documentation

Zeeland Action

Target Completion

Decision Gate

BPW final project participation
approval; City Council approval if
required.

Feb.–Mar. 2027

Final Zeeland commitment to
participate in the project and
assume the associated
contractual obligations.

Execute project agreements.

Authorized Zeeland officials execute
approved agreements.

Feb.–Apr. 2027

Definitive agreements
executed and contractual
commitment becomes
effective.

Establish project treatment as a qualifying
capacity resource; document entitlement and
expected accreditation.

Provide project and capacity
documentation.

Incorporate project into Zeeland’s
PA 341 capacity demonstration.

March 2027 filing target

Project is sufficiently
documented to support
Zeeland’s capacity
demonstration filing.

14. Permitting

Submit air permit and other necessary
applications; respond to regulatory review.

Coordinate portfolio/project
permitting as applicable.

Support local and site-specific
permitting.

Application: Dec. 2026–
Jan. 2027; regulatory
process continues
through 2027

Required permits can be
obtained on a schedule
compatible with commercial
operation.

15. Gas Service /
Interconnection

Finalize gas requirements; submit service
application; negotiate necessary facilities and
agreements.

Coordinate project
requirements.

Work with local gas utility and
engineering consultants.

Application: Dec. 2026–
Jan. 2027;
implementation
continues through 2027

Fuel and interconnection
infrastructure can be secured
at acceptable cost and timing.

16. Financing

Develop financing strategy, borrowing structure,
Member obligations and closing documents.

Lead financing process for
MPPA-owned Asset Project.

Review financial exposure,
covenants and Member obligations.

Planning: Oct. 2026–
Feb. 2027; execution:
Apr.–May 2027

Financing structure is
executable and acceptable to
participating Members.

17. Procurement /
Detailed Engineering

Execute equipment/EPC/service agreements;
detailed design and construction planning.

Manage procurement and
portfolio implementation.

Support Zeeland site,
interconnection and local
infrastructure work.

Begin following final
approvals — 2027

Project is ready for notice to
proceed and major
procurement commitments.

18. Construction /
Commissioning

Site preparation, gas/electric facilities,
generation installation, testing and
commissioning.

Project management and
contract administration.

Host-community coordination and
operational readiness.

2027–Fall 2029

Project satisfies construction,
testing and acceptance
requirements.

19. Commercial
Operation

Complete acceptance testing, accreditation,
dispatch/settlement setup and O&M transition.

Begin Asset Project
operations.

Receive contractual
entitlement/capacity benefits.

No later than Fall 2029

Resource enters commercial
operation and becomes
available for the 2030/31
planning year.

Note: Target dates are planning targets and should be refined as MPPA project documentation and governance sequencing are finalized.

Revised — October 30, 2026

TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and Members of City Council

FROM:

Robert W. Mulder, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Recommendation - MPPA Behind-The-Meter Generation Project Participation & Ownership
Model

DATE:

November 13, 2026

Background
The Zeeland Board of Public Works (BPW) and the Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) have been working
through separate but complementary efforts to address open resource adequacy positions in our respective
portfolios, beginning in MISO Planning Year 2030/2031. In June 2025, the BPW engaged nFront Consulting,
LLC, to assist with updating our Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). This process included engaging the
community and key stakeholders through a Stakeholder Engagement initiative consisting of a series of public
meetings and surveys. The outcome of that process was a recommendation to advance due diligence on
potential local generation to address our near-term open position, evaluate both locally and jointly owned
generation alternatives, and maintain active participation in MPPA resource development initiatives.
In parallel with this initiative, MPPA has been working with members to identify ways to best address the
resource adequacy needs of its members as part of its overall portfolio management. For decades, purchasing
generation capacity from the market has been more economical than building new generation, particularly for
smaller utilities. The BPW and other MPPA members have benefited from these market purchases and passed
substantial savings along to their electric customers. Recently, however, the economics have changed, with
capacity market prices becoming substantially less favorable. As a result, MPPA and BPW staff view building
new on-system generation as the most viable and economical option for meeting these needs.
After conducting a robust market analysis and request-for-information (RFI) process involving representatives
of various manufacturers and evaluating generation and energy storage technologies, MPPA concluded that a
coordinated portfolio of natural gas-fired behind-the-meter generation (BTMG) resources located within
member communities is the best strategy at this time. Zeeland’s open position is included in MPPA’s portfolio
strategy, which endeavors to solve for member needs through MISO Planning Year 2034/2035. MPPA’s
approach recognizes evolving technologies and regulatory requirements, including the renewable and clean
energy requirements established under Michigan Public Act 235 of 2023. Accordingly, the strategy seeks to
meet anticipated needs while avoiding overcommitment to any specific resource, technology, or fuel source.
To meet the anticipated need, MPPA has established a goal of constructing 150 MW of natural gas-fired
generation, distributed among multiple member communities and connected to their respective electric
distribution systems as behind-the-meter generation resources. MPPA has identified Zeeland as a participating
member and a potential host community, with a recommended participation offtake of 28.1% of the combined
project based on our forecasted open position in PY2034/2035. This recommended offtake represents
approximately 42.2 MW of installed capacity and an estimated 35.4 MW of accredited capacity across the
combined project. Construction of a 50 MW local project in Zeeland has been proposed, based on favorable
economics, electrical and fuel supply interconnection availability, electric system load, community support, a
long history of local generation and operations, and favorable siting.
The proposed generation resources will serve primarily as capacity resources, with an estimated annual
capacity factor of 20% to 30%. They will support reliability during periods of peak electric demand and when
planned or forced generation outages increase the need for additional resources across MISO.

Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

1

Description
Since early this year, MPPA and BPW staff have been diligently working together to perform technical,
environmental, commercial, financial, legal, operational, fuel-supply, interconnection, permitting, and other due
diligence on Zeeland’s potential sites. MPPA has been concurrently performing these actions for strategic sites
in other potential host communities.
From MPPA’s perspective, the preferred ownership model for this project is an MPPA-owned project, in which
all member participants receive their pro-rata share of capacity, energy, and all other attributes, and contribute
their proportionate shares of capital and operations and maintenance costs across all constructed facilities. In
short, this project would be administered the same as any other agency project, although the proposed
facilities would be constructed in member communities and connected to their electric distribution systems.
MPPA identifies reduced costs through economies of scale and reduced risk as the principal benefits of this
ownership model. Specifically, these include:
• MPPA’s collective credit strength can provide access to favorable financing terms.
• Aggregating projects across members secures more competitive pricing for equipment and long-term
service agreements.
• Centralized project management streamlines development and construction.
• Participation across multiple projects reduces member exposure to outages or issues at any single
facility.
• Gas and distribution system upgrade costs can be shared among participants, lowering costs for
individual members.
• Multiple off-takers enable development of larger local projects.
While MPPA’s preference is for an MPPA-owned project, the agency is willing to consider a joint-ownership
(tenants-in-common) model in which a member could hold an ownership interest of less than 50% in the facility
constructed in its community. The member would be responsible for financing its share of the project and
paying its proportionate share of operations and maintenance costs. In either of these ownership models, all
rights and responsibilities will be governed by a series of contracts executed between MPPA and the member,
including but not limited to power sales, operations, facilities interconnection, and lease agreements. Although
this model would give a host member a direct ownership interest in its local facility, it would concentrate the
member’s capacity entitlement among fewer generating units, increasing exposure to outages at that facility.
The members’ rights and responsibilities would remain governed by the project agreements.
Alternatively, MPPA is willing to support members in a third ownership model, member self-build, should a
member decide to proceed independently. Under this model, MPPA would endeavor to assist with equipment
procurement and in other areas where economies of scale can be realized and serve as the MISO market
interface as it currently does. The member would assume the following responsibilities and risks:
• Financing the resource and carrying all associated debt.
• Operating and maintaining the resource or contracting directly with a vendor for long-term operations and
maintenance services.
• Bearing greater outage risk due to reliance on a single facility.
• Limiting project size to manage concentration risk.
Due to supply chain pressure and demand for generation, procurement through MPPA, regardless of the
ownership model, appears to be necessary.
MPPA has selected natural gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) as the proposed
technology and is completing its final economic evaluation of two vendors. Both vendors offer smaller units that
support lower installed capital costs, shorter development timelines, and flexible dispatch. Larger units offer
greater operating efficiency but have substantially higher capital costs, which may not be justified at the
anticipated capacity factors. Preliminary evaluations indicate favorable economics compared with market
alternatives and support continued development of the proposed project.
Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

2

Recommendation
Through their joint due diligence, BPW and MPPA staff have identified potential challenges associated with
constructing facilities at Zeeland’s proposed sites. Although a plan to address these challenges has been
identified, they underscore the value of diversification and risk management through participation in the
aggregated MPPA project.
MPPA’s preliminary economic evaluations do not indicate a compelling advantage to independently owning a
Zeeland facility. A 50 MW Zeeland project could have a levelized cost of capacity approximately 2%–6% below
that of the aggregated 150 MW MPPA project over the 20-year evaluation period. This potential cost
advantage could increase or decrease under a hybrid vendor configuration, depending on how generating units
are allocated among MPPA project sites. Although MPPA’s Zeeland estimate provides an indicative
benchmark for a self-build project, it includes economies of scale from MPPA’s larger project that may not be
achievable independently. Staff therefore do not consider the potential savings sufficient to justify the additional
financing, ownership, and facility performance responsibilities and risks of a self-build project or joint ownership
as tenants-in-common.
MPPA has requested that Zeeland indicate the ownership model it desires to pursue for this endeavor in
November, so that the project economics and member-specific costs can be calculated and provided to
members in December. For the reasons outlined above, staff recommend providing MPPA with an indicative,
non-binding expression of Zeeland’s intent to participate at the recommended offtake and support hosting a
proposed 50 MW generation facility in Zeeland. Staff recommend the MPPA-owned model rather than
acquiring a separate ownership interest in the Zeeland facility. This approach would reduce demands on BPW
staff and preserve local borrowing capacity for other priorities, such as upgrades to the Washington Avenue
Generation Facility or investments in technologies that MPPA may not pursue or may pursue on a different
timeline.
Staff recommend proceeding on this indicative, non-binding basis, subject to reconsideration if:
• Final vendor pricing and economic evaluations show a compelling advantage to another ownership
model.
• Zeeland and MPPA cannot reach acceptable terms on the agreements governing the project, including
operations, facility leasing, interconnection, and power sales.
• The proposed vendor technology or other material aspects of the Zeeland facility are unacceptable to
Zeeland.
• The project cannot provide sufficient accredited capacity within the required timeframe to meet
Zeeland’s resource adequacy needs.
• Other material concerns arise that warrant reconsidering Zeeland’s participation.
Importantly, this recommendation does not authorize final participation in a generation project, project
financing, construction, ownership, or execution of definitive power sales, operating, or other long-term project
agreements. Any binding commitment would be presented separately for governance consideration following
completion of due diligence and approval of the proposed project by the MPPA Board of Commissioners. This
recommendation would communicate Zeeland’s preliminary intent to participate and allow MPPA to continue
project development, including finalizing economic evaluations, refining member-specific costs, completing due
diligence, and developing the necessary project agreements.
At its November 10, 2026, regular meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved recommending this action
item for City Council consideration.
Suggested Motion
Motion to approve providing MPPA with an indicative, non-binding expression of Zeeland’s intent to participate
in the MPPA-owned Behind-the-Meter Generation project at the recommended 28.1% offtake, or greater, and
to support hosting a proposed 50 MW facility in Zeeland, subject to the considerations outlined in this memo.
This action does not authorize financing, construction, or execution of binding project agreements.

Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

3

MPPA Behind-the-Meter Generation Project
- Recommended Ownership Approach and Next Steps Robert W. Mulder, General Manager
November 16, 2026

Background
• MPPA and Zeeland BPW have been working to address open resource adequacy positions.
• The BPW’s IRP recommended advancing due diligence on potential local generation in the near-term
(peaking units).
• MPPA has been working with its members to best address resource adequacy needs.
• MPPA has established a goal of constructing 150 MW of natural-gas-fired generation, and Zeeland has
been identified as a potential 50 MW host site.
• Zeeland’s recommended participation offtake would be 28.1% of the combined project based on the
forecasted open position in PY 2034 and PY 2035.

2

Proposed Technology and Economic Evaluation
• MPPA has selected natural gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) as the proposed
technology and is completing its final economic evaluation of two vendors.
• Both vendors offer smaller units that support lower installed capital costs, shorter development
timelines, and flexible operation as electricity needs change.
• Larger units offer greater operating efficiency, but their substantially higher capital costs may not be
justified by the anticipated operating hours.
• Preliminary evaluations indicate favorable economics compared with market alternatives and support
continued project development.

3

MPPA Project: Preliminary Allocation

4

Ownership Approaches Considered
• MPPA’s preferred ownership model for this project is an MPPA-Owned project. The benefits include:
 Collective credit strength.
 Competitive pricing for equipment and long-term service agreements.
 Reduces member exposure to outages or complications at a single facility.
 Shared upgrade costs.
 Enablement of development of larger projects.
• MPPA is willing to consider a Joint-Ownership (i.e. Tenants-In-Common) model.
 Member could hold an ownership interest of up to, but less than, 50% in their host facility.
 The member’s rights and responsibilities would remain governed by the project agreements.

5

Ownership Approaches Considered (continued)
• MPPA is willing to support members in a Self-Build ownership model, should a member decide to
proceed independently.
• MPPA would assist with equipment procurement, economies of scale, and serve as the MISO market
interface.
• The member would assume the following responsibilities and risks:
 Financing the resource and carrying all associated debt.
 Operating and maintaining the resource.
 Bearing greater outage risk.
 Limiting project size.

6

Vendor Indicative Cost Differences
• For comparable vendor options, preliminary economic evaluations imply a Zeeland sited 50 MW*
project cost advantage of approximately 2% to 6% compared with the overall MPPA 150 MW project.
• Compared with a potential MPPA hybrid vendor configuration, the Zeeland sited 50 MW project cost
advantage could increase or decrease, depending on the allocation across MPPA projects.
• Staff do not consider these preliminary cost differences sufficient to justify the additional financing,
ownership, facility-performance responsibilities, and risks associated with self-build or tenants-incommon ownership.
Note: Estimates are based on the levelized cost of capacity (LCOC) over a 20-year evaluation period.
* Zeeland 50 MW project estimates serve as an indicative benchmark for self-build, direct ownership. Final costs and
responsibilities depend on project structure, equipment selection, and negotiated agreements. MPPA’s estimates
include economies of scale realized as part of a larger project, which may not be realized in a self-build, direct
ownership model.
7

Recommendation: MPPA Ownership
Staff recommends that Zeeland pursue participation in the generation project under the MPPA-ownership
model.
Under this approach:
• MPPA would own and finance the coordinated generation project.
• Zeeland would receive a contractual share of project capacity, energy, and related benefits.
• Participating utilities would share project costs and obligations under the project agreements.
• Zeeland’s participation would support its forecasted capacity needs beginning in 2030 – 2031 and
extending into subsequent planning years.
Final participation remains subject to satisfactory project evaluations, agreements, and required approvals.

8

Why MPPA Ownership?
• Coordinated Development – MPPA would organize procurement, financing, construction, and project
administration across participating communities.
• Benefits from a broader generation portfolio – Participation across multiple facilities would reduce
dependence on the performance of a single Zeeland facility.
• Shared expertise and purchasing opportunities – The coordinated project would draw on MPPA’s
technical resources, collective credit strength, and purchasing scale.
• A foundation for future resources – The approach would preserve opportunities for Zeeland to
participate in additional shared generation projects as its needs evolve.

9

Recommended Direction, Remaining Decisions
• Recommended direction - Support MPPA ownership as the preferred structure for Zeeland’s
participation and continue developing the agreements needed to evaluate a final commitment.
• Before final participation approval:
 Complete technical, environmental, fuel supply, and interconnection reviews.
 Confirm project economics, financing, and potential customer rate impacts.
 Complete specialized legal review of Zeeland’s contractual obligations and protections.
 Confirm Zeeland’s participation share, host responsibilities, and operating arrangements.
 Obtain the required MPPA, BPW, and City approvals.
Selection of the preferred ownership approach would guide the remaining work. Final project
participation would require a separate, informed approval.
10

Suggested Motion Language
Motion to recommend that Zeeland provide MPPA with an indicative, non-binding expression of intent to
participate in the MPPA-owned Behind-the-Meter Generation project at the recommended 28.1% offtake,
or greater, and to support hosting a proposed 50 MW facility in Zeeland, subject to the considerations
outlined in this memo.
This action does not authorize financing, construction, or execution of binding project agreements.

11

Thank You!

TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and Members of City Council

FROM:

Robert W. Mulder, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Gentex North Riley Campus Development Agreement Addendum No. 2 – Approval
Recommendation

DATE:

November 13, 2026

Background
City Council approval is requested for Addendum No. 2 to the Gentex North Riley Campus Development
Agreement. The proposed addendum documents the Northside Substation improvements, establishes the
parties’ respective shares of the final project cost, and provides for payment of Gentex Corporation’s
contribution. The original Development Agreement, executed in June 2013, addressed infrastructure
improvements serving the Gentex North Riley Campus. Consistent with that agreement, the BPW constructed
the Northside Substation to support Gentex’s electrical service needs. The project included property
acquisition, site preparation, engineering, equipment procurement, and construction of a 40 MVA substation
with five 12.5 kV circuits, high-side switching capability, and capacitor installation. The substation was
completed and placed in service before November 1, 2024, as requested.
Financial Summary
The total actual project cost was $4,944,483. Under the allocation method established in the original
Development Agreement, Gentex is responsible for 45%, or $2,225,017, and the BPW is responsible for the
remaining 55%, or $2,719,466. The total project cost excludes $320,209 previously invoiced by the BPW and
paid by Gentex for cabling work associated with the reconfiguration of circuit FV-8. Addendum No. 2 formalizes
these financial responsibilities and provides that Gentex’s contribution is payable within 45 days after the BPW
delivers its invoice and supporting cost documentation. It also addresses electrical service arrangements,
metering locations, customer connections, and necessary easements. Approval will allow the parties to finalize
the agreement and complete the remaining billing and project closeout activities.
Recommendation
At its regular meeting on November 10, 2026, the Zeeland Board of Commissioners voted to recommend that
the Zeeland City Council approve Addendum No. 2 to the Gentex North Riley Campus Development
Agreement. Staff recommend that the City Council approve Addendum No. 2 to the Gentex North Riley
Campus Development Agreement and authorize the BPW General Manager and City Clerk to execute the
addendum on behalf of the Zeeland Board of Public Works. City Attorney Donkersloot has reviewed and
approved Addendum No. 2 and has been involved with the Development Agreement since its inception.
Suggested Motion Language
Move to approve Addendum No. 2 to the Gentex North Riley Campus Development Agreement, establishing
Gentex Corporation’s contribution of $2,225,017 and the Zeeland Board of Public Works’ share of $2,719,466
toward the final Northside Substation project cost of $4,944,483, and authorize the BPW General Manager and
City Clerk to execute the addendum on behalf of the Zeeland Board of Public Works.
Attachments: Northside Substation Project Correspondence
Northside Substation Project Cost Summary
Development Agreement Addendum No. 2
Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

1

November 4, 2026
Scott Heerema
Director of Corporate Facilities – Gentex Corporation
600 N. Centennial St.
Zeeland, MI 49464
Scott:
Following our meeting on September 16, 2026, we reviewed the final financials for the BPW’s Northside
Substation project. The substation was constructed in accordance with the GNRC Development
Agreement, executed in 2013, regarding infrastructure improvements at the Gentex North Riley Campus.
Based on the allocation method identified in the 2013 Development Agreement, Gentex’s share of the
total project cost is $2,225,017, representing 45% of the final actual project cost of $4,944,483. The BPW
is responsible for the remaining project cost of $2,719,466. An additional $320,209 was previously
invoiced by the BPW and paid by Gentex Corporation for cabling work associated with the
reconfiguration of circuit FV-8. That amount is not included in these totals.
The final project cost includes real property acquisition, site preparation, design, procurement, and
construction of a 40 MVA substation with five 12.5 kV circuits, high-side switching capability, and a
capacitor installation. The project was completed and the substation placed in service prior to November
1, 2024, as requested.
Attached for your review are a cost summary for the completed project and Addendum No. 2 to the
GNRC Development Agreement.
We would appreciate your assistance in finalizing and closing this matter as promptly as possible. Please
let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully,

Robert W. Mulder
General Manager
Zeeland Board of Public Works
cc:

James Donkersloot, Attorney - City of Zeeland
Brian Coots, Electric Transmission & Distribution Manager - Zeeland Board of Public Works

Attachments
Northside Substation Project - Cost Summary
GNRC Development Agreement - Addendum No. 2
Zeeland Board of Public Works ○ 350 East Washington Avenue ○ Zeeland, Michigan 49464 ○ 616-772-6212 ○ www.zeelandbpw.com

ZEELAND BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS

Northside Substation Project Cost Summary
Project costs and allocation between Gentex and Zeeland Board of Public Works.
Item

Quantity

Unit Price

Total Price

Alduti-Rupter MOIS 10′

1

$54,362

$54,362

Alduti-Rupter MOIS 12′

1

$56,672

$56,672

15 kV Recloser

5

$21,691

$108,455

2,400 kVAR Capacitor Bank

1

$126,273

$126,273

600 A Hook Switches

36

$789.69

$28,429

69 kV Circuit Breaker

2

$61,990

$123,980

69 kV Circuit Switcher

1

$82,280

$82,280

69 kV Disconnect Switch

6

$9,122

$54,733

69 kV PT

8

$8,188

$65,504

7.2 kV PT

4

$1,214

$4,856

Relay Control Panels

5

$32,390.60

$161,953

24/32/40 MVA Transformer

1

$1,069,540

$1,069,540

4/0 Cu Underground Cable

1,000

$19.96

$19,959

125 VDC Battery

1

$39,130

$39,130

Site Construction

1

$2,425,756

$2,425,756

PMH-10 Switchgear

5

$20,623

$103,114

Switchgear Base

10

$950

$9,500

3,600

$34.36

$123,696

Transmission Line Materials

1

$9,144

$9,144

Transmission Line Construction

1

$24,244

$24,244

Engineering Services

1

$211,138

$211,138

Miscellaneous Services

1

$41,765

$41,765

15 kV 750 Cu Underground Cable

Total Project Cost $4,944,483
Cost Allocation
Participant

Share

Amount

Gentex Corporation

45%

$2,225,017

Zeeland Board of Public Works

55%

$2,719,466

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Addendum No. 2
This Addendum No. 2 to the Development Agreement (“Addendum”) is made by and among
GENTEX CORPORATION, 600 N. Centennial Street, Zeeland, Michigan 49464 (“Gentex”), and the
ZEELAND BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, a department of the City, whose address is 350 E.
Washington Avenue, Zeeland, Michigan 49464 (the “BPW”), and with such two entities being known herein
as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party”.

RECITALS
A.

Gentex and the BPW along with the City of Zeeland and Zeeland Charter Township entered
into a Development Agreement on or about June 24, 2013, with respect to infrastructure improvements at
the Gentex North Riley Campus (the “GNRC Development Agreement”) and an Addendum No. 1 to such
agreement was signed on September 17, 2025.

B.
Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise specifically defined, shall have the meaning
given to them under the GNRC Development Agreement.
C.

Under the GNRC Development Agreement, the Property had electrical system
improvements, (Electric Project A, Electric Project B and Electric Project C). This Addendum No. 2 is
to specify further electric project improvements to Gentex’s North Riley Campus.
Therefore, the Parties, in consideration of their mutual covenants, agree as follows:
1.

Electrical System Expansion. In regard to the extension and expansion of the
Electric System, the Parties hereby acknowledge and agree as follows:

a.

The Parties hereby acknowledge that the BPW has initiated and/or
completed the following:
i.

Designed and initiated construction of a 40MVA, 5-12.5kV
circuit substation along with high side switching capability and
capacitor installation in order to meet the Gentex Plant #3's
anticipated in-service date. The actual cost for these
improvements is $4,944,483.

November 3, 2026

-1-

b.

c.

2.

The BPW agrees that it shall do the following so as to meet the electrical
needs of Gentex:

i.

Complete construction of the “Northside Substation” and the
BPW will pay substation development costs of up to
$2,719,466.

ii.

Complete three 12.5kV distribution circuits from the new
Northside Substation to a meter location near the Gentex/BPW
boundary adjacent to the Northside of the new Northside
Substation. The Gentex North Riley Campus will be supplied
up to 5-12.5kV effectively dedicated circuits with 3 backup
12.5kV distribution circuits that can be shared.

iv.

Contingent upon Gentex’s request if so, determined by Gentex,
accommodate moving of the meter location provided that
Gentex pays the incremental cost of such a move.

Gentex agrees as follows with regard to the Electrical Systems expansion:

i.

Gentex shall pay a contribution-in-aid for construction of the
additional Electrical Systems improvements, namely, the
Northside Substation (total actual cost for the balance of the
projects is $2,225,017).

ii.

Gentex shall: (A) provide and be liable for the connection to
the Northside Substation metering locations from a plant’s wall;
(B) declare easements, as needed, for access to the new Gentex
North Riley load centers on Gentex’s property. The Northside
substation metering locations are to be located along the
BPW/Gentex property line adjacent to the Northside substation
site, as depicted on the attached and incorporated Schedule 4.c.

iv.

Subject to the capped amounts set forth in this Section 1, Gentex's
contribution-in-aid funding obligations shall be calculated based on
a 45% pro-rata share of actual construction costs incurred by the
BPW and shall be payable within forty-five (45) days of BPW's
delivery to Gentex of its invoices, with documentation of all such
costs for such work.

Miscellaneous.
a.
This Addendum No. 2 shall be binding upon the Parties and upon their
successors and assigns.
November 3, 2026

-2-

b.

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this
Addendum No. 2 and the GNRC Development Agreement and Addendum
No. 1 to the GNRC Development Agreement, the terms of this Addendum
No. 2 shall govern and control.

c.

This is an integrated document. It contains the full understanding of the
Parties and supersedes all other understandings, agreements or conditions,
written or oral, regarding the subject matter of this Addendum No. 2.

d.

This Addendum No. 2 has been executed in the State of Michigan and shall
be governed by Michigan law, except as to matters pertaining to choice of
law.

e.

The waiver by any party of a breach or violation of any provision of this
Addendum No. 2 shall not be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the
same or any other provision of this Addendum No. 2.

f.

If any section or provision of this Addendum No. 2 is unenforceable for any
reason, that unenforceability shall not impair the remainder of this
Addendum No. 2, which shall remain in full force and effect.

g.

It is contemplated that this Addendum No. 2 will be executed in multiple
counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be one document.

h.

The captions in this Addendum No. 2 are for convenience only and shall
not be considered as part of this Addendum No. 2 or in any way amplify or
modify its terms and provisions.

i.

This Addendum No. 2 shall be enforceable only by the Parties and their
successors in interest by virtue of an assignment which is not prohibited
under the terms of this Addendum No. 2; no other person shall have the
right to enforce this Addendum No. 2.

j.

No Party shall be liable or deemed to be in default for any delay or
failure of performance under this Addendum No. 2 or other interruption
of service resulting directly from fires, explosions, earthquakes, floods,
vandalism, strikes or other work interruptions or any similar cause
beyond the reasonable control of the Party.

k.

No amendment, modification or waiver shall be effective unless in
writing and signed by all Parties.

November 3, 2026

-3-

I.

All rights and remedies set forth in this Addendum No. 2 are cumulative
and are in addition to any other legal or equitable rights and remedies.

m.

All exhibits and Schedules attached to this Addendum No. 2 are
incorporated by reference as though fully stated in this Addendum No. 2.

(See the following pages for signatures.)

November 3, 2026

-4-

Signature Page to Addendum No. 2
to the Development Agreement
GENTEX CORPORATION
By:
Its:
Dated:

, 2026

November 3, 2026

-5-

Signature Page to Addendum No. 2
to the Development Agreement
ZEELAND BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS

By:

Robert W. Mulder
Its: General Manager

By:
Kristen R. DeVerney
Its: City Clerk
Dated:

, 2026

November 3, 2026

-6-

SCHEDULE 1.C TO ADDENDUM NO. 2

Electrical System Enhancements Required by Gentex
The GNRC Current Status

Item - Responsible Party
Northside 69/12.5kV Substation

Status / Action Plan
Completed / Un-Paid

Contributions by Responsible Party
Gentex contribution:
ZBPW contribution:

$2,225,017
$2,719,466

November 3, 2026

-7-

SCHEDULE 4.C TO ADDENDUM NO. 2
Northside Substation Metering Locations

November 3, 2026

8

21 South Elm Street • Zeeland, Michigan 49464 • (616) 772-6400 • FAX (616) 772-5352

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and City Council Members

FROM:

Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Main Avenue and Fairview Road Roundabout Discussion

DATE:

November 13, 2026

CC:

Work Study Agenda Items Agenda November 16, 2026

BACKGROUND
As part of the City's 2026 Strategic Action Plan, City Council identified the evaluation of a
roundabout at Main Avenue and Fairview Road as a priority. The intersection is already
experiencing operational challenges, with levels of service that are less than desirable during
certain periods of the day. These conditions are anticipated to become more challenging as
development continues in the City's east-side industrial corridor.
Over the past several months, staff has worked with engineering consultants to evaluate the
intersection, develop preliminary roundabout layouts, identify necessary right-of-way
acquisitions, and consider potential funding opportunities. Significant investment by JR
Automation and Mead Johnson will affect traffic movements throughout the corridor, including
construction-related traffic and, eventually, additional employee and operational traffic.
Construction of the roundabout has also been included in the brownfield funding plan
associated with the JR Automation development. This creates the potential for eventual
reimbursement of eligible costs through future brownfield tax increment revenues. However,
based on current projections, staff does not anticipate reimbursement for at least 12 years. The
City will therefore need to fund construction without relying on these revenues in the near
term.

FEEL THE ZEEL

The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the timing of construction, available funding
approaches, and staff's recommendation, and to seek Council's general direction before
significant additional planning and financial commitments are made.
PROJECT TIMING
Staff does not believe construction during summer 2027 is feasible. Additional design, right-ofway acquisition, utility coordination, and construction planning remain necessary, and project
funding has not been established. The earliest practical opportunity would likely be the 2028
construction season.
Several considerations favor moving ahead promptly. First, existing intersection operations
already support the need for improvements, and further delays may compound congestion.
Second, continued development at JR Automation is expected to increase employee and
commercial traffic at this location. Finally, the Mead Johnson investment will involve substantial
construction activity over the coming years. Staff anticipates the heaviest contractor traffic
during later phases of that project and would prefer to complete the roundabout before that
influx occurs. This would allow the improved intersection to accommodate the additional traffic
rather than undertaking construction during the busiest period.
Taking these factors together, staff recommends targeting summer 2028 for construction. This
would provide time to complete engineering, property acquisition, funding arrangements, and
coordination with surrounding development activity.
PROJECT COST AND FUNDING OPTIONS
Based upon preliminary construction estimates, the roundabout is anticipated to cost
approximately $4 million. This estimate will need to be refined as engineering and design
progress. Several funding approaches are available, each with implications for the City's other
capital priorities.
Option 1 - Existing Street Reconstruction Funding
The City currently dedicates approximately $1.5 million to $2 million annually to street
reconstruction. Approximately two years of this funding could be directed toward the
roundabout, allowing construction without additional borrowing or a new recurring obligation.

FEEL THE ZEEL
2

The disadvantage would be the delay of other planned reconstructions, particularly
Winterhalder, Goodrich, and the Valley area (Westenbroek, South Jefferson, and Hillview). Using
two years of street resources for one intersection could postpone these improvements and
affect coordination with underground utility work.
Among the most pressing related needs is replacement of the City's remaining lead goosenecks
on water services. Coordination with street reconstruction would ordinarily be preferable;
however, discussions with the Board of Public Works indicate that, if these street projects are
delayed, BPW would anticipate addressing the goosenecks independently through its Galvanized
and Lead Service Line Replacement Initiative. This would allow the water service work to
continue, although separate mobilization and restoration may be necessary.
Option 2 - Bond Financing
Bonding would allow the project to proceed while preserving annual street reconstruction
resources and spreading its cost over multiple years. It would, however, introduce financing
costs and ongoing debt-service payments requiring an identified, dependable revenue source.
As discussed in the City's recently presented Financial Sustainability Update, staff has suggested
reserving bonding primarily for large-scale facility improvements. These substantial, long-lived
projects may be more appropriately financed over time, with costs shared by current and future
users. Preserving borrowing capacity would also provide flexibility as the City advances its
Facilities Improvement Plan.
Brownfield reimbursement would not be a practical source for near-term debt service, as it is
not expected for at least 12 years. Bond payments would instead need to be supported by other
existing City revenues. While viable, bonding this roundabout would be less consistent with the
capital funding approach recently presented to Council.
Option 3 - Accumulate General Fund Surpluses
The City could continue accumulating available General Fund surpluses until sufficient funding is
available. This would protect the regular street reconstruction program and avoid borrowing
costs. The ten-year financial model projects positive annual operating results under existing
service and funding assumptions. The limitation is timing: projected annual surpluses alone
would not accumulate approximately $4 million within the next year or two. Relying exclusively
on this approach would likely push construction beyond summer 2028. Surpluses are also not
guaranteed and retaining them for this project would limit funds available for other parks,
downtown, facilities, and capital needs.

FEEL THE ZEEL
3

Option 4 - Blended Funding Approach
Staff would prefer to combine approximately one year of street reconstruction funding with
available General Fund resources, including accumulated surpluses where financially feasible.
This approach could allow the roundabout to proceed in 2028 while limiting delays to
Winterhalder, Goodrich, and the Valley area reconstruction projects to approximately one year
instead of two or more. A blended approach would avoid new debt and preserve some capacity
for the City's other street and capital investments. Its principal drawback is the significant
General Fund commitment, which would reduce near-term flexibility for other priorities. The
appropriate amounts must be assessed during the budget process, considering reserves, existing
obligations, and actual available resources.
WHY DISCUSS THIS NOW?
Although construction is not anticipated until 2028, staff believes Council's direction is
important now. If summer 2028 remains the goal, detailed design, right-of-way work, and utility
coordination will need to advance in the near term. These activities require staff attention and
financial resources, and we would like to know Council's intended direction before committing
them. We are also approaching the budget development process. Whether the roundabout is
scheduled for 2028 or deferred will determine where available street reconstruction resources
and General Fund capacity should be focused. Early direction will help staff prioritize the design
work and establish a realistic capital improvement schedule, including any adjustments to
planned street projects.
This discussion is not intended to seek final approval of the project or a specific funding
commitment. Rather, it is an opportunity to establish a general direction so staff can allocate
near-term resources appropriately and return with more detailed design, scheduling, and
funding recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Given existing intersection operating conditions, anticipated JR Automation traffic, and the
desire to complete the improvement before the heaviest later-phase Mead Johnson
construction traffic, staff recommends targeting summer 2028 for construction of the Main
Avenue and Fairview Road roundabout.

FEEL THE ZEEL
4

For funding, staff prefers a blended approach consisting of approximately one year of street
reconstruction funds, supplemented by available General Fund surpluses or other unrestricted
resources, subject to the budget process. Ideally, this would limit the delay of Winterhalder,
Goodrich, and Valley area street projects. BPW's anticipated independent replacement of lead
goosenecks would allow that priority water infrastructure work to advance despite the delay to
street reconstruction.
This approach also aligns with the recently presented Financial Sustainability Update's
suggestion to preserve bonding capacity for major facility projects. Any future brownfield
reimbursement should be regarded as a longer-term recovery of eligible City costs, not as
construction funding available in 2028.
No formal authorization to construct the roundabout or commit a funding source is being
requested at this time. Staff seeks City Council's feedback on the proposed summer 2028
construction window and preferred funding approach. That guidance will help determine where
to focus engineering, property acquisition, and budgeting efforts in the coming months. We
look forward to the discussion on Monday evening.

________________________
Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

FEEL THE ZEEL
5

21 South Elm Street • Zeeland, Michigan 49464 • (616) 772-6400 • FAX (616) 772-5352

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:

Mayor Van Dorp and City Council Members

FROM:

Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

84th Street Reconstruction Contract Award

DATE:

November 13, 2026

CC:

Work Study and Action Agenda Items Agenda November 16, 2026

As City Council is aware, we have been working toward the reconstruction of 84th Avenue
between Riley Street and Washington Avenue. The project includes roadway reconstruction,
paving, drainage improvements, and the construction of a new bike path along the corridor. We
have divided the project into phases, with the first phase extending from Riley Street south to
the Consumers Energy right-of-way. Our intention remains to reconstruct the remaining portion
of 84th Avenue from the Consumers Energy right-of-way south to Washington Avenue.
However, this portion of the project is dependent upon our ongoing efforts to reopen the
railroad crossing with CSX. While we continue to work through that process, we do not currently
have a definitive timeline for when we will be able to proceed with the remaining
improvements.
We accepted bids for the first phase of the project on November 12 and are pleased to report
that we received four bids, with the low bidder being DeSal Excavating, Inc., in the amount of
$810,008.05. The engineer's estimate for the project was $1,265,000. Moore & Bruggink has
reviewed the bids and recommends awarding the project to DeSal Excavating based on their
review of the contractor's qualifications and previous project experience.
From a budgetary perspective, City Council previously set aside $1.2 million for this project.
Based on the bids received, Moore & Bruggink anticipates a total project cost of approximately
$1.1 million, which includes the construction contract, design engineering, construction
inspection, permitting, and project contingencies. This places the anticipated total project cost
approximately $100,000 below the amount previously budgeted. We are pleased with the bids

FEEL THE ZEEL

received and believe that we are in a good position to complete this phase of the project well
within our established budget.
From a scheduling perspective, we anticipate beginning construction this winter, with
substantial completion expected in early May 2027. This schedule is particularly important as we
work toward having the roadway improvements completed in advance of the opening of JR
Automation's new corporate offices. While the remaining portion of 84th Avenue will need to
be addressed at a later date, proceeding with this phase will provide significant improvements
to the corridor and support the continued development of the surrounding area.
Recommendation
Award the reconstruction of 84th Avenue, from Riley Street south to the Consumers Energy
right-of-way, to DeSal Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $810,008.05 and establish a total
project budget of $1,100,000.

________________________
Kevin Plockmeyer, Interim City Manager

FEEL THE ZEEL
2

November 12, 2026
Re: Reconstruction of 84th Avenue
Project No. 250218.01

Mr. Kevin Plockmeyer
City of Zeeland
21 South Elm Street
Zeeland, Michigan 49464
Dear Mr. Plockmeyer:
Based on our recommendation to award a contract on the Reconstruction of 84th
Avenue project in the amount of $810,008.05, we hereby estimate the total project budget
as follows:
PROJECT COSTS
Low Bid (DeSal Excavating, Inc.)
Design Engineering
Wetland Permit
Construction Inspection and Engineering
Project Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,

Alan Pennington, P.E.
Project Engineer

2020 Monroe Avenue NW | Grand Rapids, MI 49505-6298
T [616] 363 9801 | F [616] 363 2480 | W mbce.com

$810,008.05
$65,000.00
$10,000.00
$110,000.00
$104,991.95
$1,100,000.00

November 12, 2026
Re: Reconstruction of 84th Avenue
Project No. 250218.01

Mr. Kevin Plockmeyer
City of Zeeland
21 South Elm Street
Zeeland, Michigan 49464
Dear Mr. Plockmeyer:
4 bids were received at 11 a.m., on Thursday, November 12, 2026, for the
Reconstruction of 84th Avenue project. All bids were reviewed and checked for
accuracy. A copy of the tabulation of bids is attached.
DeSal Excavating, Inc., submitted the low bid for the project in the amount of $810,008.05.
Other bids ranged from $925,839.75 to $1,228,588.50. The engineer’s estimate was
$1,265,000.00.
The low bidder has a satisfactory performance record on previous projects, and we
recommend that a contract be awarded to DeSal Excavating, Inc., in the amount of
$810,008.05.
Sincerely,

Alan Pennington, P.E.
Project Engineer
Attachment
cc:
DeSal Excavating, Inc.

2020 Monroe Avenue NW | Grand Rapids, MI 49505-6298
T [616] 363 9801 | F [616] 363 2480 | W mbce.com

MOORE & BRUGGINK, INC.
TABULATION OF BIDS
PROJECT: Reconstrcution of 84th Ave – Project No. 250218.01
OWNER: City of Zeeland, 21 South Elm Street, Zeeland, Michigan 49464
BIDS RECEIVED: 11 a.m., Thursday, November 12, 2026
ITEM
NO. PROPOSAL ITEM

UNIT

ESTIMATED
QUANTITY

ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
PRICE
AMOUNT

DeSal Excavating Inc.
PRICE
AMOUNT

Dan Hoe Excavating, Inc.
PRICE
AMOUNT

Site Work Solutions, Inc
PRICE
AMOUNT

C&D Hughes, Inc.
PRICE
AMOUNT

1

Mobilization, Max

LSUM

1

$115,578.00

$115,578.00

$20,000.00

$20,000.00

$17,000.00

$17,000.00

$100,000.00

$100,000.00

$80,000.00

2

Stump, Rem, 19 inch to 36 inch

Ea

2

$500.00

$1,000.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$250.00

$500.00

$385.00

$770.00

$750.00

$1,500.00

3

Culv, Rem, Less than 24 inch

Ea

2

$500.00

$1,000.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$250.00

$500.00

$400.00

$800.00

$850.00

$1,700.00

4

Culv, Rem, 24 inch to 48 inch

Ea

3

$1,500.00

$4,500.00

$700.00

$2,100.00

$500.00

$1,500.00

$1,300.00

$3,900.00

$1,250.00

$3,750.00

5

Curb and Gutter, Rem

Ft

115

$15.00

$1,725.00

$3.75

$431.25

$6.50

$747.50

$3.00

$345.00

$35.00

$4,025.00

6

Subgrade Undercutting, Type II

Cyd

2000

$40.00

$80,000.00

$14.60

$29,200.00

$20.00

$40,000.00

$30.50

$61,000.00

$40.00

$80,000.00

7

Roadway Grading

Sta

15

$4,000.00

$60,000.00

$1,000.00

$15,000.00

$7,000.00

$105,000.00

$2,700.00

$40,500.00

$10,500.00

$157,500.00

8

Erosion Control, Inlet Protection, Fabric Drop

Ea

8

$175.00

$1,400.00

$150.00

$1,200.00

$200.00

$1,600.00

$90.00

$720.00

$125.00

$1,000.00

9

Erosion Control, Inlet Protection, Sediment Trap

Ea

1

$250.00

$250.00

$150.00

$150.00

$300.00

$300.00

$1,600.00

$1,600.00

$155.00

$155.00

10

Erosion Control, Silt Fence

Ft

1200

$3.00

$3,600.00

$2.25

$2,700.00

$4.00

$4,800.00

$2.00

$2,400.00

$3.00

$3,600.00

11

Subbase, CIP

Cyd

2000

$25.00

$50,000.00

$31.10

$62,200.00

$19.00

$38,000.00

$18.35

$36,700.00

$35.00

$70,000.00

12

Aggregate Base, 8 inch, 21AA

Syd

5800

$25.00

$145,000.00

$12.73

$73,834.00

$25.00

$145,000.00

$20.70

$120,060.00

$18.00

$104,400.00

13

Biaxial Geogrid

Syd

5800

$4.00

$23,200.00

$2.83

$16,414.00

$4.00

$23,200.00

$2.35

$13,630.00

$8.50

$49,300.00

14

Culv End Sect, 12 inch

Ea

1

$1,200.00

$1,200.00

$950.00

$950.00

$900.00

$900.00

$900.00

$900.00

$1,000.00

$1,000.00

15

Culv End Sect, 18 inch

Ea

3

$1,400.00

$4,200.00

$1,250.00

$3,750.00

$1,200.00

$3,600.00

$1,200.00

$3,600.00

$1,650.00

$4,950.00

16

Culv, Cl E, 60 inch

Ft

40

$750.00

$30,000.00

$515.00

$20,600.00

$525.00

$21,000.00

$1,750.00

$70,000.00

$550.00

$22,000.00

17

Sewer, Cl E, 12 inch, Tr Det B

Ft

152

$125.00

$19,000.00

$60.00

$9,120.00

$65.00

$9,880.00

$61.75

$9,386.00

$105.00

$15,960.00

18

Sewer, Cl E, 18 inch, Tr Det B

Ft

168

$150.00

$25,200.00

$66.00

$11,088.00

$80.00

$13,440.00

$86.75

$14,574.00

$125.00

$21,000.00

19

Video Taping Sewer and Culv Pipe

Ft

856

$2.00

$1,712.00

$2.50

$2,140.00

$5.00

$4,280.00

$2.00

$1,712.00

$1.50

$1,284.00

20

Sewer, 18 inch, In Stone Trench

Ft

536

$200.00

$107,200.00

$79.80

$42,772.80

$80.00

$42,880.00

$92.00

$49,312.00

$155.00

$83,080.00

21
22

Maintain Storm Sewer Flow
Dr Structure Cover, Type B

LSUM
Ea

1
9

$20,000.00
$1,200.00

$20,000.00
$10,800.00

$4,375.00
$962.50

$4,375.00
$8,662.50

$500.00
$800.00

$500.00
$7,200.00

$35,000.00
$700.00

$35,000.00
$6,300.00

$15,000.00
$1,050.00

$15,000.00
$9,450.00

23

Dr Structure Cover, Type G

Ea

1

$1,200.00

$1,200.00

$585.00

$585.00

$600.00

$600.00

$600.00

$600.00

$750.00

$750.00

24

Dr Structure, 24 inch dia

Ea

1

$2,500.00

$2,500.00

$2,260.00

$2,260.00

$2,000.00

$2,000.00

$1,250.00

$1,250.00

$2,500.00

$2,500.00

25

Dr Structure, 48 inch dia

Ea

13

$3,500.00

$45,500.00

$3,685.00

$47,905.00

$2,850.00

$37,050.00

$3,000.00

$39,000.00

$4,500.00

$58,500.00

26

Dr Structure Cover, Double Grate

Ea

8

$1,500.00

$12,000.00

$1,151.40

$9,211.20

$1,150.00

$9,200.00

$1,150.00

$9,200.00

$3,000.00

$24,000.00

27

Dr Structure, 48 inch dia, With 2-Foot Weir

Ea

4

$4,500.00

$18,000.00

$3,365.00

$13,460.00

$3,250.00

$13,000.00

$3,300.00

$13,200.00

$7,500.00

$30,000.00

28

Underdrain, Subbase, 6 inch, Modified

Ft

2800

$13.00

$36,400.00

$7.45

$20,860.00

$12.00

$33,600.00

$11.00

$30,800.00

$8.00

$22,400.00

29

HMA Surface, Rem

Syd

240

$8.00

$1,920.00

$3.60

$864.00

$5.00

$1,200.00

$4.70

$1,128.00

$10.00

$2,400.00

30

Hand Patching

Ton

5

$250.00

$1,250.00

$30.60

$153.00

$210.00

$1,050.00

$215.00

$1,075.00

$134.65

$673.25

31

HMA, 3EL

Ton

680

$110.00

$74,800.00

$89.00

$60,520.00

$100.00

$68,000.00

$82.00

$55,760.00

$78.15

$53,142.00

32

HMA, 5EL

Ton

455

$120.00

$54,600.00

$103.10

$46,910.50

$100.00

$45,500.00

$95.00

$43,225.00

$89.60

$40,768.00

33

Reinforcement, Steel

Lb

4500

$3.00

$13,500.00

$5.00

$22,500.00

$1.10

$4,950.00

$2.00

$9,000.00

$2.90

$13,050.00

[proj #]

Page 1 of 2

$80,000.00

ITEM
NO. PROPOSAL ITEM

UNIT

ESTIMATED
QUANTITY

ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
PRICE
AMOUNT

DeSal Excavating Inc.
PRICE
AMOUNT

Dan Hoe Excavating, Inc.
PRICE
AMOUNT

Site Work Solutions, Inc
PRICE
AMOUNT

C&D Hughes, Inc.
PRICE
AMOUNT

34

Conc, Grade 3500

Cyd

70

$800.00

$56,000.00

$775.00

$54,250.00

$950.00

$66,500.00

$750.00

$52,500.00

$446.00

$31,220.00

35

Driveway, Nonreinf Conc, 6 inch

Syd

140

$65.00

$9,100.00

$59.40

$8,316.00

$47.00

$6,580.00

$48.00

$6,720.00

$64.00

$8,960.00

36

Driveway Opening, Conc, Det M

Ft

90

$35.00

$3,150.00

$30.00

$2,700.00

$18.25

$1,642.50

$19.00

$1,710.00

$31.75

$2,857.50

37

Curb and Gutter, Conc, Det F4, Modified

Ft

2800

$30.00

$84,000.00

$29.00

$81,200.00

$18.25

$51,100.00

$19.00

$53,200.00

$28.85

$80,780.00

38

Detectable Warning Surface

Ft

15

$80.00

$1,200.00

$50.00

$750.00

$35.00

$525.00

$36.00

$540.00

$75.00

$1,125.00

39

Curb Ramp Opening, Conc

Ft

15

$35.00

$525.00

$26.40

$396.00

$18.25

$273.75

$19.00

$285.00

$28.85

$432.75

40

Sidewalk, Conc, 4 inch

Sft

70

$8.00

$560.00

$4.40

$308.00

$5.00

$350.00

$5.50

$385.00

$9.25

$647.50

41

Curb Ramp, Conc, 6 inch

Sft

100

$10.00

$1,000.00

$6.60

$660.00

$6.00

$600.00

$6.50

$650.00

$18.25

$1,825.00

42

Shared use Path, HMA

Ton

250

$155.00

$38,750.00

$129.00

$32,250.00

$150.00

$37,500.00

$132.00

$33,000.00

$117.25

$29,312.50

43

Guardrail Approach Terminal, Type 2M

Ea

1

$3,500.00

$3,500.00

$3,630.00

$3,630.00

$3,300.00

$3,300.00

$3,500.00

$3,500.00

$3,300.00

$3,300.00

44

Guardrail Departing Terminal, Type B

Ea

1

$1,000.00

$1,000.00

$1,320.00

$1,320.00

$1,200.00

$1,200.00

$1,500.00

$1,500.00

$1,200.00

$1,200.00

45

Guardrail Post, Culv

Ea

4

$700.00

$2,800.00

$880.00

$3,520.00

$800.00

$3,200.00

$825.00

$3,300.00

$800.00

$3,200.00

46

Guardrail Reflector

Ea

10

$25.00

$250.00

$11.00

$110.00

$10.00

$100.00

$10.50

$105.00

$10.00

$100.00

47

Guardrail, Curved, Type B, 96 inch Post

Ft

40

$55.00

$2,200.00

$40.10

$1,604.00

$37.00

$1,480.00

$38.00

$1,520.00

$37.00

$1,480.00

48

Guardrail, Type B, 96 inch Post

Ft

285

$50.00

$14,250.00

$37.40

$10,659.00

$34.00

$9,690.00

$35.00

$9,975.00

$34.00

$9,690.00

49

Fence, Chain Link, 48 inch, Vinyl Coated, Modified

Ft

64

$55.00

$3,520.00

$58.20

$3,724.80

$60.00

$3,840.00

$54.00

$3,456.00

$85.00

$5,440.00

50

Post, Steel, 3 pound

Ft

42

$15.00

$630.00

$10.00

$420.00

$9.00

$378.00

$9.50

$399.00

$9.00

$378.00

51

Sign, Type IIIA

Sft

7

$25.00

$175.00

$21.00

$147.00

$19.00

$133.00

$20.00

$140.00

$19.00

$133.00

52

Sign, Type IIIB

Sft

16

$25.00

$400.00

$22.00

$352.00

$20.00

$320.00

$21.00

$336.00

$20.00

$320.00

53

Pavt Mrkg, Waterborne, 4 inch, Yellow

Ft

800

$0.50

$400.00

$1.00

$800.00

$1.50

$1,200.00

$2.10

$1,680.00

$0.50

$400.00

54

Pavt Mrkg, Waterborne, 24 inch, Stop Bar, White

Ft

15

$7.00

$105.00

$15.00

$225.00

$5.00

$75.00

$15.50

$232.50

$100.00

$1,500.00

55

Traffic Control

LSUM

1

$15,000.00

$15,000.00

$5,250.00

$5,250.00

$5,000.00

$5,000.00

$32,855.00

$32,855.00

$20,000.00

$20,000.00

56

Riprap, Plain

Syd

50

$150.00

$7,500.00

$100.00

$5,000.00

$150.00

$7,500.00

$115.00

$5,750.00

$150.00

$7,500.00

57

Mulch Blanket

Syd

150

$5.00

$750.00

$3.00

$450.00

$2.50

$375.00

$1.60

$240.00

$3.00

$450.00

58

Turf Establishment

Syd

5000

$10.00

$50,000.00

$7.61

$38,050.00

$5.00

$25,000.00

$6.60

$33,000.00

$7.50

$37,500.00

TOTAL ALL ITEMS

[proj #]

$1,265,000.00

$810,008.05

Page 2 of 2

$925,839.75

$1,024,425.50

$1,228,588.50