Holland council votes to put Headlee override question on November ballot to preserve local taxing authority

Holland City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to place a Headlee override question on the Nov. 4 ballot that would reset the city's charter millage cap from its reduced level back to 17.5 mills.

City Manager Keith Van Beek told council the move is a preemptive response to a gradual state-mandated rollback under the Headlee Amendment that would otherwise reduce the maximum rate the city may levy and could force future service cuts. "We really need to get relief from that rollback amount before the orange line crosses the teal bar graph," Van Beek said, explaining the staff recommendation to put the question before voters.

The vote was driven by financial forecasts city staff presented showing the city has levied a steady rate of 13.8692 mills for the last 14 years while the Headlee rollback slowly reduces the allowable ceiling. Van Beek and Finance Director Lynn McCammon told council that if the rollback reaches the current levy, the city would begin losing revenue year over year and would eventually face choices about cutting services or using one-time reserves.

Council members emphasized the vote is intended to preserve local control, not to raise taxes. Mayor Nathan Box said the ballot language is complicated, but stressed the intent: "This is not about raising taxes. This is about preventing the artificial lowering of the tax rate for the people of the City Of Holland." Several council members, including Councilmember Schulteis and Councilmember Grama, echoed that the city and past councils have kept rates steady and were acting to avoid an externally imposed reduction in capacity to fund services.

The motion to place the Headlee override question on the November ballot passed on a motion by Councilmember Soule, supported by Councilmember Rowan. Roll-call voting recorded unanimous support: Freeman (yes), Corbin (yes), Sowell (yes), Rowan (yes), Shea (yes), Scholteis (yes), Bird (yes), Vreeman (yes), Mayor Box (yes). The council instructed staff to prepare ballot language and voter information; city staff reiterated the city may only inform voters and cannot use public funds to advocate for a particular vote.

Councilmembers outlined which services would be most likely affected if the rollback reduces revenues: public safety (police and fire), parks and recreation, roads and other capital needs. Van Beek said the city has reserves (fund balance and budget stabilization) but cautioned those are intended for unforeseen emergencies, not to offset a structural revenue decline. He said staff would begin public information and planning so voters could make an informed decision.

The council’s action places a single question on the ballot asking voters to restore the charter cap to 17.5 mills, a procedural step that would allow — but not require — future councils to levy up to that amount. The city will publish explanatory materials about the effect of a yes or no vote in coming weeks.