📣 Coopersville City Council Meeting – March 10, 2025 📣

Join us at the upcoming City Council meeting. Here’s a quick look at what’s on the agenda:

📋 Scheduled Guests & Public Hearings

• Veronica LaBar from the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS) will present updates on the City’s retirement plan and discuss options for managing long-term liabilities.

• Nate VerHeul from Prein & Newhof will provide updates on the Southeast Regional Force Main (SERFM) Project and recommend upgrades to the Main Lift Station.

📌 Key Discussion & Action Items

• Municipal Employees’ Retirement Plan: A follow-up discussion on the City’s retirement plan, including options to manage costs and ensure sustainability.

• Main Lift Station Upgrades: Council will consider approving additional upgrades to enhance reliability and replace aging equipment—taking advantage of grant funding available through the SERFM project.

• City Communication & Social Media Policies: Discussion and potential approval of a formal Social Media Policy to improve transparency and public engagement.

• Local Bridge Program Support: A proposed resolution to support funding applications for the replacement of the Main Street Bridge, similar to the Grove Street Bridge project.

• Election Inspectors’ Pay Increase: A proposal to increase pay for Election Inspectors, Chairpersons, and Co-Chairs to retain experienced staff and ensure smooth elections.

• Support for Ottawa County’s Broadband Expansion: Council will consider a letter of support for Ottawa County’s BEAD Grant application to expand high-speed internet access throughout the region.

📅 Meeting Details

🗓 Date: March 10, 2025

⏰ Time: 7:00 PM

📍 Location: Coopersville City Hall

Your participation and input are essential! We encourage all residents to attend and stay informed about the decisions shaping our city’s future.

Have questions or can’t make it in person? Feel free to reach out, and I’ll do my best to get your questions answered.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Citizen Comment: What does "managing long term liabilities" mean? 

My Response: Good question. So, "Why Are We Having This Discussion?"

The current (baseline) retirement plan for City employees is a Defined Benefit (DB) plan with a 2% benefit multiplier, 5-year Final Average Compensation (FAC), and a 6-year vesting period.

It is only 71% funded, meaning the City faces a shortfall in covering all future pension obligations if no changes are made.

The City’s cost for this plan (known as the employer contribution) is roughly 8% of employee wages for current participants.

The goal is to reduce long-term liabilities and ensure that the City remains financially stable, while still providing fair retirement benefits to employees.

Citizen:  What’s the current Pension Liabilities of the City ? Is the fund taking into account hourly and salary differences? (This is paraphrased but basically, the concern is more about the underfunding of the plan and the resulting long-term liabilities—particularly when high-paid employees draw substantially higher benefits.)

My Response: 

Right now it is 71% funded. We are looking at different scenarios on Monday that can help get the city to 100%.

We are about 67% funded which has improved from 2023 that was 63% So we are needing to come up with a plan to get about $5.5 million into the retirement plan.

Citizen: I see that there will be discussions about a pay increase for election workers, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I have also heard that the city staff is looking for another raise. Is this true?

My Response: 

I’m not aware of any proposals for raises for city staff. The current discussions are focused on addressing the funding challenges of our retirement system to ensure its long-term sustainability.

Citizen: Is part of the discussion to reduce the promised amount the city will pay in for current or retired employees? I would hope the city keeps its past obligations and not try to deliver less than what was promised.

My Response: 

Thank you for your question. I am still going though the info. But as far as I know, I want to assure you that the discussions are not about reducing the benefits already promised to current or retired employees. Our obligation to those individuals remains intact. The proposed changes are aimed primarily at new hires in order to help manage long-term liabilities and improve the plan's sustainability for the future.

In other words, we're not trying to deliver less than what was originally promised to our current workforce; rather, we're exploring options—such as adjusting the benefit multiplier or changing vesting periods—for new employees to balance cost control with competitive benefits. There are several scenarios on the table that aim to maintain fairness and fiscal responsibility while keeping past obligations secure.

Your concerns are completely valid, and we remain committed to honoring our existing promises while also finding a sustainable path forward for our entire pension system.

My Response to similar question:

You’re absolutely right that “pension liabilities” are an accounting term representing the promises our City has made to its past, present, and future employees.

The discussion around pension reform isn’t about trying to retroactively change what was promised to current or retired employees. Rather, it’s about finding a sustainable path forward for new hires so that, over the long term, the City can continue to honor those commitments without jeopardizing its overall financial health. The challenge we face—like many municipalities—is that while property tax revenues might grow, that increase doesn’t always keep pace with the rising cost of providing benefits over time.

The goal is to balance our contractual obligations with long-term fiscal sustainability. This involves exploring different options for new hires while ensuring that the solid benefits for our current workforce remain intact. This perspective is an important reminder that any changes must respect the promises already made.

Citizen: I have repeatedly requested a clear breakdown of the exact cash value of the more than 15 Industrial Facilities Tax (IFT) abatements that the City Council approves year after year. I also want to understand how our city's finances would be affected if we stopped approving them. We continue to grant these IFTs based on promises of increased employment and higher revenue for the city, yet we find ourselves discussing potential cuts, sacrifices, or even reducing benefits for our own employees. It is incredibly frustrating to see our community struggle while we continue to offer accommodations to businesses that may not truly need them.

My Response:

This is a really complex issue, and I’ve been trying to fully understand it. To give others some background: from a broad perspective, an IFT (Industrial Facilities Tax exemption) is essentially an investment the City makes in a company, as Duane said. The goal is to encourage increased employment and, ultimately, increased tax revenue once the IFT expires.

How It Works

Each IFT lasts for a limited number of years. During that time, the company pays taxes on the property’s pre-improvement value (plus inflation), so the City does not collect full taxes on any newly added value. However, the City still receives the original tax revenue, so it doesn’t lose all income—just the incremental taxes on the property improvements. Once the IFT expires, the property’s added value comes onto the tax rolls, leading to a significant increase in tax revenue.

IFTs in Coopersville

Looking specifically at our community, I have data (as of November 2024) showing 25 current IFTs, 6 that have already expired, 3 expiring this December, and 2 that expired in December 2024. While some IFTs are for Continental and Fairlife, 12 other businesses have also used the process to expand. Altogether, these expansions have created several hundred jobs since 2009 and boosted the local tax base by at least $20 million in property value so far, with an additional $16 million expected over the next 5 years—and even more in the next 10 years.

Would These Businesses Have Expanded Anyway?

That’s the key question. We can’t say for sure how many of these projects would’ve happened without an IFT, or whether they would have been smaller in scope. Some companies might have chosen a different location where incentives were available. In many cases, these businesses have been longstanding community supporters—especially when it comes to youth programs at Coopersville schools.

Bottom Line

I don’t have an exact dollar figure for how much “revenue” we might have missed or gained. The data sheet does not have all the info, and with many of these project currently in progress the exact tax value has not been determined. Realistically, if the improvements hadn’t happened here, that money might never have been part of our tax base in the first place. Having these companies expand locally also keeps them engaged in community support. Would they be able to invest so heavily in Coopersville without the IFTs? Maybe not.

In any case, understanding when these IFTs expire and how they eventually boost our tax revenue is crucial. It’s also important to keep asking questions about whether the trade-off makes sense in each case. As it stand with the numbers I do have, it looks like the city will gain at least $70 million in taxable property value once all these IFTs expire.

Citizen: I’m sure the “thoughtful path forward” you mentioned will include a 401a or 401k plan with a likely minimal employer match. Unfortunately, that type of retirement plan does little to prevent good employees from seeking opportunities elsewhere, especially when the City fails to offer a decent healthcare package and cost-of-living raises. Most employees are willing to make sacrifices to stay in a position with lower pay if they can count on meaningful long-term benefits, such as a reliable retirement plan. Without a strong incentive to stay, employees will inevitably leave, taking their time, experience, and knowledge to other employers if they do not see a commitment to their long-term growth. Additionally, the 401 vs. pension approach is not effective, and it seems likely that those in charge will promote the “new option” without requiring themselves to give up their own defined contribution programs.

My Response:

I really do appreciate you sharing these concerns. You’re right that retaining good employees long-term often depends on having a retirement plan and benefits package that feel truly worthwhile. It’s a big reason why any changes considered to the current pension plan need to be carefully thought out. We’re looking at several scenarios—some involve a modified defined benefit (DB) plan for new hires, and another is a defined contribution (DC) approach—but it’s not just about pushing people into a 401(k) with minimal matching.

We want to make sure we offer something competitive enough to attract new employees and keep the people we already have. At the same time, the City needs a plan that won’t jeopardize our financial health down the road. You raise a fair point: if the new retirement plan doesn’t feel like a real incentive, employees might decide to leave for better pay or benefits elsewhere. That’s exactly why we’re being so deliberate here.

As for current employees, we’re not talking about forcing them into a new retirement structure. The scenarios focus on new hires, which is common when municipalities adjust their plans. Still, we understand the perception that decision-makers might “keep their own plan” if it’s more favorable. That’s why transparency is so important. Any changes we propose or adopt will be shared publicly, and we absolutely need to weigh the impact on all staff—present and future.

Again, thanks for voicing your concerns. Constructive feedback like this helps us find a balance between honoring employee commitments, remaining competitive, and ensuring the City’s financial sustainability. We truly want a plan that people feel good about—both personally and for the future of Coopersville.

Before I head off to bed, I just wanted to remind everyone that there will be a guest speaker at Monday’s meeting to discuss the City’s retirement plan options. This is a great opportunity to hear more about the potential paths forward and ask any questions you might have.