Adobe Acrobat File:MAP.pdf
This document is a text-only version of the original Adobe Acrobat file. Graphics and formatting may be lost in the conversion from pdf to html.
View the Adobe Acrobat version of this file.
Muskegon County
Comprehensive Plan
2004
Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ i
Chapter 1: Muskegon Area-Wide Plan .............................................................................................. 1-1
Chapter 2: Gaining a Feel for the Community................................................................................... 2-1
Chapter 3: Trends and Analysis......................................................................................................... 3-1
Chapter 4: Alternative Development Scenarios................................................................................. 4-1
Chapter 5: Smart Growth: the Preferred Scenario ............................................................................. 5-1
Chapter 6: Implementing the Visions ................................................................................................ 6-1
Chapter 7: Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 7-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Legal Framework
Appendix B: Key Person Interview Summary Report
Appendix C: SWOT Analysis Results
Appendix D: Survey Executive Summary
Appendix E: Scenario Maps with Service Areas
Appendix F: References
Muskegon Community College
Acknowledgements Muskegon Conservation District
Map Steering Committee Members Muskegon Convention & Visitors Bureau
Blue Lake Township Muskegon County Cooperating Churches
Cedar Creek Township Muskegon County Environmental
City of Montague Coordinating Council
City of Muskegon Muskegon County Road Commission
City of Muskegon Heights Muskegon Township
City of North Muskegon Ravenna Township
City of Norton Shores Sullivan Township
City of Roosevelt Park Timberland RC&D
City of Whitehall United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Community Foundation for Muskegon
County Village of Fruitport
Consumers Energy Village of Ravenna
County of Muskegon West Michigan Lakeshore Association of
Realtors
Dalton Township
West Michigan Shoreline Regional
DTE Energy Development Commission
Egelston Township Whitehall Township
Fruitland Township White River Township
Fruitport Township
Grand Valley State University's Annis
Water Resources Institute
Holton Township
Laketon Township
Michigan Coastal Management Program,
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Michigan Department of Transportation
Moorland Township
Muskegon Area Chamber of Commerce
Muskegon Area First
Muskegon Area Intermediate School District
i
Chapter 1:
Muskegon Area-Wide Plan
1-1
What is the updates of their existing comprehensive
MAP? plans. During that conversation, it was
The Muskegon suggested to include more communities and
Area-wide Plan develop a regional plan. As the discussion
(MAP) is a continued, it was quickly decided to invite
comprehensive county-wide process every unit of government in the County of
integrating land use and other regional Muskegon to participate in the process.
concerns. The process is a true grassroots
effort to develop a county-wide vision for The three township supervisors then
Muskegon County. The process was approached the West Michigan Shoreline
initiated and is being lead by local units of Regional Development Commission
government and community leaders. As a (WMSRDC) for assistance in coordinating
result, each city, township, village, and the the effort. The WMSRDC is a regional
county all have an equal voice in the planning agency that promotes and fosters
development of the county-wide vision. regional development in West Michigan
through cooperation amongst local
The mission of the Muskegon Area-wide governments. The Regional Commission,
Plan is to involve citizens in creating a under the direction of the three supervisors,
shared vision for the future of Muskegon called a multi-jurisdictional planning
County. meeting with the 27 units of government
plus the County of Muskegon to discuss the
The MAP establishes visions and goals for development of a county-wide plan in early
the county, based on analysis of existing 2000. The meeting was successful with
data sources, extensive mapping, and public overwhelming support for the idea. By the
participation during the process. An end of 2000, a 40-member steering
implementation plan completes the MAP committee was formed with each
process. jurisdiction, as well as many community
agencies and organizations, appointing a
It is important to note that neither the MAP member and alternate to serve on the
Steering Committee nor the County of committee. The MAP Steering Committee
Muskegon has the land use authority under members are community leaders
Michigan law to implement the shared representing agriculture, environmental
county-wide vision through zoning.
interests, business development, local
However, the local jurisdictions who have government, education, and public interest
been full participants in the planning process groups.
have that authority. Therefore, the
implementation of land use policies will Once the MAP Steering Committee was
ultimately be under the control of the formed, the Regional Commission was
townships, cities and villages in Muskegon designated to coordinate the project and act
County. Other policies included in the MAP as staff to the committee. After several
can be implemented through partnerships months of organizational meetings and
between a wide range of players within the fundraising efforts, the project officially
community. kicked off during the summer of 2002.
How the MAP Project Began Why is the MAP Project Important?
The MAP project began in 1999 when the The Muskegon area combines economic
supervisors of Dalton, Laketon, and opportunity with an exceptional quality of
Muskegon Townships were discussing the life and unique natural resources. For
1-2
generations, Muskegon County's inland Muskegon County's urban areas struggle to
lakes, miles of rivers, and spectacular Lake attract residents and retain jobs. Township
Michigan waterfront have attracted governments are challenged to finance
individuals from throughout the Midwest public improvements and to provide services
and beyond. Over the next 20 years, with limited resources. Sensitive
Muskegon County's population is expected environmental and agricultural lands are
to grow by 13.3 percent to nearly 195,064 increasingly encroached upon. Resolving
people. Although this does not seem this problem requires a comprehensive
startling, the amount of land that is predicted approach: i.e., the MAP project. Simply
to be developed during that same time expanding services such as roads and water
period is alarming. The rate of land and sewer lines is not feasible.
consumption in Muskegon County over the
next 20 years is nearly 20,000 acres of land. One obstacle to crafting effective solutions
This disproportional consumption of land in lies in the existing structure of our
Muskegon County is much greater in governments: most land use plans guiding
comparison to the counties surrounding future development are prepared and
Muskegon County. adopted by local units of government, while
most transportation and
infrastructure planning
is conducted by the
Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO),
which is the West
Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development
Commission, and the
County Wastewater
Authority. The region
needs to view new
development, land use,
Figure 1.1: Muskegon County Population and Land Use transportation, and infrastructure systems at
Projections the same level to ensure any public
investment decisions are smart decisions. In
Muskegon County shares boarders with the addition, such issues as the loss of open
fast-growing counties of Kent, Ottawa, and space and agricultural lands are directly
Newaygo. In addition, the past decade has affected by how and where Muskegon
been marked by growing public concern County grows.
over increasing traffic congestion, air
pollution, loss of farmland and green space, The major challenges before Muskegon
as well as infrastructure costs flowing from County are how to plan the best use of
the current urban development patterns in undeveloped and agricultural land, how to
Muskegon County. These development protect our natural environment, how to
patterns are dominated by low-density maximize urban redevelopment and infill
single-use residential, business, and opportunities, and how to coordinate these
commercial development, usually on prime efforts throughout Muskegon County.
agricultural lands, with the automobile being
the only viable means of transportation.
1-3
A History of Planning and Zoning in Michigan House of Representatives and
the State of Michigan Senate, created the bipartisan Michigan
During the mid 1900s, the Michigan state Land Use Leadership Council to study land
legislature passed numerous acts granting use trends and provide recommendations to
counties, cities, townships, and villages the preserve and protect Michigan's
ability to regulate land use within their environment and economy.
jurisdiction. These acts include the
following: Where possible, the Muskegon Area-wide
Plan (MAP) strives to remain consistent
MCL 125.201 et seq. County with the Michigan Land Use Leadership
Zoning Act Council's Final Report.
MCL 125.101 et seq. County
Planning Act Planning and Zoning in Muskegon
MCL 125.31 et seq. Municipal County
Planning Act Muskegon County was incorporated in 1859
MCL 125.271 et seq. Township with a total population of 3,947. At the
Zoning Act time, the county was divided into six
MCL 125.321 et seq. Township townships that included Muskegon, Norton,
Planning Act Ravenna, White River, Dalton, and Oceana.
Today, nearly 150 years later, Muskegon
Currently under the above planning and County consists of seven cities, four
zoning acts, Michigan townships, cities, and villages, and 16 townships totaling a
villages cannot practice exclusionary population of more than 172,000.
zoning. This means that each jurisdiction
has to allow for a number of different land All 27 local units of government in
use categories including residential, Muskegon County have an active Land
commercial, industrial, and open space. For Use/Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance in
example, a jurisdiction, by law, is required place as allowed by Michigan Law.
to allow for industrial land within its However, in recent years, local units of
borders, even if the residents do not wish to government are facing planning issues that
have that form of development in their cross jurisdictional boundaries including
community. This reality causes the biggest roads, water, sewer, air quality, school
concern for the 1,241 townships in districts, etc. In addition, Muskegon County
Michigan. In theory, based on current is the only county in western Michigan from
Michigan Law, townships have the potential the Traverse Bay area to the Indiana border
to develop into cities, and many are over- that does not have an active county-wide
zoned. The term over-zoned means that if a comprehensive development plan as allowed
jurisdiction were to completely develop by Michigan Law. As a result, local
based on its current zoning ordinance, there governments and community leaders are
would be more people and buildings than attempting to work together to address these
the existing infrastructure and land could challenges through the MAP project, which
handle. will shape and direct the future of Muskegon
County for the next 20 years.
In recent years, land use and planning has
come to the forefront in the state's
legislative arena. As a result, Governor
Jennifer Granholm, with support from the
1-4
Chapter 2:
Gaining a Feel for the Community
2-1
Gaining a Feel for the Community
During the first phase of the MAP project,
an extensive public participation program
was conducted in order to gain an
understanding of the community's
perception about the past, present, and future
of Muskegon County. A number of public
involvement techniques were undertaken as
a result. The techniques include the
following activities:
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
Analysis,
Stakeholder Interviews,
Community Survey, and
Community Forums.
The results of these public participation
techniques are outlined below and summary
reports are included in the Appendix. The
results of the public participation efforts
have had a tremendous effect on the
formulation of the MAP Visions and Goals.
SWOT Analysis
During the summer of 2002, the MAP
Steering Committee conducted a SWOT
Analysis exercise to assess the existing and
future conditions of Muskegon County. A
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT) Analysis is a highly
effective way to identify a community's
existing conditions/attitudes and possible
future direction, as well as, assist a
community to focus on the areas where it is
strong and where its greatest opportunities
lie. Following is a list of the top issues
identified by the Steering Committee for
each of the four SWOT Analysis categories.
A complete report of the SWOT Analysis
can be found in Appendix C.
2-2
2-3
What will become of the Muskegon
Stakeholder Interviews Mall property?
In August 2002, 19 persons who have a The Muskegon area needs an identity
vested interest in the future of the Muskegon that celebrates and encompasses all
area were interviewed by HNTB Michigan that Muskegon has to offer.
Inc. The list of persons interviewed was
generated and agreed upon by the MAP The quality of life in the Muskegon
Steering Committee and includes individuals area is outstanding and therefore
that have been highly involved in Muskegon must be protected and enhanced in
County from both the public and private order to be recognized as a great
sectors. The purpose of the Stakeholder place to visit, work, live, and play.
Interviews was to gain additional
information about the area's history along There is a necessity for a
with the existing conditions. The 19 collaborative approach to this
stakeholders interviewed, collectively have project the entire community and
830 years of experience in the county and all decision makers must take
local knowledge of the Muskegon area. ownership in order to make the
They were generous with their time and Muskegon Area-wide Plan a
eager to see the potential of the Muskegon successful document that will lead to
area be realized. Muskegon's future identity and
health.
The majority of the stakeholders interviewed
were aware that many planning studies have
taken place, not only in Muskegon County, Community Survey
but also at the regional level. The A community phone survey was conducted
stakeholders were eager to see the outcomes in November 2002. The survey was
of these studies and plans, as well as the prepared with assistance and final approval
MAP project. For this reason, from the MAP Steering Committee. EPIC-
implementation became a primary focus of MRA, a full service firm with expertise in
the MAP. The stakeholders also noted that public opinion research and analysis
there have been positive strides towards a conducted the survey. A total of 302 adult
collaborative atmosphere between the residents of Muskegon County participated
municipalities, but also noted that there is in the 20-minute phone survey.
still room for improvement. Of all the Respondents were selected utilizing an
issues identified during the interview interval method of randomly selected
process, the five that were heard most records of households with publicly listed
frequently are identified below, in no phone numbers. The sample was stratified
particular order. A complete report of the so that every area of the county was
Stakeholder Interviews can be found in represented in the sample, proportionate to
Appendix B. its population within the county.
Key Issues The results of the survey now serve as a
clearing house for the concerns, likes, and
What is the future of Downtown dislikes of the residents of Muskegon
Muskegon? County. This information is an invaluable
source of data to help plan for future growth
and development in the county. The
2-4
following are some of the main results from Community issues of highest personal
the community survey. concern:
When respondents were asked what they The out-migration of good paying jobs..79%
liked most about Muskegon County, 34
percent of respondents cited, "water" (the Water pollution ......................................78%
proximity of lakes, rivers, and activities
related to them) as their top choice. In a The quality of schools in the area ..........73%
related question, when asked what they
disliked most about Muskegon County, 21 Air pollution...........................................68%
percent of respondents stated that there was,
"nothing" they disliked about Muskegon, Future planning and development of the
and 16 percent were undecided or did not downtown and lakefront areas ...............68%
know what they disliked about the county.
The ability to expand and develop the
According to EPIC-MRA, it is indeed good existing manufacturing base...................68%
news for Muskegon County to have one
feature identified by more than one third of
all respondents as something they liked, Most important factors that would attract
with no particular items jumping out as future development to the county:
something they disliked about Muskegon
County. Many beautiful beaches..........................94%
Results of the survey are summarized in the A skilled labor force...............................94%
chart below. The Executive Summary and
Demographic Analysis of the Community Good retail opportunities........................92%
Survey can be found in Appendix C.
People willing to work together .............92%
Survey Results
Strong school system and opportunity
Why do you live in the community where for higher education ...............................92%
you reside?
To live in a place that is quiet ................ 88% Top policy goals identified by residents:
Safety from crime .................................. 79% Encourage the creation and expansion of
businesses and industries creating new
A strong sense of community ................ 77% jobs.........................................................96%
Less traffic congestion ........................... 76% Continue to provide more investments in
higher education and job training...........91%
The availability and quality of affordable
housing................................................... 73% Provide tax and financial incentives for the
reuse and redevelopment of the inner city
areas .......................................................81%
Strengthen Muskegon County's image as a
tourist attractions....................................81%
2-5
Once the exercise was completed, the
Community Forums (First Set) attendees were asked to respond to the
A total of seven community forums were exercise by stating what they liked and
held through the duration of the MAP disliked about how the map looked with the
process. The first set of three community future development in place. Below are the
forums was held in January 2003, with top reactions from the map exercise:
approximately 175 community members
attending. The forums were held in three Top Reactions
different locations throughout the county
including Ravenna Township, Muskegon
Township, and Whitehall Township. The There is too much sprawl.
purpose of the first set of forums was to gain
additional knowledge and viewpoints of We need to preserve open space and
Muskegon County residents and to farmland.
concentrate on establishing a vision for the Density should be increased.
future of Muskegon County. During the
forums, attendees learned about past trends We need to redevelopment the inner
in Muskegon County and then participated cities.
in a highly effective mapping exercise. The What is the impact on existing
map exercise was based on past trends and infrastructure?
growth rates in which future development What is the cost of new infrastructure?
trends were projected. Attendees were
informed that by the year 2020, an We need to develop around existing
additional 20,500 acres of land was infrastructure
projected to be developed in Muskegon
County, in three major land use categories: Upon the completion of the Strengths,
Land Use Categories Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
(SWOT) Analysis; Stakeholder Interviews;
Residential Land 18,000 acres Community Survey; and Community
Commercial Land 1,800 acres Forums, it was evident that the hundreds of
Industrial Land 700 acres participants who provided the valuable
information have extremely strong opinions
and ideas about the past, present, and future
of Muskegon County. Some of the main
Attendees, grouped into tables of between underlying themes that arose during this
six and eight people, were given a map of process are the need to capitalize on the
Muskegon County with currently developed area's assets, including Muskegon County's
land identified and color-coded into land use proximity to water and its high quality of
categories. Participants were then given life, protection and preservation of the
packages of Legos® in three different colors county's abundant natural resources, secure
representing the projected residential, economic viability, and the creation of
commercial, and industrial lands to be balance between development in urban and
developed. With each round peg of a Lego® rural areas.
representing 40 acres, the groups were asked
to place the Legos® on a map of Muskegon
County where they believed the
development should occur in the county.
2-6
county and community leaders have made
Defining the MAP Principles great strides to diversify the area's economy.
However, in order to foster economic
The following graphic was created based viability within Muskegon County, leaders
upon the compiled information from the should also provide better choices in
public participation process. It identifies the transportation, housing, and jobs for all
four MAP principles, the five visions areas, residents.
and key focus areas addressed in the
objectives. Social Equity
Muskegon County is blessed with ethnic and
The four guiding principles encircling the social diversity. In order to embrace and
outer ring of the graph serve as the achieve social equity within Muskegon
framework and foundation for the visions County, it is necessary to provide fair
and goals of the MAP. Every vision and growth outcomes and shared benefits for all
goal was written with the idea of striving for people.
each of the four guiding principles within
Muskegon County.
Public Involvement
GIIDING PRINCIPLES Public involvement is critical not only in
creating a vision for Muskegon County, but
Economic Viability also for making that vision a reality in the
Muskegon County has rode on an economic years to come. Therefore, greater citizen
roller coaster over the past few decades as participation must be encouraged in local
have many counties across the United government and community planning.
States. This is further described in Chapter
3, Trends and Analysis. In recent years,
2-7
GOALS:
Healthy Environment Develop integrated and coordinated land
Muskegon County's unique and abundant use planning in rural areas to revitalize
natural resources are one if its greatest small towns. Link natural resource
assets. Because of this, it is crucial to protection with residential development
protect and preserve the area's natural and maintain working landscapes
resources and provide livable, safe, and (agricultural, natural resource tourism,
healthy communities. forestry, etc.).
Develop policies to ensure land is
Creating a Vision and Identifying available to provide employment
Goals opportunities, variety of housing types,
open space and natural areas, and access
The five visions and attached goals were to goods and services based on future
created, approved and are supported by the projected needs.
MAP Steering Committee. They were Limit adverse impacts on
presented to and well received by the 150 environmentally sensitive lands by
attendees of the second set of community encouraging redevelopment and by
forums held in September 2003. increasing densities in cities, where
necessary and desired.
VISION 1: Land Use and Growth Identify strategies that will manage
growth and support reinvestment in
Encourage and promote land use and urban areas and promote rural viability.
growth patterns that sustain and improve Encourage compatible land use plans
quality of life in Muskegon County, while between adjacent jurisdictions by
maintaining a strong sense of place, updating land use plans, zoning
community, and responsibility. ordinances, and regulations.
VISION 2: Natural Resources, Open
Coordinating land-use planning poses Space, and the Environment
challenges for both urban and rural
communities alike. Small communities may Protect and preserve natural resources and
lack the resources and urban communities continually improve the quality of air, water,
may be overcome by development decisions and land resources found in Muskegon
and pressures by neighboring communities. County.
The goals are designed to strengthen local
land use planning by supporting
coordination across political jurisdictions. Recognition and wise use of natural
New strategies such as open space resources defines what many people value
preservation programs and in-fill about Muskegon County. Each goal seeks
redevelopment are promoted. to enhance development in local
jurisdictions and quality of life for all
residents. State, federal, and local programs
will leverage coordination to achieve the
goals. Best practices, such as conservation
zones, would incorporate preservation and
protection in new development. In addition,
the protection and enhancement of both the
2-8
quantity and quality of natural resources will centers lead to dispersed development and
be emphasized in the implementation community decline. To minimize sprawl
strategies of the MAP. and decline, urban communities will need to
identify economic assets (land, skilled labor,
etc.) to foster redevelopment and
investment. By marketing historic, cultural,
and natural resources attributes, rural areas
can develop local strategies to strengthen
economic opportunity.
GOALS:
Protect the valuable farm and
forestlands, wetlands, surface and
groundwater resources, wildlife habitat,
and opportunities for passive and active
recreation. GOALS:
Develop policies and regulations to
address the quantity and quality of water Encourage partnerships with
resources. government, local organizations, and
Link natural resource protection with businesses to help achieve local and
development to reduce the loss of regional economic development goals.
important natural resources and open Work collaboratively to encourage
spaces in urban and rural areas. economic diversity throughout the
Mitigate environmental and human region and reduce competition between
health impacts to important natural communities.
resources. Enhance and retain "human capital" in
Foster increased environmental the region, fostering a skilled, educated
sensitivity and voluntary stewardship labor force.
through public-private partnerships, Develop strategies for the
federal-state-local cooperation, and redevelopment of brownfields, adaptive
public education and outreach. reuse of existing structures, and in-fill
Protect the watersheds and shorelines of development in urban and rural areas.
Lake Michigan and the inland lakes of Retain and expand agricultural
Muskegon County. businesses to maintain synergy and a
diversified economy.
VISION 3: Economy and Jobs Promote natural resource based tourism
and the county's quality of life as an
economic development tool.
Promote economic development and
diversity that ensures access to jobs, goods, VISION 4: Infrastructure
and services throughout Muskegon County.
Develop a county-wide approach to
It is vital to create a healthy balance between improving and maintaining infrastructure,
development in urban and rural areas. transportation, public facilities, and
Abandoned main streets and employment community services.
2-9
The quality and availability of existing VISION 5: Quality of Life
infrastructure (water and sewer),
transportation, public facilities, and services Promote high quality of life by recognizing
affects quality of life and determines where Muskegon County for its diversity,
development occurs. As development environmental, educational, arts, cultural,
continues in rural areas, greater and and recreational assets.
expanded services are expected by residents.
New residents are often looking for a
lifestyle that offers the best of both city and Quality of life overlaps both individual and
country living. Strategies to promote wise community needs and is closely intertwined
investment, planning, and land use will be with the first four visions. It is important to
encouraged to be utilized by local promote a high quality of life by providing a
governments to control costs and minimize better understanding of the health,
impacts to the environment. education, cultural assets, and needs for all
citizens. Coordination between local
agencies, non-profits, service providers, and
local governments would be strengthened.
GOALS:
Work collaboratively to ensure the
availability of a full range of
infrastructure and services to meet the GOALS:
needs of all residents in Muskegon Promote coordination and enhancement
County. of arts, cultural, recreational, and
Prioritize water and wastewater facility historic resources in the county.
improvements consistent with the Develop a regional strategy to improve
distribution of the region's population, and maintain access to high quality
employment, and planning while educational services throughout the
emphasizing water conservation and county, including elementary,
reuse. secondary, and alternative schools.
Provide safe and efficient alternate Develop partnerships between
modes of transportation to reduce auto government and non-government
dependence and promote high air organizations to improving the health of
quality. the environment and individuals.
Maintain and improve the existing Improve access to healthcare services
transportation system to provide safe and develop strategies to maintain
and efficient mobility and access. Muskegon County as a regional
Provide infrastructure systems in both healthcare provider.
urban and rural communities utilizing
existing infrastructure capacity where it
exists before developing new
infrastructure.
2-10
Chapter 3:
Trends and Analysis
3-1
Location Organization for Muskegon County and
Muskegon northern Ottawa County, among other roles.
County is located
on the western History
side of Michigan, The earliest recorded history of the
along the Muskegon area reflects that it was inhabited
shoreline of Lake by the Ottawa and Pottawatomi tribes. The
Michigan, name "Muskegon" is derived from the
midway up the Ottawa Indian term "Masquigon" meaning
state's Lower "marshy river" or "swamp." The
Peninsula. The "Masquigon" river is identified on French
Figure 3.1: Location Map
county has 27 maps as early as the 17th century, suggesting
miles of Lake that French explorers had reached Western
Michigan waterfront, 20 inland lakes and Michigan by that time (Yakes).
more than 400 miles of rivers.
The first known Frenchmen in the area were
In 2000, Muskegon County was designated Father Jacques Marquette, who traveled
by the US Census Bureau as a Metropolitan through the area in 1675 on his way to St.
Statistical Area (MSA), the Muskegon- Ignace and a party of French soldiers under
Norton Shores MSA. The county had LaSalle's lieutenant, Henry de Tonty, who
previously been part of the Grand Rapids- passed through in 1679 (Yakes).
Muskegon-Holland MSA in the 1990
Census. The earliest known resident of the county
was a fur trader and trapper named Edward
Muskegon County is located 197 miles from Fitzgerald, who settled in the area in 1748.
Detroit, 153 miles from Flint, and 107 miles Settlement of the area began in 1837 with
from the state capitol in Lansing.
the organization of Muskegon County from
Additionally, it is 185 miles from Chicago, portions of Ottawa and Oceana Counties. At
276 miles (highway) from Milwaukee, and the time of its incorporation in 1859,
224 miles from Toledo. Muskegon County had six townships
(Muskegon, Norton, Ravenna, White River,
The county contains sixteen townships, four Dalton, and Oceana) (Yakes).
villages, and seven cities as defined by
Michigan law. The county seat is The lumbering era put Muskegon County on
Muskegon, which is also the largest city in the map, in economic terms. Ravenna was
the county. settled in 1844 when E.B. Bostwick built a
sawmill. The city and township were named
The county is part of the Western Michigan after Ravenna, Ohio, the hometown of the
Shoreline Regional Development surveyor who platted the land. Norton
Commission (WMSRDC). The agency Shores was settled by Colonel S. Norton in
incorporates a five county area, including: 1846. Casnovia was founded in 1850 by a
Lake, Mason, Muskegon, Newaygo, and tavern keeper named Lot Fulkerson.
Oceana counties. WMSRDC serves as an Montague was first settled in 1855 by Nat
Economic Development District for the Sargent. Whitehall was platted in 1859 by
region and as the Air Quality Planning Charles Mears and Giles B. Slocum. The
Agency and Metropolitan Planning town was originally named after Mears. In
1864 the Muskegon Log Booming Company
was formed to sort logs and raft them to the
3-2
mills. In 1868, Fruitport, originally The oil boom in Muskegon County was a
Crawville, was founded by Edward Craw. It distinct period during the city's industrial
was renamed a year later when the Pere era. The oil was found by accident in 1869
Marquette Railroad built a station in the when Gideon Truesdell was looking for salt.
town that was a fertile fruit growing area They had been drilling in various Muskegon
and a port. In 1872 North Muskegon was County locations for salt between 1869 and
recoded as Reedsville, named for the first 1886 but the salt they found was
settler, Archibald Reed. It was renamed in contaminated with petroleum. In 1922,
1881 when it was incorporated as a village. Stanley Daniloff found oil seepage in the
North Muskegon was later incorporated as a swampland near his home, within five years
city in 1891 (Multi-Mag Michigan). he had amassed enough funds to have the
site drilled and a "gusher" was located in
1890 marked the end of the lumber boom in Muskegon Township in 1927. The price of
Muskegon County. Successful area crude oil fell with the depression in 1929
industrialists formed the Muskegon and the oil boom ended (Parrish).
Improvement Company to stimulate the
economy as it lagged at the end of the During the world war period, Muskegon
lumber boom. The Muskegon Improvement became an "Arsenal of Democracy." In the
Company purchased 1,000 acres and sold post war housing boom, Roosevelt Park was
the lots in a lottery, using the proceeds to formed as a residential suburb in 1949 and
underwrite new businesses. The project was named after Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
successful enough that a train station was The 1950s and 60s brought rough economic
located in the area (Muskegon Heights) in times to Muskegon County. Many workers
1902 to serve the Chicago & West Michigan were laid off and several local companies
Railroad (Yakes). closed. In the 1960s and 70s, consolidation
and mergers with national corporations left
The lumberman John Torrent built his 31- few locally-owned businesses in the county.
room mansion in 1881-1892. He also served The local economy has been struggling to
the community as an alderman, a justice of diversify since that time (Yakes).
the peace, and as mayor for three terms. In
1972 the city purchased the home to save it Population
from demolition. Union Depot was opened Muskegon County was the 11th largest
in 1885 to serve the Chicago & West county in Michigan in 2000, with 170,200
Michigan; Muskegon, Grand Rapids, & residents. This population represented
Indiana; and the Toledo, Saginaw & approximately seven percent growth in
Muskegon railroads. It was designed by population over 1990. Population growth in
A.W. Rush & Son of Grand Rapids in the Muskegon County has not been constant
Richardsonian Romanesque style. The over the past century. The county grew
station was closed in 1971 until it was rapidly in the 1920s and 30s, and then again
donated to the county in 1992, restored, and in the 1950s and 60s. During the 1980s and
reopened as the visitor's center and museum 1990s, the county realized very little
(Historical Markers). Lakewood Club was population change.
formed as a resort association in 1912 by the
Mayo brothers. It was popular enough by The largest age groups in the county are 40
1914 that a seasonal post office was set up, to 44 years olds and those between five and
which became permanent in the 1940s 14 years old. The age groups in early
(Multi-Mag Michigan). adulthood are smaller than the mid-career
and youth groups. In terms of functional
3-3
population lived in rural areas. This
P e r c e nt Gr owt h by D e c a de 19 0 0 - 2 0 0 0
(Source: Census Bureau) distribution is fairly consistent with the state
average.
60% The Muskegon County population is
50% expected to grow 13.3 percent by 2020.
40% This represents approximately three percent
growth every five years. The county
30% population in 2020 is projected to be
195,064 (WMSRDC). The state population
20% is expected to realize increases of roughly
10% two percent every five years, growing to
10,545,737 residents by 2020.
0%
2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910
United States Michigan Muskegon County M usk e gon Count y P opul a t i on P y r a mi d
(Source: Census Bureau)
Figure 3.2: Percent Growth by Decade
90 year s and over
age groups, 27.5 percent of the county 85 to 89 year s
population is under age 18. A small 80 to 84 year s
percentage of the county is college-aged 75 to 79 year s
adults, only 8.7 percent. The younger 70 to 74 year s
working age (age 25 to 44) population 65 to 69 year s
makes up 29 percent of the population, but 60 to 64 year s
many of them are over age 35. The older 55 to 59 year s
workers (age 45 to 64) are another 21.9 50 to 54 year s
percent of the population, and 12.9 percent 45 to 49 year s
of the county is older adults, over age 65. 40 to 44 year s
35 to 39 year s
30 to 34 year s
Increases in the county population were due 25 to 29 year s
to natural increase (births over deaths). The 20 to 24 year s
net migration of individuals into or out of 15 to 19 year s
the county was negative, meaning that more 10 to 14 year s
people moved out of the county than into the 5 to 9 year s
county from 2001 to 2002. Muskegon Under 5 year s
County was ranked 11th in the state for births -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
and deaths in 2001/2002. The state faced a Per cent
similar situation where all growth was due Male Female
to natural increase and net migration was
negative. Figure 3.3: Population Pyramid
The population of Muskegon County was
primarily urban, inside urbanized areas in In 2000, 82 percent of the Muskegon County
2000, with nearly 70 percent of the population identified themselves as white,
population residing in urbanized areas. An 14 percent as black, and two percent as
additional five percent lived in urban multi-racial. The remaining residents
clusters. Twenty-six percent of the county identified themselves as American Indian or
3-4
Muskegon County Population Projections
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
MIDATA MI Info Center*
WMSRDC Straight-line (annual average)
Building permits Woods & Poole Economics
Figure 3.4: Population Projections City of Muskegon is black and 77.8 percent
some other race not specified by the Census. of the population in Muskegon Heights is
In the State of Michigan, 80 percent of black.
residents identified themselves as white, 14
percent as black, two percent as Asian, and Most Muskegon County residents are native
two percent as multi-racial. Michiganders, with 82 percent of the
population born in the state. An additional
The Hispanic population in Muskegon six percent were born in other Midwestern
County is 3.5 percent, approximately the states. Sixty percent of county residents
same percentage as the state average. lived in the same house in 1995 as in 2000;
Approximately 91 percent of the adult this is consistent with the state average.
population statewide speaks only English, Nearly 30 percent of residents moved to
while 95 percent of Muskegon County another house in the county between 1995
residents speak only English. More than and 2000 and 12 percent had lived in a
two percent of the adult population different county in 2000.
statewide and in the county speak Spanish,
more than three percent of children ages 5 to Movement within the county was toward
17 speak Spanish both statewide and in the decentralization of the population away
county. from the urban centers. Blue Lake
Township realized a population growth of
The black population in Muskegon County more than 60 percent from 1990 to 2000.
is heavily concentrated in the cities of Dalton, Egelston, and Ravenna townships
Muskegon and Muskegon Heights. More also experienced significant growth while
than thirty percent of the population in the Muskegon Heights lost 8.6 percent,
3-5
Whitehall City lost 4.7 percent, and the Marital Status of Muskegon County Residents 2000
City of Muskegon lost 0.4 percent of its (Source: Census)
population. 12%
25%
Households and Families 7%
There were 68,080 households in 5%
Muskegon County in 2000. More than
eighty percent were family households,
with spouses, children, or other relatives
living in the household. Nearly four Figure 3.5: Marital Status
percent of households were males living
alone, and 5.5 percent were females living 51%
alone. There was a slightly larger Never married Married, spouse present Married, spouse absent: Widowed Divorced
percentage of family households in
Muskegon County than in the state or Figure 3.4: Marital Status
nation.
One quarter of households were people Housing Units
living alone in the county in the 2000 There were 68,556 housing units in
Census. Approximately another quarter Muskegon County in 2000. More than 92
were married couple families with their own percent of the units were occupied, a higher
children under 18 living at home and nearly occupancy rate than either the state or the
thirty percent were married couples without nation. Most townships and municipalities
children under 18 living at home or with in the county also had high occupancy rates,
children who weren't their own.
White River Township was the notable
Approximately two percent of householders exception, with a 65.7 percent occupancy
were males with children of their own living rate. More than three quarters of Muskegon
at home. More than nine percent of County housing units were owner occupied
households were females with children of in 2000, considerably higher home
their own living at home, which was higher ownership than the state or the nation.
than the state and national averages of Exceptions to the high owner-occupancy
approximately seven percent. rates were in the City of Muskegon,
Muskegon Heights, Roosevelt Park, and
Similarly, one quarter of Muskegon County Whitehall. Each of these communities had
residents over age 15 had never married as at least a third of occupied housing units
of 2000. More than half of county residents being rented out. In Muskegon, 37.1 percent
over age 15 were currently married, of the vacant units were for rent, Muskegon
approximately seven percent were widowed, Heights had 32.1 percent of its vacant units
and nearly 12 percent were divorced. The for rent, and more than 70 percent of the
county divorced population was somewhat vacant units in Whitehall were for rent.
higher than the state and national averages. While Michigan has a higher vacancy for
seasonal, recreational, or occasional use rate
than the national average, that is not the case
for Muskegon County. More than half of
the vacant homes in Michigan during the
2000 Census were for seasonal use, while
3-6
only about 25 percent were vacant for that of Montague, Muskegon, Muskegon
purpose in Muskegon County. Heights, and Whitehall, at least one quarter
of the housing stock was built prior to 1939.
Nearly three-quarters of the housing units in
Muskegon County were in urban areas, Housing units that were vacant for rent had a
similar to the national and state average. median monthly rent of $373 asked in 2000.
This was considerably lower than the state
Like most homes in Michigan, nearly three- median of $444 or the national of $469.
quarters of Muskegon County homes were More than 300 of the vacant units in the
single unit structures. Only a small county at that time had asking rents of $350
percentage of the housing in the county is in to $400 per month.
multi-family units with greater than ten
units. Nearly eight percent of Muskegon Owner occupied housing units in the county
County housing units were mobile homes, had a median value of $84,400, while the
which is above the state average of 6.4 state and national values were $110,300 and
percent. In certain townships, mobile homes $111,800 respectively. Most owner-
are quite prevalent housing options. In occupied houses in Muskegon County had a
Cedar Creek, Egelston, Holton, and value between $40,000 and $150,000 in
Whitehall townships more than one quarter 2000. Homes that were vacant because they
of the housing stock was mobile homes in were for sale had a median asking price of
2000. $64,700 in the county, compared to $88,400
statewide and $89,600 nationally. The
Housing units in Muskegon County are a largest number of units available was in the
little older, on average than in the state or $70,000 to $80,000 range.
nation. The median age of the housing stock
in 2000 was 1962 for
the county, 1965 for Value of Ow ner Occupied Housing Units
the state, and 1971 (Source: Census Bureau)
nationally. In Blue
Lake Township, the 6000
median age was
1981, indicating the 5000
newest housing stock its 4000
in the county. Not 3000
surprisingly, the City ber of un
of Muskegon has the 2000
um
oldest housing stock, N 1000
with a median age of
1950. In Blue Lake 0 o o o o o o
Township, nearly 30 han 000 000 000 000 000
percent of the 000 t 000 t 000 t 000 t 000 t 000 t
less t $125; $175; $250; $400; $750;
housing stock in $15; $25; $35; $50; $70; $90;
2000 was built
between 1995 and Figure 3.6: Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units
March 2000. Egelston Township also has
quite a bit of newer housing stock, with 20 Housing affordability is related to household
percent being built after 1995. In areas like income. Household incomes are divided
Casnovia Township, and the municipalities into five general classifications based on US
3-7
Department of Housing and Urban 5.625% interest, 3% closing costs, a 1.25%
Development (HUD) standards: property tax rate, and 1% insurance the
following value homes are affordable in
Very low income (<30% of area median Muskegon County:
income)
Low income (30-50% of area median Affordable Home Values
income) Income Group Home Value
Low/moderate income (50-80% of area
median income) Very low income.......................$35,638
Moderate income (80-120% of area Low income.............................$58,313
median income)
Middle/high income (>120% of area Low/moderate income...............$93,951
median income) Moderate income....................$140,116
Using these classifications for Muskegon Middle/upper income............> $140,116
County, very low income households earn
less than $11,402 annually, low income Table 3.8: Affordable home values
households $11,402 to $19,004,
low/moderate income households $19,004 to With those facts in mind, only 3 percent of
$30,406, moderate income households the current rental housing stock is affordable
$30,406 to $45,610 and middle/upper to very low income households, 14 percent
income households earn more than $45,610. to low income, and 19 percent to
low/moderate income households. If home
These income levels translate into the ability ownership is considered on the basis of the
to rent or buy housing. In terms of monthly monthly ownership costs, only 2 percent is
payments, households in Muskegon County affordable to low income and 14 percent
can afford (based on 28% housing expense affordable to low/moderate income
to income ratio): households. Just on the basis of the home's
value, 14 percent of the housing stock is
affordable to low income households, and
Affordable Rents 31 percent is affordable to low/moderate
Income Group Monthly Payments income households.
Very low income...........................$266 Percent of Affordable Housing
Low income.................................$443 Rent Own Own (home
Low/moderate income...................$709 (monthly value basis)
Moderate income........................$1064 cost basis)
Very low
Middle/upper income..... More than $1064 income 3% <1% 4%
Low income 14% 2% 14%
Table 3.7: Affordable rents Low/moderate
For home ownership, other factors need to income 19% 14% 31%
be considered including the required Moderate
insurance, property taxes, interest rates, and income 19% 27% 49%
closing costs. Based on standard Middle/upper
assumptions of zero monthly debt payments, income 100% 100% 100%
Table 3.9: Percent of affordable housing
3-8
Household projections were made based on would mean that more than 77,000 housing
the population projections and the average units would be needed in Muskegon County
number of persons per household. The in 2020. This is an increase of 8,600 units
national, state, and local population per over 2000. Meeting the projected housing
household in 2000 was 2.5 persons per need will require the construction of
household. This figure was used to project approximately 430 housing units per year.
the number of households, which served as a
proxy for the needed number of housing Residential Building Permits
units. The number of residential building permits
issued in Muskegon County decreased in
The population in Muskegon County is 2002 compared to the level of activity in
expected to grow 13.3 percent by 2020. 2000 and 2001. Countywide 700 permits
Based on 2.5 people per household, that were issued in 2002, compared to more than
800 each in 2000 and 2001.
Muskegon County Household Projections In 2002, 26 new multi-family permits were
78,000 issued for a total of 312 units. These multi-
76,000
74,000 family units accounted for 31.4 percent of
72,000 the units in 2002. This was a significant
70,000
68,000 increase from the previous two years when
66,000 3.9 percent of permits were for multi-family
64,000 units in 2000 and 9.1 percent in 2001.
62,000
2000 Census 2005 2010 2015 2020 Most of the new single family residential
Figure 3.10: Household Projections permits are outside the central city of
Muskegon. In 2002, only 7.8 percent of the
Muskegon County School Districts Enrollment
(Source: Standard & Poors)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
ty s ic ol s ic
ht s s s
uni ol ubl ublic cho ig ublic ubl ol ol ol
m s istrict
s cho P
istrict n P ol cho cho cho
om ol S es P istrict s ty S s ge D
D rea P ol n He S S
rict D ol cho ol
t C ic A ic
cho hor ol n Ci ist ol S iew
S ubl S ue cho D cho akrid ubl uffer S cho
tpor P cho uskego
ag S cho S O -P l S
ona S uskego S
M al
Frui lton M ont uskego hs
M orth M rchard V et
Ho M N O venna P Re hiteh
Ra W
Figure 3.11: School District Enrollment
3-9
residential building permits issued in the an associate degree and four percent had
county were in the City of Muskegon. completed a bachelor degree.
However, 65.4 percent of the permits issued
for multi-family housing were issued in the Of adults (over age 25) in Muskegon
city. County, 83 percent had completed at least
high school (or its equivalent) and nearly 14
Education percent had completed a bachelor's degree
There are twelve public school districts in or higher. The county is comparable to the
Muskegon County. Muskegon City School state in terms of the percentage of residents
District is considered to be a mid-sized city with a high school diploma, but lags the
school district, while there are six districts state in residents who have completed at
considered to be urban fringe districts and least a bachelor's degree.
five that are rural districts inside the
metropolitan area. It is important to note that the population
over age 65 has a lower educational
Enrollment in the county public schools is attainment than the working age adults, and
31,586 students. Thirty-eight percent of the this reduces the overall educational
students in the county are economically attainment level for the county and the state.
disadvantaged. This is higher than the state More than 85 percent of adults between 25
average of 30.7 percent. More than fifteen and 64 have completed at least high school,
percent of the public school students in the compared to about 65 percent of residents
county are considered to be special over age 65. The same is true for bachelor's
education students. degrees, more than 13 percent of working
age adults in the county have obtained a
The student/teacher ratio in Muskegon bachelor's degree while less than ten percent
county schools ranges from fifteen in of those over age 65 have obtained them. In
Muskegon Heights Schools to nearly the over 65 population, women have
twenty-two students per teacher in the Mona significantly lower educational attainment
Shores Public School District. The than men due to the opportunities available
statewide average student/teacher ratio is to them as young adults and the culture of
17.6; five districts in the county have higher the time.
student/teacher ratios.
Statewide the average teacher salary is Muskegon County Educational Attainment
$54,035. Muskegon County teachers (Functional Age Groups)
make considerably less on average, (Source: Census)
approximately $48,154. Salaries in the 100
county range from an average of 90
$43,735 in Orchard View Schools to 80
$50,597 in Reeths-Puffer Schools; all 70
districts in the county have lower 60
averages than the state average. 50
rcentage 40
Pe
Educational Attainment 30
20
Muskegon County young adults are 10
pursuing higher education. In 2000, 34 0
percent of those county residents aged 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 64 years 65 years and over
18-24 had completed some college or High school graduate or higher Bachelor's degree or higher
Figure 3.12: Educational Attainment
3-10
However, in all age groups, Muskegon force are, not surprisingly, 16 to 19 year olds
County lags significantly behind the state in and those over age 60. Nearly 20 percent of
the percentage of the population that has residents aged 65 to 69 are participating in
obtained at least a bachelor's degree. On the labor force and more than six percent of
average, only 15 percent of Muskegon those over age 70 are participating in the
County working age residents have obtained labor force. This is comparable with state
at least a bachelor's degree. labor force participation of older adults and
somewhat lower than national participation
Labor Force rates.
The labor force is defined as those who are
employed or who are unemployed, but Generally, Muskegon County has a higher
actively looking for work. The labor force unemployment rate than either the State of
is based on where people live, so it is those Michigan or the United States. The local
individuals who live in the county and are unemployment rate does tend to trend with
employed, regardless of whether they work the national and state economies, however.
in the county or elsewhere. When the economy is strong in the state and
in the nation, it is strong in Muskegon
There is a labor force participation rate of County and vice versa. From 1991 to 1998,
63.1 percent among adults age 16 and over Muskegon County's unemployment rate
in Muskegon County. Nearly sixty percent declined from 11.2 percent to 4.4 percent.
of women over age 16 are participating in These were the best economic times in
the labor force. Sixty-seven (67%) percent recent memory in Muskegon County. The
of Muskegon County males over age 16 are worst times were in 1985, 1991/1992 and
participating in the labor force. The largest 2003, with 12.6 percent, 11.2 and 10.9
age groups not participating in the labor percent, and 10.6 percent unemployment.
Unemployment Rate
(Source: MI Department of Labor & Economic Growth )
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
ercentP 6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
MUSKEGON COUNTY MICHIGAN UNITED STATES
Figure 3.13: Unemployment Rate
3-11
The highest unemployment in the county
corresponds with national recessions in the Other townships are not exempt from high
mid-1980s, early 1990s, and early 21st unemployment. Five other townships have
century that impacted manufacturing states experienced high unemployment rates in
like Michigan in particular. The time prior recessions and as of 2003 have not
between peak employment and the next peak recovered from the most recent recession.
employment is known as the business cycle. Blue Lake Township has had double-digit
The most recent business cycle covered the unemployment for twenty years. As of
years 1989 through 2000. 2003, the following townships had
unemployment rates over 10 percent: Blue
Unemployment in the state was at 7.1 Lake, Cedar Creek, Dalton, Egelston,
percent in 1989, peaked (lowest Holton, and Muskegon.
employment) at 9.3 percent in 1991 and then
declined to 3.5 percent in 2000. Nationally, Township Unemployment Rates
the picture is similar. Unemployment was Township Unemployment Rate
5.3 percent in 1989, rose to 7.5 percent in High Low Recent
1992, and declined to 4.0 percent in 2000. (2003)
High unemployment tends to peak earlier in Blue Lake 23.9 10.2 22.8
manufacturing dependent states than in the Cedar
national economy as a whole, explaining Creek 17.4 4.1 10.0
why the worst unemployment in Michigan Dalton
and Muskegon County occurred in 1991, 13.7 4.6 11.0
while it didn't peak until 2002 nationally. Egelston 16.2 5.5 12.9
Holton 15.2 4.8 11.7
Unemployment is a major concern in some Whitehall 12.7 3.8 9.2
areas of Muskegon County. The older, more
urban cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Table 3.15: Township Unemployment Rates
Heights, as well as Muskegon Township
have experienced high unemployment from Employment by Major Industry
time to time. Muskegon Heights is of Muskegon County is heavily dependent on
particular concern since the unemployment manufacturing as a source of employment.
in that city has remained above ten percent Nearly 28 percent of jobs in the county were
during the best economic times. In 1991 in manufacturing in 2001, compared to 18.9
unemployment reached 23.3 percent in the percent statewide and 13.9 percent
city, it declined to 10 percent in 1998 and nationally.
returned to 22.2 percent in 2003.
Other significant employment sectors in
Community Unemployment Rates Muskegon County include health care and
Community Unemployment Rate social services (14.5 percent) and
High Low Recent accommodations and food services (9.7
(1991) (1998) (2003) percent). Muskegon County has more
Muskegon employment in those sectors than the state
City 14.7 5.9 13.9 or national average.
Muskegon
Heights City 23.3 10.0 22.2 Muskegon County has not experienced the
Muskegon structural shift in the economy from a
Township 12.6 5.0 11.9 manufacturing economy to a service
economy as intensely as the state or the
Table 3.14: Community Unemployment Rates
3-12
nation. In the 1980s more than 20 percent of System (NAICS). NAICS codes more
jobs in the United States were in accurately reflect the products and services
manufacturing. Historically, in available in the modern economy, but they
manufacturing dependent states like do not correspond well with SIC codes.
Michigan, nearly 30 percent of the jobs were Therefore, a different system is used in
in manufacturing as late as 1989. Industrial measuring the continued economic shift.
counties like Muskegon County had nearly
35 percent of their employment in In 1998 approximately 21 percent of jobs
manufacturing. statewide were in manufacturing under
NAICS, compared with nearly 15 percent
By 1997, the economy had shifted away nationally. In Muskegon County 28.5
from a manufacturing base to a service base. percent of jobs were in manufacturing.
In the national economy, the service sector
accounted for 21 percent of jobs in 1997, By 2001, at the end of the last business
compared to 17.7 percent in manufacturing. cycle, manufacturing accounted for 27.9
Statewide manufacturing had declined to percent of jobs in Muskegon County,
one quarter of jobs, while services grew compared to 18.9 percent statewide and 13.9
from 27.8 percent to 32.5 percent. In percent nationally.
Muskegon County there was a shift similar
in magnitude to the statewide and national Targeted industry analysis is a means of
shift, but manufacturing was still the largest evaluating trends in the local economy to
employment sector at 30.8 percent. identify those industries that are current
strengths, emerging strengths, high priority
In 1997, the US federal government changed retention targets, and poor performers due to
the way industries were classified, moving local factors or to limited overall prospects
from the Standard Industrial Classification for the industry.
(SIC) system that had remained unchanged
since 1987 (then only modified) to the new The major components of targeted industry
North American Industrial Classification analysis are location quotient and shift-
Employment by Industry 2001
(Source: County Business Patterns )
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
ining Utilities
aufacturing areho...
ConstructionM holesale tradeRetail trade Information
W nt and rec...
Finance and Insurance
Forestry, fishing, hunting, a.. M
Transportation and W Real estate and rental and le...
Professional, scientific, and...
anagement of companies ...
M Administrative, support, wa...
Educational services
Health Care and Social Services
Arts, entertainme
Accommodations and food ...
Other services (except PA)
Auxiliaries (exc corporate, s...
Unclassified establishments
Muskegon County