The Kent County Board of Commissioners voted 17-3 on Nov. 20 to approve the Village of Sparta's petition to annex Parcel 41051410013 (commonly described as 11250 Sparta Avenue Northwest), concluding a contentious public hearing that had drawn township officials, residents and the property owners.

The board considered written materials and public comment submitted at a required hearing. Laura Genovich, attorney for Sparta Township, urged commissioners to deny the petition and instead direct the parties to negotiate an Act 425 intergovernmental agreement, calling annexation "a winner takes all approach" that would permanently transfer jurisdiction and future tax revenue away from the township. Genovich told the board the township supports the property's development but prefers a cooperative, temporary revenue-sharing arrangement under state law.

Property owner Lauren Peterson and family representatives told the board they support annexation to honor the late owner's plan and to access village utilities needed for the proposed development. Dale Bergman and other township residents urged negotiation, saying Act 425 has worked for other nearby projects.

Commission debate focused on competing priorities: the property owners' stated intent, the village's master plan and the township's concerns about losing a modest (1-mill) ongoing revenue stream that funds local services such as libraries, cemeteries and parks. County staff told commissioners that Act 425 is an agreement between municipalities and that either pathway — a 425 agreement or direct annexation — is legally available depending on the parties' choices.

Commissioner Steck moved to postpone the decision to a date-certain (the board's second meeting in January) to give the village, township and property owners another chance to negotiate. That motion failed on roll call (6 yeas, 14 nays). Commissioner Womack then moved to approve the annexation; the board called the question and adopted Resolution 95 to approve the petition by a 17-3 roll-call vote.

Board chair and staff reminded parties that state law requires the county to file an order with the Michigan Secretary of State and notify the village and township clerks following approval. Commissioners who voted against the annexation said they were concerned about long-term fiscal impacts on the township and wished the jurisdictions had reached a negotiated settlement first; those voting in favor cited property owner intent, compatibility with the village master plan and the county's housing goals.

Resolution 94, an unrelated amendment to the 2025 apportionment report, was adopted earlier in the meeting by unanimous roll-call vote.

The board will publish the order and follow statutory filing steps; no additional board action on this petition is required unless the petitioners refile.