Ottawa County authorizes court review of Crockery Lake maintenance agreement after attorneys flag legal risk

The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 25 to authorize legal action asking a court to rule on the validity of the Crockery Lake care-and-maintenance agreement, citing a written opinion from the county’s litigation counsel that the agreement may be invalid as a matter of law.

Why it matters: The contract, finalized in December 2024, would have transferred funding and administrative responsibilities for a lake improvement project to Chester Township. Litigation counsel from Plunkett Cooney concluded the agreement likely exceeds the county’s statutory authority and creates unusual one-way financial obligations and indemnities in favor of the township.

What the board authorized: Commissioners approved a motion to file a court action (declaratory judgment or equivalent) asking a judge to decide whether the county had authority to enter the agreement and whether the contract is enforceable. Commissioners and staff said the vote seeks a legal determination, not a bid to “sue” Chester Township; several commissioners said a court ruling will clarify whether the county can lawfully enter similar agreements in the future.

Board debate: County staff and commissioners described specific provisions they said raised legal and financial concerns: the agreement’s funding level (the contract had been written for the county to provide up to 100% of an estimated $563,000 project), an indemnification clause requiring the county to indemnify Chester Township, payment of the township’s attorney fees, and lack of specified cleanup standards or contractor performance guarantees. Commissioners noted the county attorney’s written opinion that MCL 324.30911 (as cited in the packet) caps county participation in lake improvement projects and that the contract as written appears inconsistent with that statutory framework.

Vote and next steps: The motion to seek a court ruling passed on roll call. Commissioners said the intent is to obtain judicial clarity on county authority and contract enforceability; if a court determines the agreement is valid the board would be bound by its terms, they said. Several commissioners said they remain open to negotiating with Chester Township after the legal question is resolved.

Ending: The board did not rescind the signed agreement at the meeting. The legal action is intended to determine whether the county had contractual authority and to limit potential exposure to the county’s taxpayers.