Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crockery Lake Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ottawa County authorizes court review of contested Crockery Lake agreement after legal opinion
Summary
After receiving a litigation attorney's opinion that the December 2024 Crockery Lake agreement is legally unenforceable, the board voted to authorize a court declaratory action to determine whether the county has authority to enter the contract; commissioners debated indemnity, 25% statutory limit and potential negotiation with Chester Township.
The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 25 to ask a court to rule on the validity of the Crockery Lake intergovernmental agreement that had been approved in December 2024. County litigation counsel Plunkett Cooney provided a written opinion concluding the agreement "is invalid as a matter of law and not enforceable," a point repeated in the meeting by board leadership.
Chair (reading staff/legal summary) told the board: "His legal opinion states very clearly that the agreement, the Crocker Lake agreement, is invalid as a matter of law and not enforceable." Commissioners then debated whether to seek a judicial declaration or first negotiate with Chester Township to alter the contract's problematic provisions, notably a clause requiring county payment of 100% of the estimated $563,000 restoration cost and an indemnification arrangement that several commissioners said left the county exposed.
Some commissioners said the remedy should be a court ruling because the central question is whether the county has statutory authority to assume the obligations at all; others preferred additional discussions with Chester Township or a second legal opinion. One commissioner noted the statute cited in the meeting, MCL 324.30911 (described in the packet), authorizes counties to provide up to 25% of a lake improvement project cost and argued that the contract as written exceeds that limit.
After extended debate, the board voted to proceed with a court filing seeking a declaratory ruling on the agreement's legality. The vote was recorded by roll call. The motion authorizes staff and counsel to pursue a court pathway (declaratory action or summary disposition) to resolve whether the county could or could not legally enter the agreement.
